Criminal Justice System Broken

[stephendare]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-jim-webb/why-we-must-reform-our-cr_b_214130.html

America's criminal justice system is broken.

How broken? The numbers are stark:

• The United States has 5% of the world's population, yet possesses 25% of the world's prison population;

• More than 2.38 million Americans are now in prison, and another 5 million remain on probation or parole. That amounts to 1 in every 31 adults in the United States is in prison, in jail, or on supervised release;

• Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200% since 1980, up from 41,000 to 500,000 in 2008; and

• 60% of offenders are arrested for non-violent offensives--many driven by mental illness or drug addiction.

Numbers only tell part of the story.

While heavily focused on non-violent offenders, law enforcement has been distracted from pursuing the approximately one million gang members and drug cartels besieging our cities, often engaging in unprecedented levels of violence. Gangs in some areas commit 80% of the crimes and are heavily involved in drug distribution and other violent activities. This disturbing trend affects every community in the United States.

Ex-offenders are also confronted with a lack of meaningful re-entry programs. With the high volume of people who are coming out of prisons, it is in the self-interest of every American that national leadership design programs that provide former offenders a true pathway towards a productive future.

An examination is required as to what happens inside our prisons. Our correctional officers deserve better support in dealing with violent criminals under their supervision. It is also imperative that we facilitate a safe environment for all inmates, and examine ways to better prepare them for their release back into civil society. The de-humanizing environment of jails and prisons compounds these challenges.

Without question, it is in the national interest that we bring violent offenders and career criminals to justice. The purpose of this legislation is not to let dangerous or incorrigible people go free. Rather, it is to determine how best to structure our criminal justice system so that it is fair, appropriate and--above all--effective.

No American neighborhood is completely safe from the intersection of all of these problems.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009. This legislation, which I originally introduced in March, creates a Presidential level blue-ribbon commission charged with conducting an 18-month, top-to-bottom review of our nation's entire criminal justice system, ultimately providing the Congress with specific, concrete recommendations for reform.

The committee hearing can be seen via webcast live today at 3:00pm.

The goal of this legislation is nothing less than a complete restructuring of the criminal justice system in the United States. Only an outside commission, properly structured and charged, can bring us complete findings necessary to do so.

Fixing our system will require us to reexamine who goes to prison, for how long and how we address the long-term consequences of their incarceration. Our failure to address these problems cuts against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness.

Today's hearing "Exploring the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009," chaired by cosponsor and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Senator Arlen Specter and ranking Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, also a sponsor, provides a platform for Judiciary Committee members to hear witness testimony from a wide spectrum of political ideologies and backgrounds including my own statement, about the need to make this commission a reality.

The National Criminal Justice Commission Act has already garnered wide support from across the political and philosophical spectrum, including 29 sponsors in the Senate, among them many senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My staff and I have engaged with more than 100 organizations and associations, representing the entire gamut of prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, advocacy groups, think tanks, victims rights organizations, academics, prisoners, and law enforcement on the street. This engagement is ongoing, and support continues to grow.

My goal, shared by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, is to pass this legislation soon and to enact it into law this year. Obviously we appreciate any measure of support and assistance in this difficult undertaking. For more information, please visit my website, www.webb.senate.gov.

[Dog Walker]

Until and unless the "War on Drugs" is declared lost and over nothing will change in our broken criminal justice system.  Only controlled legalization and a policy of "harm reduction" will change the underlying conditions that broke the system in the first place.  Some states are moving in the direction of legalizing marijuana and some countries, like Portugal, have just wiped their drug laws off the books.

We are the only developed country in the world that will send you to jail for smoking a joint in your own house.

[NotNow]

The quote from Sen. Jim Webb when he introduced this legislation.  Some of the facts are misleading IMHO.  But the points on mental illness are very well founded.  The statement that the US has 5% of the worlds population but 25% of its incarcerated prisoners should be taken in context.  China and India contain 40% of the worlds population.  What little research I have done on Chinese drug laws reveals VERY strict sentencing and controls.  This is in addition to very little restriction on search and seizure by police.  India also has strict drug laws, and also has a very relaxed view on the police seaching you, your possessions, or your home.  Please see this fact sheet designed for Indian Police:

http://addictionsupport.aarogya.com/pdf/indian_drug_laws.pdf

Other very populated countries include Malaysia and Pakistan.  All of these countries have serious anti-drug laws, and serious drug production and shipping.  Statistics from these countries are vague at best.

Drug laws are often the net that catches this nations "gang" members.  Most street gangs finance their existence through sale of illegal drugs and "non-violent" crimes such as burglary and dealing in stolen goods.  To weaken these laws will weaken law enforcements ablility to prosecute these dangerous groups. 

All of that said, I believe that the actual purpose of this bill and its commission is to decriminalize marijuana through Federal law.  Check out NORML's view:

http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=13046001

I generally think that this should be a State issue, as the U.S. Constitution gives the Federal government no authority in this area (or making marijuana illegal for that matter).  Marijuana for personal use is a misdemeanor or decriminalized throughout this country.  I don't believe that the Fed can make the states decriminalize, but in today's political climate, it may happen.

DW, there may be a story out there, but in over twenty years of law enforcement in several cities, I can't think of an instance where we heard about a guy "smoking a joint at his house" and he was arrested and sent to jail (at least for just the joint, I have seen guys doing drugs as we entered and took him for distribution or production).

If the majority of citizens want decriminalization, then lets do it.  But lets be honest about it and not pretend like our state and federal prisons are full of people arrested for smoking marijuana, it is simply not true.

[Dog Walker]

If gang activity is financed by selling illegal drugs then a good way to fight gangs is to take away their source of income.  No other activity they can do will provide as much income as selling drugs.  When prohibition ended most of the gangs involved in the illegal sale and distribution of alcohol faded away or went "legit". You want a drink?  You go to a legal bar not a speakeasy.  Numbers runners faded away when the state took over the lottery business.  Who goes to a bookie anymore to place a bet?  You just go to a legal betting place like the dog track or a casino.

Strict drug laws in developing countries are NOT enforced except when someone does not make their payments to the local law enforcement officials.  I've been in India and seen this at work.  I've been in Mexico and seen the same.  Law enforcement in these countries is very corrupt.

I have had a relative arrested in his own house here in Jacksonville and taken to jail for the weekend for smoking a joint in his own house.  No, he did not go to state prison or stay in jail long and went through one of the  pre-trial programs, so he was not one of those crowding or jails.

Controlled legalization has the potential for eliminating most of the problems caused by "illegal" drugs and letting LEOs, such as yourself concentrate on crimes that have victims.  You don't raid speakeasies anymore.  You don't arrest numbers runners anymore.  You don't break up illegal betting parlors anymore.

Freeing up the billions of dollars we are currently spending on the War on Drugs enforcement, we can probably fairly quickly come up with a cure for addiction, too.

[NotNow]

Then you are talking about legalization and not decriminalizing drugs.  Just marijuana or would you include other drugs?  Do you think we are ready for "hash houses"?  Or should the federal government get into the drug business as well?  Will the cocaine business subside if we just legalize MJ?  Or should we also legalize coke and other addicting drugs?  A federal bill will not overturn state laws criminalizing illicit drugs and their use.  I'm not totally opposed to your idea, but there are many, many questions that would have to be answered. 

You are absolutely right when you say that the strict drug laws are not enforced in most of the countries that I cited.  Law Enforcement AND politicians have been corrupted which is why I pointed out that the incarceration levels pointed out by Stephen Dare! in his opening post aren't very useful. 

"Controlled" legalization could eliminate some of the problems caused by illegal drugs, but has the potential to create many more, wouldn't you agree?  An honest assessment of the pros and cons of such an action would have to be done and evaluated.   

Believe me, many of the "gangs" that were moving alcohol during prohibition are still around.  Some are involved in the illegal drug trade.  Many of our "legitimate" gambling locations are owned by them today.

I'd bet you lunch that there is more to the story of your relatives arrest.  JSO just didn't show up at his house suspecting pot smoking going on inside.  The arrest docket is public record, go get it and read it.  PM me if I am wrong and include the docket and CCR# and I will publicly announce on this thread that I was wrong and bought you lunch. 

I strongly support research into curing addiction to substances of all kinds.  I have seen more ruined lives and families than I would ever want to.  Just as I support restoring state mental health hospitals for chronic mental health issues.

[BridgeTroll]

Most of us know people who got busted for smoking pot and arrested.

Who doesn't? This is not how I read what Notnow is saying...

I know for a fact that the JSO arrests people for driving on licenses suspended for insurance lapse.

Of course they do.  Driving on a suspended license is a serious offence.  They do not pull people over just to check the currency of their license or insurance.  It is discovered during a routine traffic stop... then the law is enforced.

[BridgeTroll]

There is no disconnect.  Somehow... I understand what he is saying.  Dog Walker stated that he had a relative arrested for smoking pot in his house.  Notnow thinks that the cops were there for other reasons and happened across the pot smoking.  They are not peeking in windows to look for pot smokers.

The same for drivers license issues.  They are not randomly pulling cars over to check for insurance or current license... it is discovered after being pulled over for another reason.

[CMG22]

I'm with Dog Walker.  I would go so far as to say that we should legalize the use of all substances.  The government already allows the use of some addictive substances with little or no control over their use--why/how can they allow some to be used, but others are not?

Although I do not have the background to give any estimate, it is my opinion that the money saved as a result of the cessation of the "war on drugs," and the subsequent commutations of drug convictions would pay for, many times over, the new costs of treatment for the potential addicts it would enable.

Granted, there will be a social cost as well.  These drugs can harm many people, including those who will never use them.  It will behoove us, more than ever, to communicate the risks associated with all drugs to any and all potential usersâ€"young children to octogenarians with nothing left to lose.  As the grandpa said in Little Miss Sunshine, “At your age, you’d be crazy to do this stuff.  At my age, you’d be crazy not to!”

Even though I have only entered adulthood recently, I have witnessed people from all walks of life engaged in illegal drug activitiesâ€"the extent to which it pervades society is truly surprising.  The majority are very well to do folks; many are business owners, and/or have graduate or otherwise terminal degrees.  They are using these addictive substances in a recreational way.  However, I see the potential for abuse to be just a few misguided decisions away.

Ultimately, I believe that people can choose their path.  The child who is well raised can make a poor decision and lose everything, or the child who is raised in their parents’ drug hell can see what they do not want to grow up to be like and never touch one such substance!  The choice should be given to those who have been educated on their dangers, and their possible benefits.

[BridgeTroll]

notnow has stated that people do not get arrested for driving on a suspended liscense.

Perhaps you can show where he said that... Because of course they do.  I cannot find it.

What are your feelings on having the cops enforcing a private purchase of insurance from private companies with the backup of state laws?

My feelings are that driving privileges are regulated by the government and one of the many requirements to operating a motor vehicle is that you must be insured to protect the people who ride in your car and people who you may injure or kill while driving your car in addition to the damage you may cause.  This seems a prudent and reasonable requirement.  If not the police who would you suggest to enforce this?  Their manpower is not being misused as they are not searching for uninsured motorists... simply enforcing the requirement during a normal traffic stop.

As for legalizing pot... I am ambivalent.  I have no real problems with it and I am sure there are more than a few cops who feel the same way.

[Tripoli1711]

Steven, I think you may tangentially have a point that the government helps the insurance industry through enforcement of driving on a suspended license charges, but ultimately this is a very good policy.

As was already stated, we need drivers on the roads to be insured.  The privilege of driving unleashes thousands of people with very dangerous instruments.  Scores of people are injured every day with automobiles.  The responsible parties need to have insurance so that the injured can be reasonably compensated for the pain, inconvenience, lost work and sometimes serious permanent injuries or death that occur.  I don't think this makes the state ultimately an enforcer for the insurance companies.  In fact, it might be bad for insurance companies in a way.  I would wager that statistically those who drive imprudently enough to be causing accidents would be far more likely to not purchase insurance (unless the state made them) and the insurance company wouldn't have to pay those claims.

[Dog Walker]

NN reflects a widely held and reasonable worry about drug legalization that has to addressed. 

Would legalizing them lead to a huge increase in the use?  Do we have any more problem drinkers now than we did during prohibition?  Doubt it. (Per capita!  per capita!)  Various studies have indicated that there would be a slight, <10% increase, for a period of time then that consumption would actually decrease slightly.  Don't have the studies now and so can't vouch for the methodology or bias.

Marijuana use in the Netherlands has actually decreased slightly over the time that the "coffee" house have been selling it openly.  People, especially young people, who frequent them are now seen as losers.

Does drug use cause societal problems?  You bet your bippy!  As does alcohol and tobacco and pornography and gambling and huffing and, and, and.....but making all of these things illegal causes more problems than the direct harm and distorts everything through unintended consequences.  It is best to deal with the direct harm itself than to make something illegal.  DUI, alcohol or pot or 'ludes or Oxy or glue is DUI.  We can and do deal with that direct harm.  Airline pilots, police, truck drivers, air traffic controllers, etc. coming to work stoned?  We can and do deal with that.

Get addicted...?  Whew!  That's the tough one now and would be if everything was legal.  We haven't made a whole bunch of progress on this front, but there is growing knowledge in neuroscience that is showing us the way to deal with this very soon.  The research is horribly underfunded now and could move much faster with the money that is now spent on law enforcement efforts.

Final point.  Despite billions and billions of dollars spent over decades and decades on drug prohibition  IT DOESN'T WORK!  Illegal drug use is about the same now as it has been since the whole effort started.  I'm an old, white guy whose drug of choice is red wine and I can probably go out of my door and buy almost any illegal drug within an hour. 

[NotNow]

Stephen Dare! said: "Most of us know people who got busted for smoking pot and arrested.
Hell, one of the kids in Springfield was arrested (and had to do probation) for smoking tobacco underage (he turned 18 in three weeks)

I know for a fact that the JSO arrests people for driving on liscenses suspended for insurance lapse."

I want to be clear so that there is no misunderstanding...in my conversation with DW he stated that he had a relative who got arrested for smoking pot in his residence.  I stated that JSO does not just go to people's homes in search of pot smoking. I stated that there had to be more to the story (why JSO was at his house to begin with, what actual charges were, etc.).  I asked him to obtain the arrest docket for his relative (which is public information) and show if I was wrong, and JSO did go to his home (I don't know how they got a warrant to enter in the time it takes to smoke a joint, laughingly, because you could never get a warrant for this.  No Police Supervisor would approve it, and any Judge would laugh you out of his chambers).  So they either entered without a warrant or were invited in, and then arrested him for "smoking a joint" which I assume to mean misdemeanor possession of marijuana, then I will buy him lunch and announce here that I was wrong.  Most of us do know people who have been arrested for misdemeanor possession of marijuana.  This normally occurs in a public venue, on the street, or in an automobile.  My point, once again, is that JSO does not go to peoples homes in search of pot smoking.  JSO also encourages the use of Notice to Appear Citations, or tickets, for small amounts of marijuna.  Most commonly, in these types of cases, the person who was arrested tells a story that is not entirely accurate and does not contain all of the facts.  Do you think that is possible in this case?

Drivers who are suspended for financial responsibility are cited under a separate state statute than regular suspensions.  "Violation of Financial Responsibility" is cited under F. S. 324.201(2).  The Operational Order for traffic is 15.08, and under III.7.e, it states that financial responsibility should GENERALLY be cited, rather than arrested.  Again, it is the policy of JSO to cite when possible in financial responsibility cases.  Often, in such cases, the State requires seizure of the tag and/or the vehicle.  Like all of the subjects that we discuss here, there are many, many variables that I cannot list due to space.  Other reasons for suspended drivers licenses often do result in arrests, if the driver has knowledge of the suspension.  As for the argument that the State is enforcing payment to insurance companies, this argument is moot.  Many of us can remember when financial responsibility was not required.  Uncompensated losses of life and property led to the current financial responsibility laws.  I don't believe that the intent was to prop up insurance companies but rather to ensure that losses caused by drivers did not result in victims suffering devastating financial losses without any recourse. Are there any states left that do not require financial responsibility?  I don't see that requirement changing, but, like the drug laws, organize and change the laws if you want to.  I understand that you have ideas what insurance companies should be doing, the price of medical care, and public transit, but that broad of a view is not really useful at this level.  

I would be curious to see the arrest docket in the case that you cited a seventeen year old who was physically arrested for smoking tobacco.  I know of no such State Law or municiple ordinance that would allow for such an arrest.  Could it be possible that this is another case of the "arrestee" telling a story that is not completely accurate?  But, Stephen Dare!, I will give you the same deal, if you will pull that young man's arrest docket and PM me the CCR#, and he was actually arrested for "smoking tobacco underage" by JSO, I will be happy to buy you lunch and admit that I was wrong on this thread.  Just for info, this is the applicable State Statute:

569.11  Possession, misrepresenting age or military service to purchase, and purchase of tobacco products by persons under 18 years of age prohibited; penalties; jurisdiction; disposition of fines.--

(1)  It is unlawful for any person under 18 years of age to knowingly possess any tobacco product. Any person under 18 years of age who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a noncriminal violation as provided in s. 775.08(3), punishable by:

(a)  For a first violation, 16 hours of community service or, instead of community service, a $25 fine. In addition, the person must attend a school-approved anti-tobacco program, if locally available;

(b)  For a second violation within 12 weeks of the first violation, a $25 fine; or

(c)  For a third or subsequent violation within 12 weeks of the first violation, the court must direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to withhold issuance of or suspend or revoke the person's driver's license or driving privilege, as provided in s. 322.056.

Any second or subsequent violation not within the 12-week time period after the first violation is punishable as provided for a first violation.

[NotNow]

DW, as I have stated before, I can't argue with your premise that what we are doing is not working, but I do disagree on the solution.  I believe that the Netherlands is a good example of the perils of decriminalization.  Note that drugs and even marijuana have NOT been legalized there, and many areas of the country are returning to enforcement.

[Dog Walker]

NN - You are correct about the Netherlands.  They are beginning to tighten up, but there don't seem to have been any huge problems for them other than too many people from other countries taking advantage of Dutch pragmatism.  Portugal, on the other hand, is moving toward complete decriminalization.  We will see.  Probably best to let others do the experimenting.

If what we are doing is not working, what should we do rather than legalize?  Right now we are doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.  What is a possible different policy and action? 

My foolish relative invited the police into his house.  They were there to ask him about a friend of his who was taking pictures of teenage girls with their clothes off.  You are correct that they were not there for the purpose of checking on marijuana use.  Walking into a room full of strong smelling smoke gave them a clue however.  Yes, pot does make you stupid.

[BridgeTroll]

Yes, pot does make you stupid.

At least temporarily...