CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
ESPN Documentary to Explore Crack Disparity’s Misguided OriginsAs part of ESPN’s 30 for 30 series of documentary films, they will be airing Without Bias tonight at 8pm (with additional airings on their various sister networks over the coming months). Twenty-three years after University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died of a drug overdose (hours after the Boston Celtics picked him in the NBA draft), ESPN will air this new documentary by Kirk Fraser. The film features interviews with his closest teammates, friends and family. For the first time, we hear firsthand accounts of what transpired during Bias' final hours from those who were with him at the time of his death. His death sparked a national media frenzy largely focused on the drug that was suspected, mistakenly, of killing him — crack cocaine. A few weeks after Len’s death, Congress, under the leadership of former Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.), passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, establishing for the first time mandatory minimum sentences triggered by specific quantities of cocaine. Congress also established much tougher sentences for crack cocaine offenses than for those involving the powder form of the substance — creating the infamous, discriminatory 100-to-1 sentencing disparity. Today, momentum in Congress for finally ending this injustice is stronger than at any other point since the disparity was first written into law. The House Judiciary Committee sent legislation that would eliminate the distinction between crack and powder under federal law on to the full chamber for a vote on the House floor. In the Senate, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), along with nearly a dozen colleagues, recently introduced S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009. The Fair Sentencing Act would also eliminate the disparity between the two forms of the same drug. If all of that wasn’t promising enough, President Obama and the Department of Justice stand strongly behind efforts to eliminate the disparity. Without Bias chronicles how one man's meteoric rise to fame was derailed by a fatal decision that still echoes throughout sports and the criminal justice system today. Definitely one to check out tonight at 8 p.m.! Let us know what you think of the film by leaving your thoughts and comments.
Sen. Durbin Takes on Crack Myths and The Washington PostOn Saturday, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) had a letter to the editor published in The Washington Post that challenged claims the newspaper made in a recent editorial on crack cocaine sentencing reform. The Post’s editorial cautioned Congress against fully eliminating the infamous and deeply discriminatory 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, resorting to the same tired myths that have been thoroughly debunked in the 23 years since the law’s enactment. What I personally found so confusing about the Post editorial was that it was only this past July that the newspaper published a very strong editorial — “Cocaine Justice” — in which they praised Congress for moving forward towards fairness in our sentencing laws. Perhaps the Post felt compelled to write their editorial because momentum for ending this longstanding injustice in our criminal justice system has never been stronger than it is today. The House Judiciary Committee sent legislation that would eliminate the distinction between crack and powder under federal law on to the full chamber for a vote on the House floor. In the Senate, Sen. Durbin, along with nearly a dozen colleagues, recently introduced S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009. The Fair Sentencing Act would also eliminate the disparity between the two forms of the same drug. If all of that wasn’t promising enough, President Obama and the Department of Justice stand strongly behind efforts to eliminate the disparity. It wouldn’t have been too long ago that an editorial like the Post’s would have sent our elected officials running for political cover. Instead, Sen. Durbin stood tall and addressed the myths head on. The New York Times explored one such myth — that of a generation of so-called “crack babies” — earlier this year. It is clear that the science and our understanding of crack and powder cocaine have greatly advanced over the previous two decades. It is both illogical and unfair to contain imposing grossly disparate sentences for what are, in effect, the exact same drugs. The simple fact that a prominent member of the U.S. Senate was willing to say as much shows just how far we have come on this issue politically, as well as scientifically. Here’s hoping that as Congress continues to make strides towards finally eliminating this injustice The Washington Post will reconsider their current wishy-washy, myth-based position.
Wake Up California: It’s Time to Get Real About Criminal Justice Reform(Originally posted on Daily Kos.) The "Prison Population and Budget Reduction Package" proposed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is like a drunk person walking home from a bar — it knows where it wants to go but oftentimes you find it stumbling off the sidewalk or turning down the wrong street.Since we believe budget cutting is no small feat and should be taken very seriously, especially in the wake of the prison riots in Chino and public safety needs, we've decided to pour the CDCR a strong cup of coffee and see if we can't point the plan in a better direction. The People's Budget Fix, as we've named it, responds to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's $1.2 billion in unallocated cuts to the corrections budget with a series of smart reforms to save the state billions of dollars, improve public safety, and advance long-needed adjustments in California's Corrections system. Here's an outline of some of the ways the CDCR's budget proposal goes wrong and how we can do better. Step 1: Reserve Prison for Serious Offenses
Step 2: Focus Resources on Recidivism-Reduction
Step 3: Comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform The People's Budget Fix is indeed a sobering cup of coffee, opening our eyes to what smart and sensible criminal justice reforms can do to help save our state more money, improve public safety, and begin reforming our ailing prison system. But we can't stop there. The People's Budget Fix also calls upon the governor and the California legislature to go beyond the immediate fixes identified above and strive for lasting budget reforms. We must delve deeper into the sobering realities of our criminal justices system and its failures. We need a balanced sentencing commission to take the politics out of the public safety debate and put the people back in. And we need to address two costly and ineffective areas of our criminal justice system: the death penalty and California's Three Strikes law. Both of these policies cost that state billions of dollars in prison spending and court costs with no demonstrable returns for public safety. It is time for California to limit Three Strikes to violent offenses and replace the death penalty with effective alternatives that promote public safety. On August 18, when the governor and the legislature return to Sacramento to begin discussions of the Corrections' budget, we plan to be there to rally for the People's Budget Fix and to meet with Legislatures to discuss our proposals.We hope our proposals help our political leaders see straight and get us all home safely. The People's Budget Fix is supported by Drug Policy Alliance, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Families Amend California's Three Strikes, and the ACLU California affiliates.
House Vote on Syringe Exchange Programs a Victory for Public HealthLast week, Congress took an important step in the fight against HIV/AIDS with a historic vote on syringe exchange programs. On July 25, the House voted to remove the ban on providing federal funding for syringe exchange programs. Since 1988, the federal government has prohibited states from using their share of HIV/AIDS prevention money in syringe exchange programs, one of the most effective programs available to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as well as Hepatitis C and other blood-borne illnesses. This policy was based on ideology rather than on evidence, and the repeal of this ban signifies that Congress is finally realizing that needle exchange programs are a safe and effective approach in reducing the public health problems associated with drugs. Syringe exchange programs allow intravenous drug users to obtain hypodermic needles and associated injection equipment at little or no cost, and most of these services allow drug users to exchange used, dirty needles for new ones. They also often provide other public health services, such as HIV and Hepatitis C testing and access to substance abuse counseling. Numerous federally funded studies have shown that needle exchanges slow the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C and that they do not increase substance abuse. This scientific evidence has been confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Institute of Health (NIH), World Health Organization (WHO), and the American Medical Association, among others. See the CDC’s Report here (PDF) confirming that needle exchange programs are helpful not only in reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS, but also as a way to get intravenous drug users into healthcare programs and to treatment that helps to get them off drugs. Syringe exchanges are cost-effective and life saving programs. Each year,nearly 8,000 people in the US contract HIV/AIDS,and about 12,000 contract Hepatitis C,directly or indirectly from sharing contaminated syringes.The cost of preventing one case of HIV infection through syringe exchange programs is approximately $4,000 to $12,000, and yields savings of as much as $648,000 in medical costs per HIV infection and approximately $25,000 to $30,000 in medical costs per Hepatitis C infection prevented. Allowing states to use federal funding for these programs will help decrease the spread of these diseases. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some members of Congress still cling to the disproved notion that these programs promote drug use. HIV/AIDS funding is not the place to try to score political points; saving lives and slowing the spread of preventable diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C should take precedence to moralizing about drug use, particularly in light of the overwhelming scientific and health research showing how effective these programs can be. Local communities should be able to utilize every tool possible to address the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C, and removing the restriction on federal funding would in no way require states to implement syringe exchange programs if they do not wish to do so. The decision by the House Appropriations Committee, led by Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), to remove the ban on federal funding of syringe exchange programs is a major victory for the HIV/ADIS community and public health advocates. And the subsequent defeat of the Souder Amendment, which would have maintained the federal prohibition, on the floor of the House of Representatives last week represented a triumph for science and health over the typical fear-mongering on issues involving drugs. (See our letter opposing the amendment here.) Congress now has the chance to base health policy regarding syringe exchange programs on scientific evidence which shows that banning federal funding for syringe exchange programs will harm public health. See a Coalition Letter on Syringe Exchange Programs, which was signed by dozens of national and local organizations. (7/14/2009)
Another Huge Step Towards Cracking the DisparityLast week, we commended the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for doing a markup of the long-awaited Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 (H.R. 3245), sponsored by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.). This week, we have even more to cheer about: yesterday, the full House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 16-9. This landmark and historic committee vote clears the way for the bill, which will now head to the full House of Representatives for a final vote. The Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 seeks to eliminate the notorious disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, two different forms of the same drug. Possession of five grams of crack cocaine (roughly the size of a sugar packet, or two pennies) can lead to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. It takes possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to yield the same minimum sentence — that's 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine for the same sentence. A terrible side effect of this disparity is that over 80 percent of the people prosecuted for crack possession are African-American, despite the fact that the majority of crack users are either white or Hispanic. Most of those prosecuted for crack receive excessive sentences (as much as 24 ½ years) for nonviolent first offenses. It's simply not right. Over the past couple of weeks, media coverage and public outrage over the 100-to-1 crack cocaine disparity has been growing rapidly, from both Democrats and Republicans alike. In a humorous moment, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) mentioned "doing that crack cocaine thing" with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech last week, "We all know that this egregious difference in punishment is simply wrong." And last Sunday, the Washington Post published a superb editorial that urged lawmakers to end the disparity and vote in favor of the bill. It is clear that most people agree with us: after 23 years of this appalling disparity, it's time to change the law and abolish the differences in crack and powder cocaine sentencing. The House Judiciary Committee's vote has taken us one step closer to achieving this goal. Next, the bill will head to the House of Representatives for a full vote; we strongly urge the House to pass this bill. Join us and take action to urge Congress to pass the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009. It is time to put an end to this unfortunate chapter in criminal justice history. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel — now, all Congress has to do is get us there.
Finally Cracking the Disparity: It's About Time!Wednesday marked a historic moment: the House of Representatives did a markup of the long-awaited Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 (H.R. 3245), sponsored by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.). The ACLU has been pushing for this moment for the past 22 years. Why is this bill so significant? Ever since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, there has been a huge disparity between the sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine (different forms of the same drug). All it takes is for a person to have five grams of crack cocaine (little more than a packet of sugar) and they're guaranteed a minimum sentence of five years. But if a person has powder cocaine instead, things will look much, much brighter: it takes possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to give a person the same exact five-year sentence. That's a ratio of 100-to-1 — a huge disparity that has fallen disproportionately on African-Americans. These are the kinds of laws that have caused the ranks of the incarcerated to swell to nearly 2.5 million, or one in every 100 adult Americans (PDF). In the scheme of things, this may seem like an irrelevant point. What does it matter? People just shouldn't do cocaine, period. Or, crack addicts should simply use powder cocaine, right? Wrong. Crack arrestees are overwhelmingly black. More than 80 percent of the people prosecuted for crack possession are African-American, despite the fact that the majority of crack users are either white or Hispanic. Although the original intent of the legislation was to simply "crack down" on crack cocaine use, it had the inadvertent effect of discriminating against African-Americans. Countless numbers of people like Kemba Smith have been given ridiculous, excessive prison sentences (24 1/2 years, in Smith's case) for their first nonviolent offences. However, we may finally be at the end of this dark tunnel: with the passage of the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, the disparity may finally be coming to an end. We commend Rep. Scott and his cosponsors for creating this long overdue bill and voting to finally eliminate the disparity. This is a very encouraging first step in reforming cocaine sentencing, and we are very excited to finally see it after 22 years. Take action and join us in urging Congress to pass this important crack cocaine bill. It's now up to Congress to keep the momentum going.
Civics 101Savana Redding and her mother, April, are plaintiffs in the case Safford Unified School District v. Redding, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today. The Court ruled that school officials violated Savana's constitutional rights when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. Savana was 13-years-old at the time of the incident. People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property — a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I'm happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through.
Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Everyday parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school. But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won't have to. Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
VICTORY! Supreme Court Finds Strip-Search of 13-Year Old Girl UnconstitutionalThe Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project represented April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago. Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court, said today: We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional. Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced.We'll have more soon. In the meantime, please send a message thanking Savana and April for standing up for all students' rights. Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
Moving with "Dispatch" to Crack the DisparityYesterday, Attorney General Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a semiannual check-up (a.k.a. congressional oversight). Attorney General Holder was questioned about a many issues of interest to the ACLU. However, there was one question and answer that left me feeling cautiously hopeful. In response to a fairly lengthy question from Senator Durbin (D-Ill.), Attorney General Holder said it was his hope that Congress would move with "dispatch" to eliminate the notorious and racially discriminatory crack sentencing disparity this year. The Obama Department of Justice has previously testified in support of eliminating the crack sentencing disparity, but hopefully the comments of Attorney General Holder today will finally light the necessary fire under the tail feathers of certain Members of Congress. Early indications are promising. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy (D-Vt.) immediately responded by saying that it was his hope to see Congress act this year to end the more than two-decade "crack" in our justice system. Additionally, it is very likely that we will soon see Congress begin the process of moving legislation that would finally correct this injustice. ACLU members and activists should act now to contact their representatives to let them know that this is an issue that demands their attention. Two decades are too long to wait. Our prisons are too crowded. We are spending too much money on an effective, unfair policy. It is time for Congress to move with the necessary "dispatch" to right this wrong!
A Better Way to Balance the Budget—and Protect Public SafetyA series of common sense, waste-cutting proposals would address two of California's biggest problems: our overburdened, dysfunctional corrections system, and the ever increasing multibillion dollar deficit. Implementing these proposals would save the state $7.5 billion in five years and improve public safety, so what are we waiting for? Over the last 20 years, California's corrections budget has increased by 450 percent. What are we spending all of that money on?
Here are three simple proposals to trim the waste and improve our corrections system.
These proposals are not only aimed at cutting wasteful spending; they are designed to improve public safety, bolster youth and drug rehabilitation programs that do work, and advance the long-needed adjustments to the California corrections system. The bottom line is California can save $7.5 billion in five years and improve public safety. — By Zachary Norris, Books Not Bars Director at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Drug Policy Alliance Deputy State Director, Southern California; and Natasha Minsker, ACLU of Northern California Death Penalty Policy Director |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
