Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "aclu"
More Conservative Groups Call for Criminal Justice Reform
Not so long ago, the few groups working to achieve criminal justice reform were almost entirely traditional representatives of civil liberties or of prisoners’ families. Conservative political groups were solidly in the “tough on crime” camp, and the only disagreement came on which of them most merited that label.
Times have changed, however, and now some the rhetoric and positions issuing from some of the most conservative groups and political activists have started on some criminal justice issues to sound a lot like what you might expect from the ACLU.
Consider a recent blog entry for the libertarian Reason magazine on the latest Conservative Political Action Conference, held earlier this month outside Washington, D.C. The annual event draws a wide range of conservative activists, organizations and politicians (Donald Trump drew headlines this year by being the only Republican presidential contender to skip it).
Prominent at the 2016 CPAC conference were such conservative pro-criminal justice reform groups as Right on Crime, which dates from late 2010, and Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, which debuted at the 2013 CPAC conference. The foundation of the sponsoring organization, the American Conservative Union, also challenges traditional law-and-order approaches to sentencing and imprisonment through its Center for Criminal Justice Reform.
Many of the conservative advocates for criminal justice reform argue that policy in the area needs to be not just tough, but “tough and smart.” Besides sticking with core conservative values like the value of protecting public order and life, they urge adoption of pragmatic lessons learned as to what works and what doesn’t in preserving those values, and urge reforms they see as in line with further conservative goals, such as responsible budgeting and limiting the size of government.
In one of two criminal justice reform sessions at CPAC 2016, two conservative activists debated the hardline law-and-order sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The conservatives expressed admiration for the police official’s record in fighting street crime, but also argued that changes such as channeling more drug offenders away from prison and towards rehabilitation would be both less expensive and more effective.
Pointing to recent statistics, they also noted many states – often led by conservative governors and legislatures – have achieved reductions in both crime and incarceration rates after revising the harshness of their sentencing laws. Texas, for one, has been able to close three state prisons and avoid $2 billion in new prison construction costs by spending less than $300 million to expand rehabilitation programs and limiting mandatory sentences to just the most violent or repeat offenders. One criminal reform activist noted the value of local flexibility on crime policy, pointing out the government which sets policy for federal prisons also runs the postal system.
At the federal level, Senators backing a sentencing reform bill (S. 2123) intended to reduce current levels of incarceration by, among other things, reducing some mandatory minimums to set lighter penalties and afford judges greater leeway in sentencing for lower-level drug crimes, includes both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Its lead sponsor, Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), noted the bill was based on reforms made in Texas, which increased rehabilitation, cut crime rates and lowered public spending on corrections.
Times have changed, however, and now some the rhetoric and positions issuing from some of the most conservative groups and political activists have started on some criminal justice issues to sound a lot like what you might expect from the ACLU.
Consider a recent blog entry for the libertarian Reason magazine on the latest Conservative Political Action Conference, held earlier this month outside Washington, D.C. The annual event draws a wide range of conservative activists, organizations and politicians (Donald Trump drew headlines this year by being the only Republican presidential contender to skip it).
Prominent at the 2016 CPAC conference were such conservative pro-criminal justice reform groups as Right on Crime, which dates from late 2010, and Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, which debuted at the 2013 CPAC conference. The foundation of the sponsoring organization, the American Conservative Union, also challenges traditional law-and-order approaches to sentencing and imprisonment through its Center for Criminal Justice Reform.
Many of the conservative advocates for criminal justice reform argue that policy in the area needs to be not just tough, but “tough and smart.” Besides sticking with core conservative values like the value of protecting public order and life, they urge adoption of pragmatic lessons learned as to what works and what doesn’t in preserving those values, and urge reforms they see as in line with further conservative goals, such as responsible budgeting and limiting the size of government.
In one of two criminal justice reform sessions at CPAC 2016, two conservative activists debated the hardline law-and-order sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The conservatives expressed admiration for the police official’s record in fighting street crime, but also argued that changes such as channeling more drug offenders away from prison and towards rehabilitation would be both less expensive and more effective.
Pointing to recent statistics, they also noted many states – often led by conservative governors and legislatures – have achieved reductions in both crime and incarceration rates after revising the harshness of their sentencing laws. Texas, for one, has been able to close three state prisons and avoid $2 billion in new prison construction costs by spending less than $300 million to expand rehabilitation programs and limiting mandatory sentences to just the most violent or repeat offenders. One criminal reform activist noted the value of local flexibility on crime policy, pointing out the government which sets policy for federal prisons also runs the postal system.
At the federal level, Senators backing a sentencing reform bill (S. 2123) intended to reduce current levels of incarceration by, among other things, reducing some mandatory minimums to set lighter penalties and afford judges greater leeway in sentencing for lower-level drug crimes, includes both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Its lead sponsor, Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), noted the bill was based on reforms made in Texas, which increased rehabilitation, cut crime rates and lowered public spending on corrections.
States Adopt Ballot Measures Revising Laws on Sentencing
With scant weeks remaining before Congress calls it quits, it seems certain there won’t be final action on criminal justice reform measures that started out strongly, but soon got bogged down in the quagmire that is modern-day Capitol Hill.
Proposals introduced early in 2015 to ease mandatory minimum sentencing laws and promote alternatives to incarceration seem fated to expire in the final days of the 114th Congress despite substantial bipartisan support, both in Congress and outside, including not just the Obama administration but many Republican conservatives, and by groups ranging from the American Conservative Union to the American Civil Liberties Union.
But while the drive for federal legislation appears stalled, at least temporarily, voters this November adopted a number of state ballot proposals to revise criminal laws and sentencing practices. California is a leading example. Nearly 64 percent of voters there handily approved Proposition 57, also known as the “Justice and Rehabilitation Act,” a measure backed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), over the opposition of many of the state’s district attorneys and sheriffs, who argued it was too lenient and too broadly defined some sex offenses as nonviolent.
The ballot initiative undid part of a tougher sentencing provision Brown had signed into law 40 years earlier. Brown defended the proposed changes as needed to meet court-ordered reductions in state prison overcrowding. The most significant and controversial part of the ballot measure proposed to remove some crimes from the “determinate” sentencing law Brown had long ago championed.
As approved by the state’s voters, inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes who have completed their full sentences for their primary offense — without reference to any other provision of state law providing sentence enhancements, alternatives or consecutive sentences — and who had also passed a review on public safety concerns would be eligible for parole. State officials estimated this would make at least 7,000 inmates immediately eligible for release on parole.
The measure also directed state prison officials to devise a new system for shortening sentences for contained inmates’ good conduct while incarcerated, and reversed provisions in a law passed in 2000 which sent more juvenile defendants to adult courts. As passed, the initiative left it to state court judges, rather than to prosecutors, to determine whether offenders as young as 14 will be tried as juveniles or adults.
To get onto the state’s crowded ballot, backers had to not only round up valid signatures from nearly 600,000 voters, but to beat back a lawsuit filed by the California District Attorneys Association challenging the decision by state Attorney-General (now Senator-elect) Kamala Harris to allow the original, narrower petition of juvenile justice provisions to be broadened by adding the other provisions.
Ballot initiatives on criminal justice reform were not just limited to the Golden State. In Oklahoma, voters also approved, by comfortable margins, ballot initiatives revamping the criminal justice system. One proposal (Question 780) downgraded some drug possession and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and placed less emphasis on mandatory minimum sentences and greater emphasis on inmates’ progress in drug treatment and other rehabilitation programs. Another (Question 781) increases the flexibility for counties to channel incarceration costs avoided due to the changes made under Question 780 into drug treatment and community rehabilitation programs.
Proposals introduced early in 2015 to ease mandatory minimum sentencing laws and promote alternatives to incarceration seem fated to expire in the final days of the 114th Congress despite substantial bipartisan support, both in Congress and outside, including not just the Obama administration but many Republican conservatives, and by groups ranging from the American Conservative Union to the American Civil Liberties Union.
But while the drive for federal legislation appears stalled, at least temporarily, voters this November adopted a number of state ballot proposals to revise criminal laws and sentencing practices. California is a leading example. Nearly 64 percent of voters there handily approved Proposition 57, also known as the “Justice and Rehabilitation Act,” a measure backed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), over the opposition of many of the state’s district attorneys and sheriffs, who argued it was too lenient and too broadly defined some sex offenses as nonviolent.
The ballot initiative undid part of a tougher sentencing provision Brown had signed into law 40 years earlier. Brown defended the proposed changes as needed to meet court-ordered reductions in state prison overcrowding. The most significant and controversial part of the ballot measure proposed to remove some crimes from the “determinate” sentencing law Brown had long ago championed.
As approved by the state’s voters, inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes who have completed their full sentences for their primary offense — without reference to any other provision of state law providing sentence enhancements, alternatives or consecutive sentences — and who had also passed a review on public safety concerns would be eligible for parole. State officials estimated this would make at least 7,000 inmates immediately eligible for release on parole.
The measure also directed state prison officials to devise a new system for shortening sentences for contained inmates’ good conduct while incarcerated, and reversed provisions in a law passed in 2000 which sent more juvenile defendants to adult courts. As passed, the initiative left it to state court judges, rather than to prosecutors, to determine whether offenders as young as 14 will be tried as juveniles or adults.
To get onto the state’s crowded ballot, backers had to not only round up valid signatures from nearly 600,000 voters, but to beat back a lawsuit filed by the California District Attorneys Association challenging the decision by state Attorney-General (now Senator-elect) Kamala Harris to allow the original, narrower petition of juvenile justice provisions to be broadened by adding the other provisions.
Ballot initiatives on criminal justice reform were not just limited to the Golden State. In Oklahoma, voters also approved, by comfortable margins, ballot initiatives revamping the criminal justice system. One proposal (Question 780) downgraded some drug possession and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and placed less emphasis on mandatory minimum sentences and greater emphasis on inmates’ progress in drug treatment and other rehabilitation programs. Another (Question 781) increases the flexibility for counties to channel incarceration costs avoided due to the changes made under Question 780 into drug treatment and community rehabilitation programs.
