Pubdate: Thu, 15 Aug 2013
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times Company
Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Vanita Gupta
Note: Vanita Gupta is a deputy legal director at the American Civil 
Liberties Union.

HOW TO REALLY END MASS INCARCERATION

WASHINGTON - IN 2003, I represented dozens of African-American 
residents in Tulia, Tex., who had been convicted after a botched drug 
sting. Jason Jerome Williams, a 22-year-old with no prior criminal 
record, had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for four sales of an 
eighth of an ounce of cocaine.

Freddie Brookins Jr., 25, had received 20 years for a first-time 
offense of selling less than four grams of cocaine. Joe Moore, a 
56-year-old hog farmer, had gotten 90 years for two cocaine sales 
totaling under five grams.

Others accepted plea deals to try to avoid such lengthy prison terms.

The convictions, in 1999 and 2000, were based on the flawed testimony 
of an undercover officer.

The prosecution offered no physical evidence of marked bills, 
weapons, narcotics or drug paraphernalia - things you would expect to 
find in a sophisticated drug ring.

It took years of advocacy by many lawyers to win their release, but 
this hard-fought vindication was just a flash in the pan. Starting in 
the 1970s, a domestic "war on crime" dominated by antidrug policies 
and racial profiling fueled a prison-building binge that is morally - 
and now financially - bankrupt.

Both political parties embraced draconian policies like mandatory 
minimum sentences, three-strikes laws and wide disparities in 
sentences for possession of crack versus powder cocaine.

The result: by 2003, the United States had 4.6 percent of the world's 
population but 22.4 percent of its prison population - even though 
violent crime started dropping in the 1990s. Prospects for reform looked bleak.

So I was elated when Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on 
Monday that the government would commit to reducing the bloated 
prison population. This is without precedent: the nation's top law 
enforcement official directed all federal prosecutors to exercise 
their discretion toward ending the relentless warehousing of inmates 
- - the vast majority of whom are minorities - in federal prison for 
low-level drug crimes.

But the immediate impact will be very limited at best. First, federal 
inmates accounted for just 14 percent of the nation's 1.6 million 
prisoners last year. Second, Mr. Holder has limited authority to 
enact permanent reforms without Congressional action.

Third, it's unclear how federal prosecutors will enforce his plan. To 
maximize its impact, the Justice Department needs to track 
implementation by the 93 United States attorneys around the country 
and hold them accountable for enforcing the policy.

For lasting national impact we need to look at the states, where most 
criminal defendants are sentenced.

Over the past few years, a quiet revolution has been brewing in state capitals.

Historically low crime rates and shrinking state coffers have led to 
a nascent consensus among lawmakers and advocates across the 
ideological spectrum that our addiction to incarceration is not 
sustainable, effective or humane. Republican governors in 
cash-strapped states have been among those leading the charge.

States as varied as Texas, New York, Colorado and Michigan have 
passed reforms that have stabilized or significantly reduced prison 
populations without increasing crime.

What Mr. Holder has done is turn up the dial, lending his imprimatur 
to a growing sense of national urgency and moral necessity.

The muted reaction to his announcement from ardent conservatives is a 
reflection of the shift in debate.

But this is no time to rest. Those who seek a fairer criminal justice 
system, unclouded by racial bias, must at a minimum demand that the 
government eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, which tie judges' 
hands; rescind three-strikes laws, which often make no distinction 
between, say, armed assault and auto theft; amend "truth in 
sentencing" statutes, which prohibit early release for good behavior; 
and recalibrate drug policies, starting with decriminalization of 
marijuana possession and investment in substance-abuse prevention and 
treatment. Federal aid to state and local agencies, like the Edward 
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and the Community Oriented 
Policing Services, must prioritize diversion and rehabilitation over 
arrest and incarceration.

I am not naive about the challenge, or of the needs of crime victims. 
In 1992, as I was finishing high school, my 71-year-old paternal 
grandmother was murdered in a house robbery in Sahibabad, India. The 
killing remains unsolved, and the anguish it caused my family will 
never fade away. But in America, our criminal justice system has too 
often focused on vengeance and punishment (and racial suspicion) 
rather than on crime prevention, restitution for victims and the 
social and economic reintegration of released prisoners into our 
communities so that they do not turn to crime again.

The buildup of our prison-industrial complex was a bipartisan process 
that unfolded over decades, and digging ourselves out of this hole 
will require unlikely political alliances. (For instance, the 
American Civil Liberties Union is working on sentencing reform with 
Right on Crime, a conservative initiative, and the American 
Legislative Exchange Council, an organization whose stances on 
immigration, voting and other civil rights policies we are fighting 
tooth and nail.) And where there is a lack of political will, we need 
to bring litigation of the kind that drove down prison populations in 
California and New Jersey and organize to make our voices heard.

The work ahead is daunting, but Mr. Holder's announcement holds out 
hope that we have crossed a threshold, that there is no longer any 
serious argument about whether there is a problem with criminal 
justice in America. It's sad it took so long for this moment to 
arrive - and that the impetus has come as much from budget pressures 
as from concerns about justice - but we need to seize it.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom