Kids For Cash: Inside One of the Nation’s Most Shocking Juvenile Justice Scandals | Democracy Now!

Kids For Cash: Inside One of the Nation’s Most Shocking Juvenile Justice Scandals | Democracy Now!





Please be disturbed by this. Today a special on "kids for cash," the shocking story of how thousands
of children in Pennsylvania were jailed by two corrupt judges who
received $2.6 million in kickbacks from the builders and owners of
private prison facilities. We hear from two of the youth: Charlie
Balasavage was sent to juvenile detention after his parents unknowingly
bought him a stolen scooter; Hillary Transue was detained for creating a
MySpace page mocking her assistant high school principal. They were
both 14 years old and were sentenced by the same judge, Judge Mark
Ciavarella, who is now in jail himself — serving a 28-year sentence.
Balasavage and Transue are featured in the new documentary, "Kids for
Cash," by filmmaker Robert May, who also joins us. In addition, we speak
to two mothers: Sandy Fonzo, whose son Ed Kenzakoski committed suicide
after being imprisoned for years by Judge Ciavarella, and Hillary’s
mother, Laurene Transue. Putting their stories into context of the
larger scandal is attorney Robert Schwartz, executive director of the
Juvenile Law Center. The story is still developing: In October, the
private juvenile-detention companies in the scandal settled a civil
lawsuit for $2.5 million.

After the Murder of Tom Clements, Can Colorado's Prison System Rehabilitate Itself? by Alan Prendergast

Westword

When Tom Clements accepted the job of executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections three years ago, he knew he was taking on an enormous challenge. Two particularly alarming sets of figures, trends that he believed to be more than casually related, caught his eye immediately.
One had to do with the excessive use of solitary confinement in order to isolate and punish the state's most troublesome prisoners. The other was the staggeringly high failure rate of parole.
Clements was a numbers guy. A native of the Show Me State, he valued empirical data more than gut instincts or sacred cows. A former parole officer who'd worked his way up to the top ranks of the Missouri state prison system, he was part of a growing reform movement in corrections: the promulgation of "evidence-based practices" by administrators whose idea of managing offenders is turning them into productive citizens again rather than simply moving them around. What mattered were hard numbers and programs with a track record of successful outcomes, and the data on the Colorado DOC wasn't good.

Tom Clements.

New DOC head Rick Raemisch was told to honor the legacy of Tom Clements.

 

At the time that Clements arrived, Colorado had close to 1,500 inmates in solitary, or administrative segregation — which worked out to be about seven times the national average. Only a quarter of those in lockdown were there because of assaults on staff or other inmates; ad-seg had become the one-size-fits-all method of dealing with the mentally ill, suspected gang members, chronic screwups, or anyone else who appeared to be at risk of harm or of harming others. The average stay in isolation was nearly two years. Worse, 47 percent of the ad-seg prisoners completed their sentences in lockdown and were paroled directly to the street, with little or no preparation for the move from an eight-by-ten-foot cell to city life.
Forty-seven percent. As Clements saw it, that figure had a lot to do with some other dismal figures: the state's stubbornly high recidivism rate, hovering around 50 percent, and the steady return of thousands of parole violators to prison within months of their release.
The subject of Colorado's ad-seg problem figured prominently in the discussions of the executive-director job that Clements had with Governor John Hickenlooper. Without mentioning any names, Hickenlooper made passing reference to one prisoner, the son of a friend, who'd spent the bulk of his sentence in lockdown because of disciplinary problems. Clements took the position that the routine release of damaged, violent felons directly from isolation wasn't simply a parole problem, but a threat to public safety.
Reducing the use of solitary confinement became one of the new chief's top priorities. He pushed for more frequent and thorough reviews of who was in ad-seg and why, as well as initiatives to get prisoners out of isolation and into classes, drug treatment and mental-health programs before release. During his first two years on the job, the state's ad-seg population dropped by nearly 50 percent. Clements was encouraged by the progress, but hardly satisfied.
"It's only a matter of time," he told one top deputy, "until something goes bad."
His prediction proved to be all too accurate. But not even the new chief expected it to go quite as bad as it did, literally on his own doorstep. On the evening of March 19, 2013, Clements answered the doorbell at his Monument home and was confronted by a parole absconder named Evan Ebel — the same "son of a friend" Hickenlooper had mentioned during Clements's 2011 job interview. Released from ad-seg just seven weeks earlier, Ebel had already killed Nathan Leon, a pizza delivery driver, just to get his uniform. Ebel fatally shot Clements with a nine-millimeter handgun and fled, only to be killed himself two days later in a shootout with Texas authorities.
Almost eighteen months later, many questions about the death of Tom Clements remain unanswered. Authorities have described it as a gang-ordered assassination. Citing unnamed sources, the Denver Post has even suggested that it was a murder for hire, commissioned by a Saudi national who'd been denied a transfer out of a Colorado prison just days earlier. But aside from Stevie Vigil, the young woman who supplied Ebel with his gun, no charges have been filed against anyone in the case — and longtime friends of Ebel, citing letters and a recorded message he left behind, have insisted that the murder was an act of personal vengeance against a system that he despised.
Trying to make sense of a senseless killing has put considerable strain not only on investigators, but on DOC officials, as well, who have struggled to define what sort of "lesson," if any, can be gleaned from the tragedy. On one hand, Rick Raemisch, the current director, has expressed his determination to honor Clements's legacy, leading to a dramatic reduction in the number of mentally ill prisoners in ad-seg. But the shock and outrage of the slaying has also led to a major shakeup in the department's leadership team and retrenchment in many critical areas, including parole. Clements had set out to change not only the direction of DOC policy, but also the agency's internal culture, and many of his initiatives are now on hold or have been quietly scrapped. While the system failures exposed by Ebel's rampage have generated a flurry of new legislation and heightened security measures, some observers wonder if Clements's death has also jeopardized reforms that he regarded as long overdue.

 continue reading Westword article

Sentencing, by the Numbers

New York Times

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — IN a recent letter to the United States Sentencing Commission, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. sharply criticized the growing trend of evidence-based sentencing, in which courts use data-driven predictions of defendants’ future crime risk to shape sentences. Mr. Holder is swimming against a powerful current. At least 20 states have implemented this practice, including some that require risk scores to be considered in every sentencing decision. Many more are considering it, as is Congress, in pending sentencing-reform bills.

Risk-assessment advocates say it’s a no-brainer: Who could oppose “smarter” sentencing? But Mr. Holder is right to pick this fight. As currently used, the practice is deeply unfair, and almost certainly unconstitutional. It contravenes the principle that punishment should depend on what a defendant did, not on who he is or how much money he has.

The basic problem is that the risk scores are not based on the defendant’s crime. They are primarily or wholly based on prior characteristics: criminal history (a legitimate criterion), but also factors unrelated to conduct. Specifics vary across states, but common factors include unemployment, marital status, age, education, finances, neighborhood, and family background, including family members’ criminal history.

Such factors are usually considered inappropriate for sentencing; if anything, some might be mitigating circumstances. But in the new, profiling-based sentencing regimen, markers of socioeconomic disadvantage increase a defendant’s risk score, and most likely his sentence.

Advocates of punishment profiling argue that it gives sentencing a scientific foundation, allowing better tailoring to crime-prevention goals. Many hope it can reduce incarceration by helping judges identify offenders who can safely be diverted from prison. 

While well intentioned, this approach is misguided. The United States inarguably has a mass-incarceration crisis, but it is poor people and minorities who bear its brunt. Punishment profiling will exacerbate these disparities — including racial disparities — because the risk assessments include many race-correlated variables. Profiling sends the toxic message that the state considers certain groups of people dangerous based on their identity. It also confirms the widespread impression that the criminal justice system is rigged against the poor. 

It is naïve to assume judges will use the scores only to reduce sentences. Judges, especially elected ones, will face pressure to harshly sentence those labeled “high risk.” And even if risk scores were used only for diversion from prison, it would still be wrong to base them on wealth and demographics, reserving diversion for the relatively privileged.

Evidence-based sentencing also raises serious constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court has consistently held that otherwise-impermissible discrimination cannot be justified by statistical generalizations about groups, even if those generalizations are on average accurate. People have a right to be treated as individuals, and individuals often do not conform to group averages.

For example, in its 1983 decision in Bearden v. Georgia, the court unanimously rejected the state’s contention that a defendant could have his probation revoked because his recent job loss increased his crime risk. The court held that “lumping him together with other poor persons and thereby classifying him as dangerous ... would be little more than punishing a person for his poverty.”

Litigation has been slow in coming, however. The risk-prediction instruments are not very transparent (some are proprietary corporate products), and defendants may not understand the role of poverty and personal characteristics. But challenges could be on the horizon. For example, I recently participated in training the Michigan defense counsel on constitutional objections to evidence-based sentencing, in preparation for the state’s impending implementation. 

Of course, judges have always considered future crime risk informally, and it’s worth considering whether actuarial methods can help make those predictions more accurate. The problem isn’t risk assessment per se; it’s basing scores on demographics and socioeconomics. Instead, scores could be based on past and present conduct, and perhaps other factors within the defendant’s control. 

Data-driven predictions grounded in legitimate factors might be about as accurate as current profiling schemes. There is no persuasive evidence that the current troubling variables add much predictive value, once criminal conduct is already taken into account. But even if they do improve accuracy, this gain doesn’t justify sacrificing fairness. 

Criminal justice policy should be informed by data, but we should never allow the sterile language of science to obscure questions of justice. I doubt many policy makers would publicly defend the claim that people should be imprisoned longer because they are poor, for instance. Such judgments are less transparent when they are embedded in a risk score. But they are no more defensible.

Floorboards

Dear [fname] Hi there!!! CCJRC was awarded a grant to attend and participate in a class for Digital Storytelling for Nonprofits.  We created a movie and now we are in the running for a fabulous prize… These are digital stories that nonprofit organizations created as part of their participation in Open Media Foundation's Digital Storytelling for Nonprofits class. Winning videos will be announced on Friday August 8th at 7pm, during the live show 'SparqU Presents: The Perfect Pitch for Nonprofits'".  If you have already voted for this, thank you!! Can you go to the link below and vote for “Floorboards” ?  Floorboards was written about the story of a son’s experience of his mother’s incarceration and their eventual reunion.  This is a preview of the live performance that you will be able to see at the CCJRC "Voices for Justice" 6th Annual Fundraiser Thank you so much!!!  (After you get to the Open Media website you have to click on the red stars under the title until they turn yellow and the vote count actually changes).  https://www.denveropenmedia.org/projects/digital-storytelling-nonprofits Don't forget to get your tickets to the      CCJRC’s 2014 6th Annual Fundraiser       VOICES FOR JUSTICE Thursday, September 18, 2014 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m COCKTAILS AND CUISINE BOXES AND BASKETS SILENT AUCTION MILE HIGH STATION 2027 West Lower Colfax Denver, CO. CATERED BY FOOTERS Early bird tickets: $85 ON SALE NOW!! PLEASE JOIN US FOR ANOTHER WONDERFUL EVENING! This year, we are honoring Claire Levy for her invaluable contribution to criminal justice reform. As House Representative, she carried a significant number of bills vital to reducing recidivism, implementing smarter sentencing and drug policy, expanding funding for treatment, increasing alternatives to incarceration, and providing resources to people with criminal convictions. Her work on the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) was exemplary as is her current work as Executive Director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. CCJRC has been successfully advocating for sensible criminal justice reform in Colorado for more than a decade. We were founded in 1999 when Senator Dorothy Rupert, in alliance with Representative Penfield Tate, introduced legislation calling for a three-year halt on prison expansion and the creation of a task force on sentencing reform. Today, CCJRC includes more than 100 community organizations and faith communities and nearly 6,500 individual members statewide. We have worked diligently over the years to develop criminal justice policies and grassroots campaigns that effectively promote public safety and rehabilitation while reducing the prison population. The Rupert Tate Game Changer Award honors its two co-founders and their prescience in challenging the criminal justice status quo in Colorado. It is a great honor to extend this award to Claire Levy $1000--Contributing Sponsors                                Prax (us)                   Jan and Dave Mackenzie Second Chance Center        Bill Vandenberg                   $750 - Advocate Sponsors Walking Raven MMC $500 – Freedom Fighter Sponsors     Tiftickjian Law Firm, PC               Trine & Metcalf, PC    Mile High Behavioral Health Council $250 – Justice Sponsors                                                 Elizabeth Anderman        Tony and Leigh Bubb            T. Marshal Seufert       Brian Connors       Councilman Albus Brooks     Endpoint Direct                  Advocates for Change    St. Francis Center    Longmont Community Justice Partnership                     Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition       Colorado Behavioral Health Council Event Audience Colorado community members supporting criminal justice reform, mental health/substance abuse treatment services and law enforcement Prospective CCJRC major donors who have an interest in our event and/or organization Current CCJRC donors at all levels Law firms and related legal businesses Current CCJRC coalition partners and faith communities Civic leaders and legislators engaged in criminal justice reform, health care, public policy, and treatment Sponsorship Opportunities Voices for Justice Sponsor - $10,000 Four seats at dinner Your Company name used in title of event ~ “Voices for Justice” presented by Your Company Opportunity for sponsor representative to speak Your Company name used in all media promotion Your Company name and logo on all marketing and materials Sponsor banner at event Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members Full page ad/logo in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Game Changer Sponsor - $5,000 Four seats at dinner Your Company name used in title of event ~ “Game Changer” presented by Your Company Opportunity for sponsor representative to speak Your Company name used in all media promotion Your Company name and logo on all marketing and materials Sponsor banner at event Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members Full page ad/logo in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Supporting Sponsor - $2,500 Four seats at dinner Your Company name used in all media promotion Your Company name and logo on all marketing and materials Sponsor banner at event Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members ½ page ad/logo in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Contributing Sponsor $1,000 Four seats at dinner Your Company name on all marketing and materials Sponsor banner at event Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members ¼ page ad/logo in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Advocate Sponsor - $750 Two seats at dinner Your Company name on all marketing and materials Sponsor banner at event Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members Listing in Event Program  CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Freedom Fighter Sponsor - $500 Two seats at dinner Sponsor banner at event Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members Listing in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Rupert-Tate Sponsor - $375 Two seats at dinner Recognition in Colorado Justice Report, our tri-annual newsletter to over 6,000 members Listing in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage Justice Sponsor - $250 Two seats at dinner Listing in Event Program CCJRC website and social media recognition with link to your website Table signage  I'd like to Sponsor this event!!!

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Prison (HBO)

John Oliver destroys drug war: “A little draconian, and a lot racist”

John Oliver destroys drug war: “A little draconian, and a lot racist”

U.S. Sentencing Commission cuts prison terms for 46,000 inmates

LA TIMES

he U.S. Sentencing Commission voted Friday to slash sentences for 46,000 inmates serving time for drug offenses, the latest move in a concerted effort by state and federal officials to ease decades-old policies that have clogged jails and prisons.
If the move is not blocked by Congress, more than two-thirds of federal prisoners incarcerated for drug crimes will be eligible for sentence reductions averaging more than two years.

The commission decided in April to reduce future sentences. Friday’s vote extends the same approach retroactively to those already serving time, starting Nov. 1, 2015.

Atty. Gen Eric H. Holder Jr. originally asked the commission, a group of judges and other lawyers who establish sentencing policies, to take a much narrower approach that would affect just 20,000 inmates.
But Holder said Friday he supports the new policy. “This is a milestone in the effort to make more efficient use of our law enforcement resources and to ease the burden on our overcrowded prison system, ” he said in a statement.

Judge Patti B. Saris, chair of the commission, said, “This amendment received unanimous support from commissioners because it is a measured approach. It reduces prison costs and populations, and responds to statutory and guidelines changes since the drug guidelines were initially developed, while safeguarding public safety.”
No prisoner would be released until a judge reviews their case to determine whether a reduced sentence poses a risk to public safety.
The House and Senate would have to vote by Nov. 1 to block the plan. But there has been bipartisan support in both houses for a broad change in prison policies.

Study Finds Racial Disparity in Prosecutions

The New York Times

Black and Hispanic defendants are more likely to be held in jail before trial and more likely to be offered plea bargains that include a prison sentence than whites and Asians charged with the same crimes, according to a two-year study of prosecutions handled by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

The study, by the Vera Institute of Justice, found that race was a significant factor at nearly every stage of criminal prosecutions in Manhattan, from setting bail to negotiating a plea deal to sentencing.

But race was not the sole factor, the study’s authors said. A number of legal considerations were found to be more important in predicting a defendant’s fate, among them the seriousness of the charge and the defendant’s arrest record.

Nicholas Turner, the president of the institute, said researchers could not determine what caused the unequal treatment. “It could be implicit bias,” he said. “It could also be race-neutral policies that end up having a particular disparate effect.”

The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., said he was concerned that racial disparities had cropped up, especially in the areas of pretrial detention and sentencing. He promised to move forward with “implicit bias” training for his assistants to guard against unconscious prejudices in their decision-making.

“I’m glad to know the information,” Mr. Vance said in an interview. “It’s more important that we find out, ask the question and deal directly with what is uncovered, rather than failing to ask the question at all.”

Funded by the Justice Department, the study grew out of Mr. Vance’s campaign promise to determine whether race played a role in the decisions of prosecutors. In a rare move, his office opened its books to the institute’s analysts for 2010 and 2011 and gave them unfettered access.

The study is one of the largest of its kind to be done in the United States, and its findings echoed what smaller studies had found in places like Milwaukee. The authors examined 222,542 resolved prosecutions over two years, scrutinizing data for all misdemeanors and a selection of felonies, including drug offenses.

The report comes at a time of heightened public debate across the nation about whether the criminal justice system treats people of different races equally. That debate drove the legal battle over the stop-and-frisk program in New York City and has prompted the United States attorney general to order an examination of federal convictions and sentencing guidelines.

“It is consistent with other studies,” Don Stemen, an associate professor of criminology at Loyola University in Chicago, said. “Even when controlling for all these legal factors, race still has an impact.”

One of the starkest disparities emerged in the prosecution of misdemeanor drug crimes like possession of marijuana or cocaine. The study found blacks were 27 percent more likely than whites to receive jail or prison time for misdemeanor drug offenses, while Hispanic defendants were 18 percent more likely to be incarcerated for those crimes.

The study’s authors, Besiki Luka Kutateladze and Nancy R. Andiloro, looked at five key points in a criminal case when prosecutors have significant discretion. They examined the prosecutor’s decisions about which cases to accept, which to dismiss, what to recommend at bail hearings, what plea bargains to offer and what sentences to recommend.

Race turned out to be a statistically significant factor at every stage, save the initial decision to accept cases, the study found.

Blacks were 10 percent more likely than whites to be remanded to jail before trial or to be unable to make bail. Asians fared even better than whites when it came to remaining free before trial: 24 percent of white defendants were detained, but only 14 percent of Asians were held.

Prosecutors were also found to be more likely to offer black and Hispanic defendants plea deals on misdemeanors that included jail time. Forty percent of black defendants and 36 percent of Hispanic defendants were offered plea deals involving incarceration, rather than probation or community service. That ratio for whites was 33 percent, and for Asians, 17 percent.

At sentencing, blacks were also found to be slightly more likely to be sentenced to jail than whites and Latinos, with Asians significantly less likely to receive jail terms.

Naional Blueprint for Drug Policy Reform

National Blueprint for Drug Policy Reform

Can't believe this is on the White House website.



Today, we will unveil the latest update to President Obama’s plan for reducing drug use and its consequences, the 2014 National Drug Control Strategy. This Strategy, which continues to be shaped by the input of people across the country like you, rejects the notion that we can arrest and incarcerate our way out of the nation’s drug problem. Instead, it builds on decades of research demonstrating that while law enforcement should always remain a vital piece to protecting public safety, addiction is a brain disorder—one that can be prevented and treated, and from which people recover.
 Watch the release of the Strategy live today, Wednesday, July 9th, at 10 a.m. EST.
Data have shown that in several major U.S. counties, crime and substance use are linked. Most recently, we saw that in five counties, one-third or more of adult male arrestees tested positive for an illicit substance at the time of their arrest. Only one-quarter or fewer of all arrestees had ever participated in any outpatient drug or alcohol treatment and less than 30% had ever participated in any inpatient drug or alcohol treatment. Many of these men will be caught in a painful cycle of arrest, incarceration, substance use disorders, and re-arrest. Our prisons and jails are already overcrowded with people who desperately need compassionate, evidence-based treatment for the disease of addiction--not a jail cell.
The plan we released today calls for reforming our criminal justice system to find alternatives to incarceration – and effective interventions across the entire system to get people the treatment they need.
Here’s the problem: far too often, for people who need it most, the criminal justice system can seem like the only way to get help for a substance use disorder. That’s because until recently, prohibitively high costs and limited access to treatment put it out of reach for millions of people in need.
We know that only about 10 percent of people with a diagnosable substance use disorder actually receives treatment at a specialty facility. While several factors contribute to this abysmal statistic, much of that disparity is owed to a lack of healthcare coverage – and that’s about to change. Through a rule made possible by the Affordable Care Act, we are requiring insurers to treat substance use disorders in the same way they would any other chronic disease. Specifically, this new rule expands coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services to 62 million Americans.
The plan we released today calls on healthcare providers to prevent and treat addictive disorders just like they would treat any other chronic disorder, like diabetes or heart disease. It calls on law enforcement, courts, and doctors to collaborate with each other to treat addiction as a public health issue, not a crime.
We chose to release the 2014 Strategy in Roanoke because, in three important ways, it’s a microcosm of the policies our office has been promoting since 2009:

1. Access to treatment, a focus on prevention, and compassion. Roanoke is home to one of the largest behavioral healthcare centers in the region. The center is co-located with a Drug Free Communities coalition, which prevents substance use among at-risk youth, and a program called Project Link, which helps opioid-dependent women and pregnant mothers get treatment and give birth to drug-free babies.
2. Alternatives to incarceration. In 2011, the Roanoke Police Department worked with community and faith leaders in the Hurt Park neighborhood to shut down the open-air drug market operating there and drastically reduce violent crime in the area. As part of this intervention, community leaders came together to offer the low-level, non-violent drug offenders involved in the sweep a life-changing alternative: either face prosecution and lengthy sentences, or change your lives with the support of the community. In Roanoke, I met with one of those ex-offenders who is now employed full-time and caring for his family.
3. Local solutions for local challenges. In a corner building in downtown Roanoke operates a community action center with roots in President Lyndon Johnson’s landmark anti-poverty legislation. Half a century ago, local leaders established what is now called Total Action for Progress (TAP), which operates 30 programs in the Roanoke Valley region aimed at improving employment opportunities at-risk youth, early childhood development, and re-entry and support services for veterans. I visited TAP to speak with young people and a veteran whose lives have been changed by these programs, and was inspired by their stories of hope. 

Like the rest of the country, Roanoke has seen a devastating rise in heroin and prescription painkiller abuse. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drug overdose deaths surpass homicides and traffic crashes in the number of injury deaths in America.[1] In 2011, more than 110 Americans, on average, died from overdose every day. Prescription painkillers were involved in over 16,900 deaths that year. Heroin was involved in more than 4,300.[2]
In response to this opioid epidemic, this Strategy updates the President’s 2011 Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan by calling for increased access to naloxone, a lifesaving overdose-reversal medication.
The widespread use of naloxone in the hands of law enforcement, firefighters and emergency medical personnel will save lives. It can also serve as a critical intervention point to get people into treatment and on the path to recovery.
Today, there are millions of Americans in recovery from substance use disorders who are healthy, responsible, and engaged members of their communities. The Strategy outlines steps to help lift the stigma associated with substance use disorders. It also works to reform the laws and regulations that impede recovery from substance use disorders, including those that place obstacles in the way of housing, employment, and obtaining a driver’s license or student loan because of a prior conviction for a drug-related offense.
The National Drug Control Strategy released today is rooted in the belief that illicit drug use is a public health issue, not just a criminal justice problem. As the innovative law enforcement and social support programs in Roanoke prove, this philosophy can reduce illicit drug use while building healthier, safer, more vibrant communities.

The Seond Chance Act Proves it's Worth

The New York Times

With corrections costs exceeding $60 billion a year, state and local governments are rightly focused on making sure that newly released prisoners stay out of jail instead of coming back in through a revolving door.

The Second Chance Act, signed into law by George W. Bush in 2008, was designed to give momentum to this effort, providing money and training for states, local governments and nonprofit organizations to help former prisoners readjust to the community. But as it stands, federal government spending on Second Chance Act programs amounts to less than $100 a year for each newly released prisoner — far less than the programs need and deserve.

A new study from the National Reentry Resource Center, created under the Second Chance Act, shows that recidivism rates can be significantly reduced when states commit to jailing only people who present a risk to public safety and to helping newly released prisoners find drug treatment, psychiatric counseling and the other services they need for a successful transition to the world beyond bars.

The report compared the three-year recidivism rates for people released in 2007 to those of people released in 2010 for eight states — Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wisconsin — and found that the percentage declines in recidivism rates ranged from 5.8 percent in Colorado to 19.3 percent in North Carolina.

North Carolina, for example, learned that probation revocations accounted for half of its prison admissions and that three-quarters of those sent to prison based on such revocations had not committed new offenses. The State Legislature enacted sweeping reforms. It intensified community supervision, and it gave probation officers better training and allowed them to use other sanctions for people who violated the rules, like punishing them with two or three days in the local jail instead of sending them back to prison for lengthy stays.

The state also established local re-entry councils that direct newly released inmates to social services to help them readjust to the community. The new measures drove down recidivism, allowing North Carolina to close nine correctional facilities, hire more probation officers and lend more support to drug treatment and other transitional programs.

The Second Chance Act has a crucial role to play by providing seed money for new reforms and helping to distinguish what works from what does not. Given the scope of the task at hand — and the fact that 700,000 people will be released from prison this year — the federal government should be spending far more than the $67.7 million that went for this purpose in the 2014 fiscal year. A higher level of expenditure would more than pay for itself in terms of lower corrections costs.

From the bill signing for HB 1355

CCJRC was excited to be invited to the bill signing for HB 1355, thanks to Rep. Kagan and Senator Guzman for all of their work. 

JURIST - Colorado limits solitary confinement for mentally ill

JURIST - Colorado limits solitary confinement for mentally ill

Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado [official website] signed a progressive bill for mentally ill inmates on Friday. Senate Bill 14-064
[text, PDF] changes traditional methods of solitary confinement by
mandating psychiatric evaluations and therapy for inmates diagnosed with
mental illness and qualifying for disciplinary intervention. All
inmates currently in solitary confinement will be evaluated within 90
days, and those diagnosed with serious mental illness will be
transferred to a step-down unit for medically guided treatment.



The effects of solitary confinement have been seriously scrutinized after the March 2013 slaying
[Denver Post Report] of Colorado Department of Corrections Director Tom
Clements. The suspect, Evan Ebel, was repeatedly disciplined with
isolation during prior incarceration, which many believe led to the
slaying of Mr. Clements. The legality of solitary confinement [JURIST news archive] has been an ongoing debate in the US, with many calling for comprehensive prison reform [JURIST podcast]. In February, New York reformed the use of such practices on minors. In October 2013 UN Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez urged [JURIST report] the US to immediately end the solitary confinement imposed in 1972 on Albert Woodfox [AI backgrounder]. In June at least 400 inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in California initiated a hunger strike
[JURIST report] in protest of solitary confinement. In January 2011 the
Washington Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that holding death row inmates in
solitary confinement indefinitely is not an impermissible increase [JURIST report] in the severity of punishment. In 2009 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
[advocacy website] filed suit against the US government, challenging
the establishment of isolated cells within federal prisons that were
allegedly created in violation of federal law.

Colorado Inmates tame wild horses

TICKETS ON SALE NOW!!

CCJRC

CCJRC’s 2014 6th Annual Fundraiser

  

   VOICES FOR JUSTICE

Thursday, September 18, 2014

5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m

COCKTAILS AND CUISINE

BOXES AND BASKETS SILENT AUCTION

MILE HIGH STATION

2027 West Lower Colfax

Denver, CO.

CATERED BY FOOTERS

 

Early bird tickets: $70

ON SALE NOW!!

After June 22 - tickets are $85

 

PLEASE JOIN US FOR ANOTHER WONDERFUL EVENING!

This year, we are honoring Claire Levy for her invaluable contribution to criminal justice reform. As House Representative, she carried a significant number of bills vital to reducing recidivism, implementing smarter sentencing and drug policy, expanding funding for treatment, increasing alternatives to incarceration, and providing resources to people with criminal convictions. Her work on the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) was exemplary as is her current work as Executive Director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.

CCJRC has been successfully advocating for sensible criminal justice reform in Colorado for more than a decade. We were founded in 1999 when Senator Dorothy Rupert, in alliance with Representative Penfield Tate, introduced legislation calling for a three-year halt on prison expansion and the creation of a task force on sentencing reform. Today, CCJRC includes more than 100 community organizations and faith communities and nearly 6,500 individual members statewide. We have worked diligently over the years to develop criminal justice policies and grassroots campaigns that effectively promote public safety and rehabilitation while reducing the prison population.

The Rupert Tate Game Changer Award honors its two co-founders and their prescience in challenging the criminal justice status quo in Colorado. It is a great honor to extend this award to

Claire Levy

 

$1000--Contributing Sponsors

                              

Prax (us)                   Jan and Dave Mackenzie

       Bill Vandenberg                  

      

 

$500 – Freedom Fighter Sponsors

    Tiftickjian Law Firm, PC              

Trine & Metcalf, PC    Mile High Behavioral Health Council

 

$250 – Justice Sponsors

                                                Elizabeth Anderman        Tony and Leigh Bubb
                                                  Brian Connors   Councilman Albus Brooks     Endpoint Direct
                                  Advocates for Change    St. Francis Center    Candy Campbell
                                                        Colorado Behavioral Health Council

 

Jail inmate booking fees raise concern, may violate Colorado state law

The Denver Post

Metro area sheriff's departments have collected millions of dollars in booking fees from inmates, and the departments often run an ongoing tab for those who can't afford to pay when they're arrested. The tabs have left some people owing hundreds of dollars that may eventually be confiscated if they return to jail.
Legal experts say the practice may be a violation of state law — a legal conclusion that Denver's city attorney also reached last year before the sheriff's department discontinued collecting old debts for booking fees.
Now, after being contacted by The Denver Post, a number of other departments are also reconsidering whether they have the authority to charge people for previous jail bookings.
Advocates warn that tracking and collecting unpaid fees from people repeatedly booked into jail may unfairly target the mentally ill and homeless.
"A key purpose of this fee was to benefit mentally ill and indigent inmates, and I was concerned that — in practice — it could be disproportionately impacting these very populations," said Denver's independent police monitor, Nicholas Mitchell.
In 2004, legislators passed a law allowing sheriff's departments to collect up to $30 from everyone who is booked into a county jail. The law requires that the fee be collected when someone is booked into the jail, but it does not allow deputies to collect unpaid fees if someone is booked into the jail multiple times, according to a review by the Denver city attorney's office and the Office of the Independent Monitor.
The Denver Sheriff's Department's decision to stop collecting debts caused the revenue collected from fees to drop to a seven-year low in 2013, reducing the yearly total by more than $113,000. But the decrease — by default — also reduced funds the department dedicates to treatment programs and deputy training by more than $45,000 from the previous year.

Interactive: Denver Crime Map

• View our interactive Denver crime map.

The law that allows deputies to collect the fee also requires that 20 percent of the total revenue be used for mental health and substance abuse programs, and 20 percent is dedicated to deputy training for handling mental health crisis. The remaining 60 percent is used to defray the cost of housing an inmate.
Mitchell said the fee was intended to help care for people who are mentally ill and indigent. But a complaint his office received early last year revealed that the fee — and the inability to pay it — was creating possibly overwhelming debts for people who are repeatedly booked into jail for low-level crimes.
In October 2012, Robert Lowe was booked into the downtown Denver jail for the seventh time in 19 months. Lowe — who listed his return address as a state-run, inpatient mental health institute — had incurred more than a dozen municipal charges, the most serious of which including trespassing and urinating in public.
But when Lowe was released, the $200 he had in his pocket when he was booked into the jail was gone. The money was confiscated and used to cover booking fees he could not pay during previous stints in the jail, according a letter from the sheriff department's internal affairs bureau.
Even though $200 was all he had, it wasn't enough. Lowe still owed $7.
"I was concerned about the possibility that there were others like this individual — folks who are indigent or homeless — who are possibly being arrested for low-level street offenses and developing these large tabs with the sheriff's office," Mitchell said. "It seems to me there is quite a bit of risk that the practice of collecting past fees could negatively impact the poorest and neediest folks."
Mitchell commended Denver Sheriff Gary Wilson, who quickly addressed the concerns and changed the department's procedure, and Lowe was issued a full refund. But at least six of Colorado's largest sheriff departments — Arapahoe, Boulder, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson and Larimer counties — continue to collect previously unpaid fees.
None of those departments use collections agencies or issue tickets for those who do not pay. Most departments have been collecting unpaid fees from inmates since the program launched 10 years ago.
Funds raised from the fee in Denver go toward deputy training and two programs in the city's two jails, Wilson said. One program is designed to treat people with severe mental illness and-or co-occurring substance abuse. The second works to provide people a 30-day prescription for their non-controlled, mental health medications.
"The goal is trying to utilize those funds to benefit those who are in our custody and the taxpayers," Wilson said.
But the practice of keeping tabs on those who do not pay the booking fee singles out people who are least able to pay, said Sean McDermott, president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. He said other sheriff's departments should rethink their practices.
"The plain reading of the statute says they should collect the fee up front," McDermott said. "It is similar to a low-income person running up a debt, whether it be a payday loan or a credit card they cannot pay off."
After The Post alerted other sheriff departments, several said they were unaware of Denver's policy change.
Jefferson County Sheriff Department officials began reviewing their policy, said spokesman Mark Techmeyer. The Larimer and Boulder counties sheriff's departments have no plans to change their policies, but the departments will reach out to Denver to learn more about their decision. Sgt. Ron Hanavan said the Douglas County Sheriff Department may evaluate the practice in the future, but it had no immediate plans to change it.
The El Paso County Sheriff Department presented the issue to its legal adviser a few years ago and decided the practice was allowed under the law, Sgt. Greg White said Thursday.
Opponents have called the fee a tax on the poor. Supporters argued that earmarking funds to help with the growing demand for mental health treatment would help decrease inmate populations and some claimed the fee would not be paid by the mentally ill or indigent.
"It is an unfair tiered system as far as people who have those resources and those who don't," said Eric Smith, programs manager for The Mental Health Center of Denver.
Smith works with a program designed to help people with mental health disorders who come up against the criminal justice system. While people who are mentally ill or indigent should be held accountable for their crimes, Smith says there should be more wiggle room in applying the booking fee.
Individuals with a limited or fixed income often have an average of $30 of spending money a week, but many have as little as $10, Smith said.
"It's a no-win situation for them. If they don't have the money now, why do you think they would have the money later?" Smith said. "There should be a little bit more room to accommodate people who are in difficult straits."
If someone is cleared of all charges, they may apply to have the fee refunded. That process, however, can be tricky to navigate, Mitchell said.
Each department said the revenue collected from the fees accounts for a small portion of their overall budget.
Between 2005 and 2013, the Denver sheriff's department collected $4.7 million in booking fees — 4 percent of the department's overall budget in 2013.
At any given time, 30 to 40 percent of inmates housed in Denver's two detention facilities are dealing with a mental health disorder. On average, it costs about $56 a day to house someone in the general population, but it costs more than double that amount to house someone who needs medical attention or mental health treatment, Wilson said

Read more: Jail inmate booking fees raise concern, may violate Colorado law - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25770213/jail-inmate-booking-fees-raise-concern-may-violate#ixzz31pAnbgbe
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

Spring Newsletter 2014

CCJRC NEWSLETTER

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (2014)

Description  

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States:

Exploring Causes and Consequences (2014)

After decades of stability from the 1920s to the early 1970s, the rate of imprisonment in the United States more than quadrupled during the last four decades. The U.S. penal population of 2.2 million adults is by far the largest in the world. Just under one-quarter of the world's prisoners are held in American prisons. The U.S. rate of incarceration, with nearly 1 out of every 100 adults in prison or jail, is 5 to 10 times higher than the rates in Western Europe and other democracies. The U.S. prison population is largely drawn from the most disadvantaged part of the nation's population: mostly men under age 40, disproportionately minority, and poorly educated. Prisoners often carry additional deficits of drug and alcohol addictions, mental and physical illnesses, and lack of work preparation or experience. The growth of incarceration in the United States during four decades has prompted numerous critiques and a growing body of scientific knowledge about what prompted the rise and what its consequences have been for the people imprisoned, their families and communities, and for U.S. society.
The Growth of Incarceration in the United States examines research and analysis of the dramatic rise of incarceration rates and its affects. This study makes the case that the United States has gone far past the point where the numbers of people in prison can be justified by social benefits and has reached a level where these high rates of incarceration themselves constitute a source of injustice and social harm.
The Growth of Incarceration in the United States recommends changes in sentencing policy, prison policy, and social policy to reduce the nation's reliance on incarceration. The report also identifies important research questions that must be answered to provide a firmer basis for policy. The study assesses the evidence and its implications for public policy to inform an extensive and thoughtful public debate about and reconsideration of policies.

Why are Denver's jails still crowded?

The Denver Post

Nine years ago Denver voters approved a $378 million bond package that upgraded the city's antiquated, unsafe and crowded criminal justice facilities — a project that brought new structures and modern touches but strangely did not solve a glaring problem.
The jails are still crowded.
After a net gain of 864 beds from the bond project, the city is now looking at spending millions more to build more jail space or hire more jail staff.
Though Denver has implemented numerous diversion programs to keep people out of jail and crime rates have fallen, the city's jails continue to fill.
By next year, officials say, the jails could be overcrowded once again.
"That surprises me," said James Mejia, who was the justice center's project manager at the time. "We had projections that it would be a couple more decades before the facilities would be full. ... I am saddened to hear that if that is the case."
In a strange conundrum, jail bookings have decreased but the jail population has increased. Inmates are simply staying in jail longer.
Felony filings have increased 30 percent since 2010 to nearly 6,500 filings in 2013. Those cases take longer to get to trial.
One day last week, nearly 40 percent of the jail's population was classified as "pre-trial felons," according to the sheriff's department.
One reason for the recent uptick in felony cases may be rooted in technology.
In recent years, the city has upgraded its fingerprint and DNA detection systems, and in July of last year opened a new, $28 million crime lab. Those programs immediately struck gold.
In one year, police say, there has been a 42 percent increase in forensic leads on fingerprints and a 129 percent increase on DNA-related leads.
"Our hits are going through the roof," said Denver Police Commander Matt Murray. "People who go in on a traffic warrant are getting arrested on felonies when they get a hit (from their fingerprints) on a case. We are catching more people. But there is an unintended consequence. With an increase in this technology, you are putting more people in jail."
Last month Denver Sheriff Gary Wilson told City Council members if inmate trends continue, the jail's total rated capacity of 2,330 average daily inmates is expected to be exceeded by 2015.
Further, Wilson predicts that number could hit 2,512 by 2018.
Denver's jail facilities actually have more space that is not being used — two shuttered facilities at the Smith Road complex and an unfinished floor on a jail building constructed in 2012 with bond money.
If those buildings were opened, capacity at the county jail on Smith Road and the downtown detention center would total 2,698 beds.
To reopen the two shuttered and old facilities on Smith Road would add 368 more beds, but the sheriff's department would need to increase staffing by 51 people at an estimated cost of $3 million a year. That would likely be a budget item that would need City Council approval.
To finish the unfinished third floor on the new facility on Smith Road would add 128 new beds, but the city would need to spend an additional $6 million. A funding source has yet to be identified, but it would not come from the 2005 justice center bond. Those dollars have already been spent.
Why do we appear to be right back where we were in 2005 after spending hundreds of millions of dollars?
Wilson said plans were not short-sighted and taxpayers weren't fooled. But critics say the system is broken and the issue will never be solved by adding more jail space.
"The problem wasn't that the previous jail was too small," said Christie Donner, director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, who fought the 2005 vote for a new justice center. "There were significant problems of how we used jail beds. We still haven't solved those problems."
In the campaign of 2005, voters were told many things that didn't materialize.
They were promised a new downtown courthouse with 35 courtrooms. Instead, one with 29 courtrooms was built, with six courtrooms "shelled" for later use.
They were told a separate parking garage would be built with 451 public spaces. Instead, one was built with 233 public spaces.
They heard a new building would be constructed at the jail on Smith Road with room for 385 inmates. Instead, one was built for 256 inmates with the top floor delayed for possible later construction.
One promise that was kept is bringing the project in on budget. It's no wonder.
No question the bond that was approved by 56 percent of voters was necessary because the city had decrepit and dangerous facilities. But the campaign never suggested the jails would fill again 10 years after the election.
"If you build it, they will come," said Maureen Cain, policy director for Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Foundation.
Cain said many people in jail are on pre-trial holds because they cannot afford to pay bond amounts. A disproportionate number of those are minorities. A recent study of the jail population on one day last year found that 70 percent of the pre-trial detainees were minorities, she said.
They stay in jail awaiting their court appearances and then get probation when they are sentenced, said Donner.
"We put them in jail before they are convicted," she said. "Then after they are convicted, they are on community supervision. How much sense does that make?"
In 2005, the city created a 32-member Crime Prevention and Control Commission to work with criminal justice agencies on ways to reduce crime, cut recidivism and manage the jail population.
Statistics show the commission's work has paid off, reversing a 46-year trend of yearly population increases at Denver's jail.
Specifically, the commission has reduced the average daily jail population by 546 inmates a day through various programs, according to Regina Huerter, executive director of the commission.
Nearly 80,000 jail bed days were saved in 2013 by placing pre-trial inmates on electronic monitoring, according to the city's 2014 budget.
An estimated 94,300 jail bed days were saved due to the pre-trial supervision program that determines a defendant's eligibility to be released from jail before trial.
Other programs are worth noting.
The city stopped jailing people for failing to pay fines or failing to pay their RTD tickets. A sobriety court has reduced bed stays. And the city's Chrysalis Program has worked to get prostitutes off the streets and out of jail.
The city is about to launch a program that focuses on a "front-end user" population of 299 frequent fliers into the criminal justice system. They are generally homeless transients, mentally ill and addicted to drugs or alcohol.
Of those offenders, 299 accounted for 14,283 charges over a seven-year period.
Last year, the total criminal justice expenses for arresting, jailing and prosecuting 208 of those offenders was nearly $3 million. Each of them spent an average of 72 days in jail.
Their expenses aren't just for criminal justice interactions.
A total of 239 of those front-end users also were seen at Denver Health in 2012, visits that included detox, emergency room and psychiatric stays. Only a handful had health insurance. The total cost for health care was $8 million.
"They are an expensive group," Huerter said.
The city is creating a separate court process for the front-end users — flagging them when they are arrested and setting them up for a special program that will attempt to deal with their mental illnesses or addictions.
In sentencing, for example, front-end users could start treatment in jail or have an option to serve their time in the Fort Lyon Residential Treatment Center.
"It really is a population that we can catch," Huerter said. "We feel we can cut in half their total cost and reduce their likelihood of offending."
Denver County presiding judge John Marcucci, in his chambers recently, flipped through photos of prostitutes' mug shots. Their faces showed the destruction of life on the streets over time. He has photos on the wall of some of those women who went through the Chrysalis Program and are in recovery with their children in group home.
The judge's eyes misted over, fearing people will focus only on the increasing numbers of inmates and not understand the work he and others like Huerter and Sheriff Wilson have been doing to reduce the population.
"We are trying to make our system better and temper that with justice," Marcucci said. "We are doing everything we possibly can to make sure we have the right people in jail."

Read more: Meyer: Why are Denver's jails still crowded? - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25636303/why-are-denvers-jails-still-crowded#ixzz308vbOpJv
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

Man spends 16 years in solitary for a crime he did not commit

The United States Department of Justice -- Clemency Initiative

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole at the Press Conference Announcing the Clemency Initiative

Washington, D.C. ~ Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Good morning and thank you all for being here.  I am pleased to announce a Department of Justice initiative to encourage qualified federal inmates to petition to have their sentences commuted, or reduced, by the President of the United States.

 

Last year, the Attorney General launched a new “Smart on Crime” initiative.  Smart on Crime was conceived with an eye toward addressing the crises caused by a vastly overcrowded prison population and with a goal of redirecting some of the dollars we spend on prisons to prosecutors and law enforcement agents working to keep our streets safer.  It is designed to strengthen the criminal justice system, promote public safety, and deliver on the promise of equal justice under law. 

 

In 2010, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced unfair disparities in sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine.  But the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply to those who were sentenced before its passage.  And now there are many people in federal prison who were sentenced under the old regime – and who, as a result, will have to spend far more time in prison than they would if sentenced today for exactly the same crime.  The fundamental American concept, equal justice under law, requires that our laws be enforced fairly – and not just going forward, but it is equally important that we extend this fairness to those who are already serving prison sentences for their crimes.

 

Last December, President Obama took steps toward addressing this situation by granting commutations to eight men and women who had each served more than 15 years in prison for crack cocaine offenses.  For two of these individuals, it was the first conviction they’d ever received – yet, due to mandatory guidelines that were considered severe at the time, and are out of date today – they and four others had received life sentences.  Since that time, the President has indicated that he wants to be able to consider additional, similar applications for commutation of sentence, to restore a degree of fairness and proportionality for deserving individuals.  The Justice Department is committed to responding to the President’s directive by finding additional candidates who are similarly situated to those granted clemency last year, and recommending qualified applicants for reduced sentences.

 

We are launching this clemency initiative in order to quickly and effectively identify appropriate candidates, candidates who have a clean prison record, do not present a threat to public safety, and were sentenced under out-of-date laws that have since been changed, and are no longer seen as appropriate.  While those sentenced prior to the Fair Sentencing Act may be the most obvious candidates, this initiative is not limited to crack offenders.  Rather, the initiative is open to candidates who meet six criteria:  they must be (1) inmates who are currently serving a federal sentence in prison and, by operation of law, likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense today; (2) are non-violent, low-level offenders without significant ties to large-scale criminal organizations, gangs, or cartels; (3) have served at least 10 years of their sentence; (4) do not have a significant criminal history; (5) have demonstrated good conduct in prison; and (6) have no history of violence prior to or during their current term of imprisonment.

 

Identifying worthy candidates within our large prison population will be no easy feat. A good number of inmates will not meet the six criteria.  But we are dedicating significant time and resources to ensure that all potentially eligible petitions are reviewed and then processed quickly to ensure timely justice.

 

First, we have put in place an extensive screening mechanism.  Next week, the Bureau of Prisons is notifying all federal inmates of our initiative and providing them with these six criteria.  If an inmate believes he or she fits these six criteria, the Bureau of Prisons will provide them with an electronic survey to fill out that will allow Department lawyers to efficiently screen whether the petition merits further consideration.

 

Second, I am pleased to announce that all inmates who appear to meet these six criteria will be offered the assistance of an experienced pro bono attorney in preparing his or her application for clemency.  In January, I gave a speech to the New York State Bar Association in which I called upon private attorneys to volunteer to assist potential candidates in assembling commutation petitions – ones which provide a focused presentation of the information the Department and the President will consider – in order to meaningfully evaluate whether a petitioner qualifies under this initiative.  Since that time, dedicated and experienced criminal defense and nonprofit lawyers have responded to that call.  These numerous groups and individual attorneys, who are calling themselves Clemency Project 2014, will be working with inmates who appear to meet the six criteria and request the assistance of a lawyer.  I am very grateful for the work of these volunteers and am confident that their commitment and expertise will result in high-quality petitions that the Department of Justice will be able to process on a more efficient basis.

 

Third, the Department of Justice is detailing lawyers to the Pardon Attorney’s Office on a temporary basis to review applications for commutation submitted under this initiative.  These attorneys – importantly, to include those with experience as federal prosecutors – will provide the rigorous scrutiny that all clemency applications must undergo while providing the additional eyes necessary to review the numerous additional petitions that are invariably likely to be submitted.  In addition, we are taking the unusual step of working with the Federal Public Defender Service to try to get some of their attorneys detailed to the Pardon Attorney’s Office to support this initiative.  I will be personally involved in ensuring the Pardon Attorney’s office has the resources needed to make timely and effective recommendations to the President.

 

Fourth, once we have made a preliminary determination that a petition is worthy of serious consideration, we will consult with both the United States Attorney’s Office and the trial judge that handled the case to get their views on the propriety of granting the application.  

 

Finally, I want to thank Ron Rodgers for his service as the United States Pardon Attorney.  Over the past several years, Ron has performed admirably in what is a very tough job.  He has demonstrated dedication and integrity in his work on pardons and commutations.  In the tradition of Senior Executive Service attorneys in the Department, Ron has asked me to allow him to move on to another assignment within the Department.  I told him I would do that, but only after he helped with the transition to new leadership in the Pardon Attorney’s Office.  In that vein, I am pleased to announce that Deborah Leff will be coming in to lead the Pardon Attorney’s Office.   Debby has committed her career to the very basis of this initiative - achieving equal justice under law.  As Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice, her fundamental mission has been to help the justice system deliver outcomes that are fair and accessible to all.  She has worked to increase access to legal counsel and legal assistance for those who are unable to afford lawyers.  And, she has also been instrumental in the standing up of Clemency Project 2014.  Importantly, she is known in both the Department and the legal community as a dedicated advocate and public servant.  I am confident that she will do a wonderful job providing recommendations to me and the President on this initiative and on the clemency process going forward.

 

Let there be no mistake, this clemency initiative should not be understood to minimize the seriousness of our federal criminal law and is designed, first and foremost, with public safety in mind.  Even low-level offenders cause harm to people through their criminal actions, and many need to be incarcerated.  Our prosecutors and law enforcement agents worked diligently and honorably to collect evidence and charge these defendants, and then fairly and effectively obtained their convictions.  These defendants were properly held accountable for their criminal conduct.  However, some of them, simply because of the operation of sentencing laws on the books at the time, received substantial sentences that are disproportionate to what they would receive today.  Even the sentencing judges in many of these cases expressed regret at the time at having to impose such harsh sentences.  And several United States Attorneys are proactively providing names of individuals they believe should be part of this initiative.  Correcting these sentences is simply a matter of fairness that is fundamental to our principles at the Department, and is a commitment that all Department of Justice employees stand behind.

 

In the same vein, it is important to remember that commutations are not pardons.  They are not exonerations. They are not an expression of forgiveness.    Rather, as the President said, they are an “important step toward restoring fundamental ideals of justice and fairness.”  He noted that “many of [these individuals] would have already served their time and paid their debt to society” had they been sentenced under current law.  For our criminal justice system to be effective, it needs to not only be fair; but it also must be perceived as being fair.  These older, stringent punishments that are out of line with sentences imposed under today's laws erode people’ s confidence in our criminal justice system.  I am confident that this initiative will go far to promote the most fundamental of American ideals - equal justice under law.