We close mental hospitals and shutter schools but find money to build new prisons. Our nation now incarcerates 2.5 million men and women, chiefly for nonviolent crimes dealing with the use of illegal drugs. Eighty percent are black or Hispanic, although multiple studies affirm that drug usage among ethnic groups is roughly the same. That’s why the racial disparity in our prisons is deeply troubling. And why many law enforcement officers believe we need to examine our policies and priorities.
Until President Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs,” people arrested for smoking pot would serve a few days in jail, at most, and be put on probation. Michelle Alexander, a former ACLU attorney and author of, The New Jim Crow, says the escalating rate of incarcerations in the past 30 years has created both a humanitarian and a racial crisis.
Indeed, it took a Supreme Court decision to force California to release tens of thousands of inmates from prisons that were so dangerously overcrowded they spawned chronic violence and disease. Investigators said prison conditions constituted, “cruel and unusual punishment.”
But the high court’s 5-4 decision was based on economics, not humanitarian concerns. California was broke and couldn’t build more prisons. Had money been available, prisoners would still be serving time.
While many wardens provide drug rehabilitation and counseling during incarceration, which greatly reduces recidivism, the staggering number of drug users sentenced to long terms overwhelms resources within the prison system.
The release of California’s inmates generated fears that “dangerous people” might suddenly descend upon peaceful neighborhoods. But these former neighbors were never violent.
In fact, the former inmates have the most to fear. They face legal, economic and social discrimination: shunned by most employers, barred from public housing and denied many public benefits. One wonders if our society really wants to rehabilitate offenders and give them a second chance. And if a truly commensurate effort is being made to curb drug traffickers and the devastating violence they bring to communities bordering Mexico.
“If we abided by the rate of incarceration in the 1970s, we would have to release four out of every five people now behind bars, “ says Alexander. Today, the “War on Drugs” commonly catches the person who buys a small quantity for personal use while the big fish who control distribution swim away on plea bargains negotiated by high-priced lawyers.
Neill Franklin, a law enforcement officer 33 years, including service as a narcotics officer for the Maryland State Police, is executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). LEAP’s members believe the fundamental error has been trying to curb drug use by focusing on supply rather than demand. “We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, and stop sending people to jail for non-violent personal drug use,” Franklin says.
LEAP’s membership includes judges, prosecutors, wardens, and FBI agents. Its partner organizations include the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project. Franklin says the 40 year “War on Drugs” has not achieved results and that legalization is a legitimate subject for debate.
Frank Lawlor of Royal Oak, who has a degree in theology and a doctorate in science education, agrees a new approach is desired. “Only Russia incarcerates more of its people than we do.”
Davis Bobrow of St. Michaels, a former University of Pittsburgh professor, observes that financial pressures may create opportunities for unlikely alliances, as was the case in California. “But racial injustice in sentencing is the most troubling aspect of the problem,” he added.
One thing is clear: a new approach is necessary, with all options on the table for debate.
***
Carlton E. Spitzer
No comments:
Post a Comment