Few public policy issues are as widely debated today as criminal justice reform. That’s partly because it is an area that encompasses a wide variety of sub-issues — from the use of solitary confinement to sentencing reforms to ban-the-box legislation and much more.
But mainly, it’s the result of the consensus that has emerged around the issue. Democrats and Republicans agree: America’s criminal justice system is failing just about everyone — victims, offenders and the taxpaying public at large.
Thoughtful pieces are published everyday that help illuminate the reform discussion. Three particularly interesting ones appeared today.
A New York Times editorial tells the tale of Glenn Ford, who served 30 years on Louisiana’s death row for murder. He was freed in 2014 after his conviction was overturned and died of lung cancer the following year.
As the Times points out, “Louisiana law provides for up to $330,000 in compensation to people who have been wrongfully imprisoned, but state courts have repeatedly denied Mr. Ford, and now his estate, even that inadequate amount.”
The Times notes that many states don’t even have compensation laws, and that many of those that do offer a pittance as payouts. New Hampshire gives the wrongfully imprisoned a flat sum of $20,000 no matter how long they’ve been in the slammer. And in many states, the wrongfully imprisoned must sue state governments for compensation, and the onus is on them to prove that the state did something wrong.
The Times highlights several other problems with how states treat exonerees. Read the entire piece here.
It was once taken for granted that conservatives supported the death penalty. A piece Wednesday by the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips explores how things are changing.
A year ago, conservative Nebraska abolished the death penalty. Phillips argues that Nebraska may not be an anomaly, but rather the beginning of a trend.
Republican lawmakers in 10 states have sponsored or co-sponsored legislation to repeal the death penalty. But it’s not just in state legislatures where conservatives are beginning to oppose the death penalty. Prominent conservative groups like the National Association of Evangelicals are moderating their support for the death penalty too.
Perhaps most telling, the death penalty is no longer an issue that’s raised in political campaigns. Think about it: When was the last time you heard a Republican candidate tout his support for the death penalty as a way of proving his conservative bona fides? Phillips concludes: “There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that conservative opposition to the death penalty may indeed be a trend — a small but growing one.”
In the Atlantic, Juleyka Lantigua-Williams writes that the key to criminal justice reform might be prosecutors, who, the author argues, often wield too much power. “It’s time to curtail the power long held by these officers of the court as they promote justice, ensure fairness and enhance public safety.”
There are roughly 2,400 prosecutors nationwide, and most of them are elected to office and run unopposed. Many amass considerable power when it comes to determining whom to charge and for what crime.
Many reform advocates blame societal and sociological factors for the ballooning prison population. But Lantigua-Williams quotes a criminal law professor who crunched the data and found that prosecutors deserve much of the blame.
Over the last few decades, prosecutors started charging many more arrestees with felonies instead of misdemeanors. In many cases, that decision is left up to the discretion of prosecutors who, because they’re elected, may be reacting to political pressures and not simply the merits of a particular case.
For years, prosecutors were expected to throw the book at offenders, Lantigua-Williams writes.
But reforms are being made, including a recent DOJ directive asking prosecutors to use more discretion, especially with drug crimes. Enhanced transparency will also help, as will providing prosecutors with ways to divert offenders away from prison and into treatment and other alternatives to prosecution.
The author concludes by quoting former prosecutor Meg Reiss, who says, “The bottom line is people came to be prosecutors because they really wanted to ensure fairness and increase public safety.
“They have a real moment at this time to step up and make a big change, to really lead in this effort, to be really innovative and forthright in their intentions, to reduce mass incarceration, to address racial disparity in the system, to look for alternatives to oppressive sanctions. We missed so many things, and now is the moment.”
Read the entire piece here.
Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner
