Prioritizing Prison Reform

In an Op-Ed this morning in the Nation of Change webzine, Christopher Petrella put forth ten tactics for reducing prison populations:

1. Replace mandatory sentencing laws with more flexible and individualized sentencing guidelines.
2. Strategically reduce “three-strikes” laws for non-violent offenders.
3. Relax Truth-in-Sentencing thresholds 
4. Organize against prison gerrymandering to ensure that low-income communities—and particularly communities of color—receive a fair portion of federal aid. 
5. Make full employment a domestic policy goal.
6. Eliminate the use of for-profit, private prison companies.
7. Fund prison education programs and incentivize inmate participation. 
8. Provide incentives for employers to hire “ex-convicts.”
9. Suspend “Operation Streamline.”
10. Support community policing efforts.

As I reviewed the list, I found myself nodding in agreement. Most are fairly straight forward (and at any rate, you can refer to the original article for more details). A couple are not as commonly discussed. Number 4 addresses the fact that, as hard as it is to imagine, communities that house prisons get to claim the inmates as “residents” and as a result get increased tax dollars allocated to them, while reducing the tax dollars to the often distressed communities from which they come. And, number 9, “Operation Streamline,” is talking about the huge numbers of people that are being held in detention as a result of questionable immigration status.

Dr. Patricia Simples and Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle
at The Next Movement forum/panel discussion
Treating Drug Abuse as a Public Health Issue, Not a Crime

While all of these are ideas that are easy for those with a prison reform mind to agree with, the elephant in the room is missing.

As recently as 2009 there were 1.7 million people in prison, jail, or on probation or parole for drug offenses. Currently there are over 500,000 people in prison for drug offenses, 80% of which are for use and possession. In addition, many of the other crimes – theft, prostitution, robbery, etc. – are related to drug habits. In fact, nearly 1 in 5 crimes were committed to obtain money for drugs, according to a Bureau of Justice study from 2004 . . . that would mean another 400,000 inmates. Yet, Mr. Petrella does not include ending the War on Drugs among his tactical solutions.

Implementing some of the “tweaks” Mr. Petrella outlines can reduce the escalation in prison populations, but we will never achieve the reductions that are necessary, certainly not a humane and moral resolution, without addressing the fallacy of the Drug War.

Ending the epidemic of mass incarceration simply cannot be achieved if we ignore the drug policy issue. Yes, we should support his shopping list of reforms, but if we don’t begin to treat drug abuse as the medical condition that it is, we will continue to waste human potential, debilitate families and cripple our communities.

Daryle Brown

Prison Profiteering . . .

This note comes under the category of "Did you know?"

In a very informative article, Prison Privatization and the Efficiency Myth, Christopher Petrella digs into the federal Bureau of Prisons and the causes of the initial foray into private, for profit prison contracts.

Interestingly, it was our "friend" President Bill Clinton that initiated the first contracts for private prisons to manage federal inmates. While we are so often told that the competitive model of introducing for profit prisons (substitute schools if you'd like) will assure more efficient operations emerge, until those models are tested in the real world, it is a huge, and often inaccurate, assumption.

In our federal prison system, however, that was not the initial rationale at all. It seems that President Clinton introduced contract prisons into the federal system to accomplish two goals: 1) To allow for an increase in prison populations due to new laws he supported, so that he could show himself "tough on crime," and 2) He could show conservatives that he was reducing the size of the government payroll, since contractors do not show up as employees.

This article is well worth reading as it also shows how Clinton contributed to "The New Jim Crow" and mass incarceration with his support for the "Truth in Sentencing" bill and other get tough legislation.

Read the entire article by clicking here.

Daryle Brown