He argues that there is hope for justice because of these reasons:

1.  Even though our new Attorney General, Mr. Sessions, believes that marijuana is as deadly as heroin and he plans to start prosecuting violators (even though many states have legalized the possession of marijuana, federal law still makes it illegal to posses), in reality most of the criminal justice activities are handled by state and local governments.  They also pay for over-crowded prisons and have to deal with the mess that comes from incarcerating low-level offenders when they are finally released.  As a result, many states have re-thought the penalties for low-level crimes and how they handle offenders.  (Prison vs. probation, for instance)  The results can give us all hope for justice in this country.
2. There have always been reformers who have advocated a modern approach to the criminal justice system in light of new research.  Today, more ex-offenders are coming forward to tell the voting public what it’s like to be incarcerated and its effects on the entire family.  Their stories are causing legislators and local boards to re-think the old ideas of how to deal with crime and criminals.
3. There’s hope for justice in America because many of the local prosecutors (who prosecute 90% of the crimes in this country—not the federal government) recently elected are open to re-thinking what the impact of a criminal prosecution has on not only the accused but also the extended families—and the cost to taxpayers.
4. What about the victims?  Shouldn’t we consider their pain and suffering?  Of course.  But the interesting thing local prosecutors and defense lawyers have discovered is that, if given the choice between prison for 20 years or some kind of rehabilitative alternative, many victims want the criminal rehabilitated.  This is great because not only are the offenders treated differently, but victims are also given a role in the outcome of the process—something to give us all hope for justice in America.

If you get a chance, read Mr. Forman’s essay.  Instead of the vision of America as a post-apocalyptic wasteland that will be helped only by locking up more and more people that comes from those in the White House, here’s a refreshing essay about the significant changes being made in our local communities.   It gives us all hope for justice in America.

The post There’s Still Hope for Justice in America appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  We should just put the criminals in prison and throw away the keys.

Easy to say and it certainly makes us feel good.  People have the impression that most criminals are “getting away” with their crimes and aren’t paying the penalty.  The media feed this idea since they only report the few cases where someone does beat the system.  The reality is that the majority of people charged with crimes are found guilty and do pay the penalty.

Question is, what should the penalty be?

My prosecutor friend brought up several recent empirical studies that show short, intensive punishment combined with rehabilitation efforts tend to have the best results.  Why?

Putting aside the serial murderers and career criminals, I believe it’s because simply locking people away can be counter-productive.  For many of them, the hardest part is when the doors to the jail slam shut.  After months or even years, the deterrent effect of incarceration drops off.  So, it makes sense to send people for a limited amount of time–with supervised probation and release afterward.

2.  Criminals will never change–there’s no hope they’ll reform themselves.

Some psychologists maintain that criminals are people who have chosen to live a life of crime and will continue to do so no matter what we do to them.  I’m not sure this is true all the time.  I think that most criminals balance the risks of getting caught with the rewards of crime.  I believe some can be persuaded to go straight.  The best persuasion is a combination of prison and probation.

3.  Many criminals are drug addicts who commit crime to feed their habits. No.  I would say in my own experience that the majority of crimes are committed when people are high–by far alcohol is the most prevalent–when they commit crimes but they’re not doing the crime to make money to supply themselves with drugs.  And for all the attention to dangerous drugs, alcohol still remains the most widely abused chemical substance that leads to crime.

4.  The crime news in the papers never seems to end–crime is up.  It’s definitely down, especially since a peak during the 1980’s as measured by the FBI.  Violent crime and all types of crime are down significantly.  Why does it seem the opposite?  The news media report criminal acts–not the drop in crime.

5.  “Get tough on crime” laws and longer prison sentences deter crime. I don’t think so.  In my experience dealing with defendants charged with crime, the last thing they think about is getting caught and certainly, they never think about penalties.  The one area that’s different is in drinking and driving crimes.  People do think about that when taking another drink.  But particularly for crimes of passion and anger, very few people stop to think about the penalties–therefore, I don’t think tougher penalties act as a deterrent.

What are you ideas?  Get tougher?  More probation?  More community service?  What can we do?

The post Five Myths about Crime Today appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Started in the 1970’s, the War on Drugs spawned a huge federal/state law enforcement apparatus that has taken on a life of its own.  Thousands of people are involved:  not only the obvious law enforcement people and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), but also all the prosecutors, judges, and Public Defenders across the country.  Then, once convicted, the defendants go to prison which has led the United States to the dubious ranking of one of the highest incarceration rates in the world!

Mr. Jones, in my opinion, is making the correct choice.

I have worked for over 30 years as both a county prosecutor and Public Defender.  Although, I’ve not worked in federal court, the local state courts still handle more drug-related cases than the feds.  I can tell you that in all these years, very few “drug kingpins” have ever been convicted.  The majority of drug offenders are low-level users who may sell in order to meet their habit.  Even at the federal level, I doubt the convictions are of many high-level drug lords.  

Mr. Jones’ office has the resources to go after more complex crime–and he should do so.  The state courts will still prosecute the drug offenders.

What’s going on in the war on drugs?  At the state court level, the largest county in Minnesota has started something called “Drug Court.”  Instead of automatically jailing drug offenders, several rehabilitation efforts are offered to the accused.  If they successfully overcome their addiction, their cases may be dismissed.  Of course, if they fail, they must proceed with their criminal cases.  In spite of ever-onerous sentences for drug possession/sale, the state courts have effectively circumvented these draconian penalties by allowing drug offenders to clean themselves up and get out of the criminal justice system.

Did you know that some of the toughest sentences in the country are for federal drug offenders?  Has it made a difference in the drug problem in the U.S?  Did you know that the majority of inmates in federal prisons are not there for violent or white-collar crimes, but are there, instead, for low-level drug offenses?  Has this approach decreased the drug problem in the U.S?

I don’t think so.

Another issue that Mr. Jones may be considering is that the federal prison population is made-up almost entirely of African-American drug users.  Many people in the black community view this as a modern day extension of slavery because of the ultimate effect of all the federal drug laws–that act to imprison an inordinately high percentage of the African-American community.

Should the War on Drugs be declared over so we can “bring our troops home?”  Let me know what you think.

The post Is the War on Drugs Over?? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

However, in every state in both adult and juvenile courts, thousands of people work as probation officers.  What do they do and why?

In the criminal justice process, both adult and juvenile, anyone who pleads guilty or is found guilty in a trial, receives a sentence as the punishment.  Initially, that means prison or custody in some form.  But the majority of offenders don’t go to prison.  Instead, their incarceration is suspended and they’re put on “probation.”  Typically, to stay on probation, they must obey a set of conditions ordered by the sentencing judge.  These are fashioned in every case to ensure the offender remains law-abiding and can include such things as: don’t get into criminal trouble, complete treatment, don’t use illegal drugs, get a job, go to therapy, etc.

So long as the offender obeys these, he won’t be incarcerated.  In order to manage this case load and ensure compliance, the courts all use probation officers.

The main job of a probation officer is to protect public safety by supervising the offenders’ programming.  Secondly, they offer resources to offenders in order to help them successfully complete their probation until the judge releases them from the conditions.  Probation officers are assigned a number of offenders in a case load and are responsible to monitor the offenders.  That often means regular contact with the offenders and proof of their compliance, such as a certificate of completion of treatment.  If the offender fails, the probation officer must report to the sentencing judge, a review hearing may be scheduled, and the judge would make a decision to allow the offender to remain on probation or to revoke it and send them to prison.

Although there is lots of talk among elected officials and the media about “getting tough on crime,” the fact is, research has consistently shown that for the majority of offenders (except dangerous ones) the threat of prison with probation officers monitoring, produces the most law-abiding behavior and the lowest recidivism rates.

In addition, even with the added cost of probation officers and their salaries, it’s still much cheaper for the taxpayers in comparison to putting people in prison for the same number of years.

The post Why Do We Need Probation Officers? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

“Louisiana is the world’s prison capital.  The state imprisons more of their people, per head…(such that) Louisiana’s incarceration rate is nearly triple Iran’s.”

What’s going on?  In my own state of Minnesota, we are building a “geriatric” prison nestled in the north woods.  Louisiana has 1,619 prisoners per 100,000 residents.  The average in the U.S. is 730, Russia is 525, and Rwanda is 450.  Has our country gone crazy?

Let’s look at Louisiana first.  In the early 1990s the prisons were so overcrowded a federal court ordered the state to reduce overcrowding.  There response was not to let people out (two thirds of Louisiana’s offenders are non-violent compared to about one half for the other states), but instead to “privatize” the prison system and encourage entrepreneurs to build private prisons.  Coincidentally, most of the prison entrepreneurs were rural sheriffs, looking for a guaranteed way to make a buck and profit.

What started as an interesting idea didn’t work out as well as anticipated: why not get rid of the cost of holding prisoners from the state budget and transfer that cost to private industry?  The projected savings in the state budget must’ve looked impressive.  It didn’t work.

I think the fundamental problem is that the goals of government and prisons are much different than the private company goals.  Of course, one common goal is to protect the public by locking-up the dangerous criminals..  Beyond that, the state’s goal is rehabilitation and eventual re-entry of the offender into the community (less serious offenders)  to lead productive lives.  The goal of private prisons is to make a profit; rehabilitation is a secondary goal–if at all.  In fact, there’s an economic incentive not to rehabilitate people in order to keep them in prison and the state to keep paying for their stay.

In order for these for-profit prisons to make money, they must keep their beds full.  In order to do so, the sheriff’s association has supported many tougher sentences for all offenders to keep them in prison longer.

What’s even more crazy, is that Louisiana also has a series of “state prisons” where the people sentenced to life imprisonment stay.  The per diem spending on the “lifers” is twice that for the people in the for-profit prisons.  Consequently, the lifers can received advanced job training–even thought they’re never going to get out.  The people in profit prisons don’t receive much, if any, job training.

Although Louisiana is the worst example of this privatization of prisons, many other states do the same.  Check your own state to see what they’ve done.  I predict this problem will only grow because of two things acting in concert:

1.  Legislatures continually want to “get tough on crime.”  Instead of adding money to prevention, police, and education, they simply increase the penalties for various crimes–leading to exploding prison populations and exorbitant costs.

2.  States that are in tough financial situations often think privatization is the answer to their problems.  It’s not.  As the prison population, already the highest per capita in the world,  ages we see the kind of trouble that my state, Minnesota, faces:  they are building a geriatric prison to handle the increased and very expensive problems of aging prisoners:  hip replacements, knee replacements, dialysis, etc.

It’s only going to get worse!

The post Prisons, Politics, and Profits appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.