RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 


Momma said wonk you out

WEBB EMERGES AS THE PRISON GUY.

I don't think there's a whole lot to James Webb's much-touted legislation to form a blue-ribbon commission on prison reform. But I think there's a whole lot to the fact that James Webb is touting legislation on prison reform. I think it's important that Webb has created a whole new section on his Senate web site to cover the issue and I think it's encouraging that his staff is blasting out e-mails about Webb's focus on the issue. The political economy on crime and prison reform has been pretty bad: Lots of politicians make their name being anti-crime, which has come to mean pro-punishment. Few make their name being pro-prison reform. Here -- from the charts and graphs section of Webb's site -- is what that's given us:

incarcerationrates.jpg

Webb has decided to do something fairly rare for a politician; leverage his credibility to make a positive intervention on an issue. Plenty of politicians with Webb's unique blessings -- a tough record and a tough demeanor that assures him total inoculation against being painted as weak -- held them in reserve for a future campaign that never comes. Webb is actually attempting to use his position to affect an important issue. And by publicly signaling that he means to be the go-to guy on prison reform, he's ensuring that the advocacy community will begin providing intellectual support and the academics will begin talking to his staff and the former prisoners will send along their experiences and the interested senators will come by his office and his blue-ribbon panel will give him further ideas and his next piece of legislation will, after all that, be able to do rather more than call for a commission.

His floor speech supporting the bill is below the fold. It's really quite good.

I am pleased today to introduce a piece of legislation designed to establish a National Criminal Justice Commission. I do so with, at the moment, twelve cosponsors, including our Majority Leader, the Chairman and the Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs and other members of our leadership.

I introduce this bill after more than two years of effort here in the Senate and with prior conferral with Supreme Court Justice Kennedy and having discussed this matter with the President and the Attorney General, both of whom I think are strongly supportive of this concept.

Our goal in this legislation is to create a national commission with an 18-month timeline not to simply talk about the problems that we have in our criminal justice system, but to actually to look at all of the elements in this system, how they are interrelated in terms of the difficulties that we have in remedying issues of criminal justice in this country and to deliver us from a situation that has evolved over time where we are putting far too many of the wrong people into prison and we are still not feeling safer in our neighborhoods, we're still not putting in prison or bringing to justice those people who are perpetrating violence and criminality as a way of life.

I would like to say that I come to this issue - although I’m not on the Judiciary Committee - as someone who first became interested in criminal justice issues through serving on a number of courts-martial and thinking about the interrelationship between discipline and fairness, and then after that from having spent time as an attorney, at one point representing pro bono a young former Marine who had been convicted of murder in Vietnam. I represented him for six years pro bono. He took his life halfway through this process. I cleared his name three years later but having become painfully aware of how sometimes inequities infect our process.

Prior to joining the Senate, I spent time as a journalist, including a stint 25 years ago as the first American journalist to have been inside the Japanese prison system where I became aware of the systematic difficulties and challenges that we have. At that time, Japan with half our population had only 40,000 sentenced prisoners in jail and we had 580,000 and today we have 2.3 million prisoners in our criminal justice system and another five million involved in the process either due to probation or parole situations.

This is a situation that is very much in need of the right sort of overarching examination. I’m gratified that the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania has joined me as the lead Republican on this measure. I look forward to hearing from him as soon as I am finished with my remarks.

The third thing that I would like to say at the outset, I believe very strongly even though we are a federal body, that there is a compelling national interest for us to examine this issue and reshape and reform our criminal justice system at the federal, state, and local levels. I believe the commission that I am going to present will provide us with that opportunity.

Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have 5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.

I would ask my fellow senators and my fellow citizens to think about the challenges that attend these kinds of numbers when we are looking at people who have been released from prison and are reentering American society. We have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who are reentering American society without the transition necessary to allow them to again become productive citizens.

I think we need to look at this in terms of our own recent history. This is a chart that shows our incarceration rate from 1925 until today. Beginning in about 1980 our incarceration rate started to skyrocket. What has happened since 1980 is not reflective of where our own history has been on this issue and it is another reason why we need to examine it.

We are also, for a complex set of reasons, warehousing the mentally ill in our prisons. With four times as many mentally ill in our prisons opposed to institutions, the main point for all of us to consider is that these people who are in prison are not receiving the kind of treatment they would need in order to remedy the disabilities that have brought them to that situation.

The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%. The blue disks represent the numbers in 1980; the red disks represent the numbers in 2007 and a significant percentage of those incarcerated are for possession or nonviolent offenses stemming from drug addiction and those sorts of related behavioral issues.

I want to emphasize to my colleagues and to others that the issues that we face with respect to criminal justice are not overall racial issues. In many cases these issues involve people’s ability to have proper counsel and other issues, but there are stunning statistics with respect to drugs that we all must come to terms with. African-Americans are about 12% of our population; contrary to a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use rate in terms of frequent drug use rate is about the same as all other elements of our society, about 14%. But they end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison by the numbers that have been provided by us.

At the same time, when I say we're putting too many of the wrong people in prison, we're not solving the problems that will bring safety to our communities. Gangs are a hot issue today. I am on the Armed Services Committee, I’m on the Foreign Affairs Committee and there has been a lot of back and forth in recent months about the transnational gangs that are emanating from across the Mexican border. Approximately a million gang members are counted in our country today. I want to emphasize that this is not an issue that simply exists along the Mexican border. This is issue that affects every community in the United States and it is not simply an issue of the Mexican cartels although theirs is the most violent and most visible today. The Mexican drug cartels are operating in 230 American cities, not simply along the border. The incidents on the border illuminate the largeness of this problem and this challenge. Gangs in some areas commit 80% of the crimes and are heavily involved in drug distribution but other violent activities, as well.

There's been some talk over the past few days about how our position toward drugs and our gun policies feed this problem. I would ask my colleagues to think very hard about that. Drugs are a demand problem in the United States. There is no question about that. And there are a lot of weapons going back and forth across the border. But we should remember that the Mexican drug cartels are capable of a very sophisticated level of quasi-military violence. Many of the members in the cartels are former Mexican military, some trained by our own Special Forces and the weapons that they use are not the kind of weapons you buy at a gun show. You don't get automatic weapons, r.p.g.'s and grenades at a gun show.

We have to realize the these cartels have a lot of money. By some indications they make profit levels of about $25 billion a year. They can buy the weapons they want. We have to get on top of this as a national priority. Again, it's not simply the transnational gangs that come out of Mexico. Many of them are Central American. Here in Northern Virginia we have thousands of members right across the Potomac River, who belong to the MS-13 gangs separating from Central America and there are also Asian gangs. We have to get our arms around this problem as we address mass incarceration in the United States.

Another piece of this issue that I hope we will address with this National Criminal Justice Commission is what happens inside our prisons. When I was looking at the Japanese system many years ago, their model in terms of prison administration was basically designed after a traditional military model. You could not be a warden in a Japanese jail unless you started as a turnkey. They had national examinations, a year of preparation, and training in psychology and counseling techniques, before an individual was allowed to be a turnkey in a jail. The promotion systems were internal just like the United States military. It provided a quality career path. And it brought highly trained people in at the very beginning. We don't have that in America. Prisons vary warden to warden. They vary locality to locality. We need to examine a better way to do that in our country.

We also have a situation in this country with respect to prison violence and sexual victimization that is off the charts and we must get our arms around this problem. We also have many people in our prisons who are among what are called the criminally ill, many suffering from hepatitis and HIV who are not getting the sorts of treatment they deserve. I started once I arrived in the Senate working on this issue.

I was pleased to be working with Senator Schumer on the Joint Economic Committee. He allowed me to chair hearings to try to get our arms around this problem and see what sort of legislative approach might help. I chaired a hearing on mass incarceration in October of 2007 and I chaired another hearing last year on the overall impact of illegal drugs from point of origin through the criminal justice system; how does this work in terms of the underground business environment; how does it work in terms of the disparity in terms in treatment of those incarcerated; what are the costs associated with it. I was able to work with the George Mason University Law Center to put together a forum bringing people in from across the country to talk about our overall drug policy.

Once we started talking about this particularly over the last year we started being contacted from people all across the country -- people from every different aspect of the political and the philosophical areas that come into play when we talk about incarceration. It is a very emotional issue. I heard from Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court, from prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, people in prison, and police on the street. All of them are saying we have a mess here - a mess - that we have to get a holistic view of how to solve it.

There are many good pieces of legislation introduced in the Congress to address different pieces of this but after going through this process over the past year, I’ve come to the conclusion that the way we should address this is with a national commission that will examine all of these pieces together and make specific findings so we can turn it around. These are just examples of some of the editorial support that we have received. I have written a piece for "Parade” magazine, which will be out this weekend. I hope our fellow citizens will take a look at it. I did as best I can to summarize the challenges that we have.

Now, as to the design of this legislation, we are looking for two things. One is to shape a commission with bipartisan balance – the President nominating the Leader; the Majority Leader and Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress, in concert with the Judiciary Committees; each being able to appoint two members, and then the National Governors Association, Republican and Democratic, each getting one member.

And the idea, again, is not to have a group of people who are going to sit around and simply remonstrate about the problem, it is to get a group of people with credibility in our country, wide expertise, to examine specific findings and to come up with policy recommendations in an 18-month time period.

The issues that we have put into the legislation are:

What are the reasons in our own history that we've seen this incredible increase in incarceration?

What do other countries do, particularly other countries that have the same basic governmental systems that we do, how do they handle comparable types of crime?

What should we do about prison administration policies and prison management?

How can we bring more quality, stability, and predictability in terms of the prison environment itself?

What are the costs of the current incarceration policies; not only in terms of the billions of dollars that we spend on building prisons or the billions of dollars we spend on housing people in prisons, but in terms of lost opportunities with our post-prison systems and how we can better manage that area?

Also what is the impact of gang activities, including these transnational gangs?

How should we approach that issue, not simply in terms of incarceration, but as a nation that is under duress from not being able to respond properly to these gang activities?

Importantly, what are we going to do about drug policy - the whole area of drug policy in this country?

And how does that affect sentencing procedures and other alternatives that we might look at?

We need to examine the policies as they relate to the mentally ill.

We should look at the historical role of the military when it comes to how we are approaching these cross-border situations, particularly on the Mexican border.

And, importantly -- I want to say this to all of my colleagues -- any other area that the Commission deems relevant.

This is our best effort, after two years, at coming up with a universe that needs to be examined. There are many people, including the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania here on the floor, who have worked on these areas for a number of years, and if they have specific findings that they believe the Commission should review, we are very happy to accommodate that.

The first step for the Commission would be to give us factual findings, and from those findings, the second step would be to give us recommendations for policy changes. The same areas that I was just addressing in terms of the findings apply in terms of the policy recommendations: how we can refocus our incarceration policies, work toward properly reducing the incarceration rate in fair, cost-effective ways that still protect our communities; how we should address the issue of prison violence in all forms; how we can improve prison administration; how we can establish meaningful re-entry programs.

I believe that with the high volume of people who are coming out of prisons, we must, on a national level, assist local and state communities in figuring out a way to transition these people so that those former offenders who are not going to become recidivists will have a true pathway to get away from the stigma of incarceration and move into a productive future.

Again, importantly, the last category: any other aspect of the system that the Commission or the people participating in it determine necessary. This is our approach. I am very gratified to have had as initial cosponsors on this legislation six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including, as I mentioned, the Chairman, Senator Leahy; the Ranking Republican, Senator Specter; the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Senator Durbin; the Ranking Republican on that Subcommittee, Senator Graham; and a number of others, including our key Democratic leadership, most importantly our Leader. I would hope that we can get this legislation done this year. This is an issue that doesn't percolate up in the same way. It doesn't have a programmatic element to it, in many cases, but it is an issue that threatens every community in the United States and begs for the notion of fairness.

With that, I see that the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania is on the Floor. I want to say how greatly I admire the work that he has done in this area over many, many years and how much I appreciate his support on this endeavor.

I would like to express my appreciation to the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania for joining me on this legislation and in this endeavor, because it will be an endeavor, as the Senator knows, well beyond the legislative approval of the Commission. I would think this is going to take years. But I would like to express my appreciation for that, for his comments today and for all the work he's done in this field.

………………………..

I would just like to emphasize a couple of things in reaction to what the Senator [Arlen Specter] mentioned. I do believe we can meaningfully address this problem. A solution is perhaps a more elusive word but we can certainly meaningfully address this problem. I think it's very important to say that it is in the interest of every American that we do so. There are a lot of people who will look at this and talk about specific elements of who has committed a crime and whether you should do the time and these sorts of things, but we really need to sort it out.

When we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population, there are better ways. When we still have public safety issues in every community because of gang violence, and particularly transnational gang violence at this moment, there are better ways. That is the purpose of having a commission, getting the greatest minds in this area in the country together with a specific timeline to bring us specific findings and recommendations for the entire gamut of criminal justice in this country. Not simply incarceration, not simply gang violence, not simply reentry, but all of those and others together so that we can have a much-needed and long overdue restructuring of how we address the issue of crime in this country.



COMMENTS

I understand that we have more people in prison now than we had in 1925 as the graph indicates, and I also understand that there is a larger percentage of the population in prison.

I also know that the population has, as a whole, increased exponentially and that we also have more laws to violate.

What bothers me about these one sided kinds of posts is the ignoring of these factors in an effort to push your agenda.

I also know that the population has, as a whole, increased exponentially

US population, 1970: 203,211,926 US population, 2000: 281,421,906

That amounts to a little less than a 40% population increase. Per the figure in the post, the prison population increased by 900% over that same span. It's laughable that anyone would claim that our prison population has mirrored our overall population.

And the whole point of Webb's remarks, and presumably Ezra's post as well, is that the problem is precisely that we, as you said, have more laws to violate, and that this is a serious concern (in particular, the rules requiring incarceration of non-violent drug offenders). How is it exactly that this post qualifies a trojan horse for Ezra's scary agenda?

*qualifies as a trojan horse, excuse me.

El Viajero: I'll pose Webb's question to you. Given that our incarceration rate is more than 5% the rate of the rest of the world, are Americans the most evil, criminally-inclined people on the planet or are we doing something wrong?

When Webb talks about the relationship between the prison system and the military, he's probably mindful that many vets now look to prison work after their term of duty is complete. It's an awkward transition at best for the reasons he sets out.

The difficulty that Webb faces is implementation on the state level.

Prisons are big business. They're also a useful political tool in a governor's or state legislative arsenal. As Tracy Huling noted in 2002:

Since 1980, the majority of new prisons built to accommodate the expanding U.S. prison population have been placed in non-metropolitan areas, with the result that the majority of prisoners are now housed in rural America. By contrast, prior to 1980, only 36% of prisons were located in rural communities and small towns.

To be explicit: rural towns (almost always with tiny minority populations) seek out prisons to replace jobs lost in declining industries. Prisons have been treated as economic stimulus, creating a new kind of "factory town" where the industry is incarceration.

One knock-on effect is that many prisoners serving sentences short enough that rehabilitation starts on day one end up in hard-to-reach facilities hundreds of miles from their families. It's not bleeding-heart to want visitation made easier; it's a pragmatic way to decrease the prospect of the exit gate becoming a revolving door.

The overriding question needs to be this: what is the function of the prison system in the US, as it currently stands? At least in part, it has become the welfare system that too many Americans are most comfortable paying for.

And I like how he focuses on the fact that the mass incarceration policy means that police are continually fighting the last battle, cracking down on whatever the latest crime outraging the public is. Meanwhile, dangers loom with no attention paid to them.

Smart way of looking at it.

Reminds me of the Frontline where the feds who saw the meth crisis coming couldn't get any action to head it off, because it wasn't what the media were hyping that year. It's sort of a lagging edge approach to crime.

Gee, if I'd known is was so hard to stay out of prison in the United States, I'd have been a lot more scared.

All I did was abide by the law.

Amazing!

Gee, you're babbling again, Viajero. And that's because you have nothing to say.

All I did was abide by the law.

Uh huh. You have complete records of your speedometer and blood-alcohol throughout your adult life? Or, to put it another way, would you feel comfortable with a War On Driving 45 In A 35 Zone?

All you did was get away with it.

What is the function of the prison system, as it stands right now, in the United States?

You have complete records of your speedometer and blood-alcohol throughout your adult life? Or, to put it another way, would you feel comfortable with a War On Driving 45 In A 35 Zone?

What a complete maroon! He thinks everyone in prison is innocent!!
No one goes to prison for speeding 45 in a 35 and no one goes to prison for DWI unless you are a chronic offender. Perhape he is a chronic alcohol offender and is projecting...who knows?

People in prison knew the rules. Sell heroin, go to prioson. Rob a store, go to prison. Beat your spouse to a bloody pulp, go to prison.

While I'm open to repealing laws, instead of simply sitting around bitching about it from a druken stupor in some stinky bar in Philly, I suggest you make your case to your state legislature (dumbshit).

"No one goes to prison for speeding 45 in a 35 and no one goes to prison for DWI unless you are a chronic offender."

Yes, people in prison know the rules. Drink at a party with your office friends, drive home tipsy, risking life and limb, fine. Possess certain types of the wrong types of drugs (and be the wrong sort of person), go to prison.

Cheat on your taxes, repeatedly, cheating the government of millions in dollars in the aggregate, fine. If you don't have enough money, and do so for small change, be charged with welfare fraud. Shoplift small items a few times, go to jail.

Pollute the environment with company, breaking environmental laws, at best get a fine. Health and even life of millions at risk. Sells drugs to rich white boys, go to jail for years.

The rules are out there, but only some of us have to worry about them. Challenging the point makes one a moron.

You really ought to stop shouting at the people in your head, Viajero. It's the kind of thing that can get you locked up.

Joe's right, of course: selective enforcement means that if you write a dud check for $50, you'll spend as much time in jail as a securities fraudster, or if you're caught with pot in Athens or Columbia or Durham, your fate depends upon whether your house has a big porch and Greek letters out front.

Which goes back to my original question: as currently constituted, what does the prison system actually do? At least in part, it allows bigots like Viajero to believe that Those People are Getting What They Deserve.

Joe,

If you know the rules, the rules that were promulgated through a democratic process and rules that we all know, and you willingly break those rules and you wind up prosecuted, how's any of that an 'injustice'?

Why do you hate democracy?

"Gee, if I'd known is was so hard to stay out of prison in the United States, I'd have been a lot more scared.

All I did was abide by the law.

Amazing!"

It's El Viajero's World And We're Just Living In It.

Good luck with that El.

Christian,

If you disagree with the democratically promulgated laws we have, then you have two choices.

1) You can make your case and try and change the laws you don't think are just..

*OR*

2) You can pick and choose to ignore the laws you don't like.

You seem to think that number two is the way to go. The long-term unintended consequenses of choosing number two is that there are others out there who also have ideas...different ideas...of which laws they would like to ignore.

You may wish to ignore the federal laws against marijuana. They may wish to ignore federal laws against discrimination or ignore laws against violating civil rights. Choosing number two sets the precendence for the other side to do the same.

It's a dangerous path you choose. We are, after all, a nation of laws. To be otherwise is intolerable.

Rethink this choice.

Your faith in the local/federal government to mete out scientific justice is touching if not completely out of reason.

Your de facto assumption is that all people are in jail because they deserved it when the facts are such that many innocent people are jailed and even executed.

If your home was wrongly raided by the DEA and your family dog shot in front of your wife as happened to the mayor of Maryland...you might abandon your simplistic black and white view. The facts are out there, but your ideology binds you.

And what would have been your advice to black people sitting at counters in the 50's and 60's? They broke the law!

Christian,

The two choice above are the only ones I see. If you see more options, please share them with us.

I guess you won't mind those who bomb empty abortion providers because they, too, are following their conscience. They can simply ignore the law if they feel strongly enough?

Right?

Shorter Viajero: "locking up Those People is the only thing separating us from anarchy!"

What a pathetic dodge. How about he addresses what Senator Webb said:

There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.

Which is it to be?

Selective enforcement means that the people making the arrests and handing down the sentences are choosing who can ignore the laws on the books. The dirty little secret is that the people who support that approach to criminal justice are the ones who are sure that they'll never be on the wrong side of the law.

Post a comment



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Search for:

About Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein is an associate editor at The American Prospect. An archive of his articles for The American Prospect can be found here.

Email | RSS | Twitter

Link Blog:


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2009 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints