AZ Prosecutors' "Truth-in-Sentencing" Propaganda

I didn't post the press release below when it first came out because it's propaganda of the highest order. The state's prosecutors are all just trying to justify their mandatory minimums and derail any efforts at sentencing and prison reform this year. The AZ Department of Corrections own data shows that there's been a decrease, not an increase, in the violent criminals they've been committing in the past two years - it's not an inherently more violent population of prisoners - it's a more abusive and neglectful administration.

Az Department of Corrections:

decrease in committed violent offenders 2009-2011, from their annual report. 

Fischer's last report for the state prosecutors association (Prisoners in Arizona: A Profile of the Inmate Population) was a huge distortion to manipulate the public's fears, too (here's the PR campaign that went with that one, and the excellent, detailed report put out by AZ Attorneys for Criminal Justice disputing it). Deception seems to be the only way the state prosecutors association can make it's case, which means they don't have much of one to begin with. Here are minutes to the 2010 AZ House Committee on Sentencing Reform where Professor Mona Lynch - also an "expert" on criminal justice in Arizona - takes that report apart.

This interview on KJZZ about the more recent report - with criminologist Franklin Zimring, Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk - is pretty interesting. Zimring's done a lot of research on the claims the prosecutors assert himself, and dispels many of the myths this kind of thing perpetuates.

For a look at what else may be behind the escalating violence in AZ state prisons, check out my blog post on it here...

Speaking of truth-in-sentencing and our tough state prosecutors, check out how seriously Barbara LaWall's office (Pima County Attorney) takes sexual abuse of children when perpetrated by corrections' officers...How is it "truth-in-sentencing" when double standards for law enforcement officers remain?

----------from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office-----

Landmark Study Underscores Success of Arizona’s Sentencing Laws

PHOENIX, AZ (January 5, 2012) – Arizona has prevented more than a million crimes since 1994 by incarcerating its most dangerous criminals, according to a major research study released today. Titled Prisoners in Arizona: Truth-in-Sentencing, Time Served and Recidivism, the study concludes that Arizona’s Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) laws, which ensure that convicted criminals serve at least 85% of their sentence, led to a 17.7% drop in reported crime over a fifteen year period after TIS laws were enacted in 1994.

“This study provides the crucial element that has been missing from the public policy discussion about our criminal justice system, namely, facts,” said Maricopa County Bill Montgomery. “What this research shows is that our current sentencing laws are putting the right people in prison for the right reasons and keeping us all safer as a result,” he added.

Commissioned by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, the study notes that Arizona’s crime rate fell by 38.5% from 2002 to 2010, more than twice the national rate. At the same time, Arizona’s prison population has become increasingly violent. According to the study, more than 95% of inmates are violent and/or repeat felony offenders.

The study also found that, contrary to popular belief, Arizona’s prison population has been on a steady downward trend since 2009, dropping by an average of 31 inmates per month after growing by more than 100 inmates per month for 38 years. These numbers reflect the success of diversion programs, substance abuse treatment, probation and other prison alternatives that have prevented low-level offenders from transitioning to full time criminal careers.

“These are precisely the outcomes that proponents of sentencing reform predicted nearly two decades ago,” said Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who serves as Chairman of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council. “The very clear, documented benefits we are seeing in Arizona should serve as an important guide to other states that are looking at making similar reforms to their sentencing systems,” Polk added.

Prisoners in Arizona is authored by Daryl R. Fischer, Ph.D., a widely respected expert on criminal justice statistical analysis and former Research Manager for the Arizona Department of Corrections. The study builds on a foundation of information presented in an earlier study Dr. Fischer conducted in 2010. Prisoners in Arizona is available for download at www.azsentencing.org.

Cut prisons or schools? It shouldn’t be this hard

From: Arizona Daily Wildcat

By Kristina Bui
Published: Friday, November 19, 2010

Arizona's facing an ugly budget battle, and higher education is looking like just another drafted casualty in the war against deficits.

But don't worry about it, Rep. John Kavanagh. It's totally cool. I've only been hanging out in college to kill time, since I couldn't find anything to watch on TV. I didn't actually want that whole degree thing anyway.

According to Arizona Daily Star reporter Becky Pallack, the budget cut could be as large as $200 million. Making up that loss would force the UA to cut 25 percent of its entire payroll, or raise tuition by $9,000, roughly doubling the cost of in-state tuition. Neither will be met with support by the public, but the Legislature refuses to explore other options.

Kavanagh, the Arizona House Appropriations chairman, told the Daily Star that cutting university funding was one of a limited number of options for solving the state's deficit problem. The state universities haven't cut out enough administrative bloat, he said, and they would be able to compensate for the loss in funding by simply raising tuition costs some more.

There is nothing new about a politician who brushes aside education as soon as money gets tight. Nor is anyone surprised by the earnest student who begs him to hear cheesy variations of "America's students are America's future."

What is new is the politician who is also an educator. Kavanagh is a professor of criminal justice at Scottsdale Community College and a former instructor at Arizona State University. I respect Kavanagh's position as a legislator, but wonder about his perspective as a teacher. All jokes about his affiliation with ASU aside, his rationalization for cutting university funding because tuition can make up for the loss is baffling. As a professor, Kavanagh knows firsthand who's affected by tuition increases.

Students are being prepared to enter a workforce, one that has to be educated and skilled to attract job-creating businesses to the state. Ironically, such businesses would shape a healthy economy. Strange how that works out.

Rep. Bill Konopnicki, who will leave the Legislature in January, and Rep. Cecil Ash proposed an alternative: Cut funding for state prisons by reconsidering sentencing laws. Ash has vowed to propose legislation next year that would loosen mandatory-sentencing laws to save Arizona millions of dollars spent on non-violent criminals.

Read the rest here.

Prisoner and Family Allies Needed: House Sentencing Committee

Thanks to my friends and families for the heads up on this, which is coming up this Thursday...mail or your testimony for the committee in this week, or come sign up and talk to them. I can't imagine it would be that difficult if we're there early enough.

-------------------

House Sentencing Committee Agenda for 2/4/2010

Thursday, February 4, at 2:00p.m.

(after the adjournment of Floor)

Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/InterimCommittees.asp 

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

INTERIM MEETING NOTICE

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

HOUSE STUDY COMMITTEE ON SENTENCING

Date:              Thursday, February 4, 2010

Time:             2:00 P.M. or on recess or adjournment of

  Second Regular and Sixth Special Sessions

Place:                        HHR 5

AGENDA

1.	Call to Order
2.	Opening Remarks
3.	Testimony on Sentencing: ·       Jerry Madden, Texas State Representative; Vice-Chair, House Corrections Committee; Member, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee ·         Dana Hlavac, Deputy County Manager, Mohave County Criminal Justice Services ·         Robert Hirsh, Pima County Public Defender ·         James Logan, Director of Public Defense Services, Maricopa County ·         Misty Rae, President, Arizona Prison Wives Club ·         John Huppenthal, Arizona State Senator, District 2
4.	Public Testimony
5.	Discussion
6.	Adjourn

Members:

Representative Cecil Ash, Chair
Representative Doris Goodale
Representative Laurin Hendrix
Representative Bill Konopnicki
Representative Kyrsten Sinema
Representative Anna Tovar

2/1/10

jmb

People with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations such as interpreters, alternative formats, or assistance with physical accessibility.  If you require accommodations, please contact the Chief Clerk's Office at (602) 926-3032, TDD (602) 926-3241.

 Maureen Williams

Assistant to Representative

   Cecil Ash, District 18

       602-926-3695

   mwilliams@azleg.gov

Sex Work, Race, and Misogyny: Time to Change these Laws.

This came to my attention via Vikki Law today, the author of Resistance Behind Bars. 

I find it deeply troubling. Sex work should not be a crime - much less compel registration as a sex offender.


Here, by the way, is info on laws regarding prostitution in Arizona. I think we need to change the laws. First we need to change the lawmakers, though - before they do too much more damage:

------------------

Prostitution/Solicitation of Prostitution

The Law

In Arizona, under A.R.S. §13-3214(A) "it is unlawful for a person to knowingly engage in prostitution."
Prostitution is defined under A.R.S. §13-3211(5) as "engaging in or agreeing or offering to engage in sexual conduct under a fee arrangement with any person for money or any other valuable consideration." 

Potential Penalties

A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor and carries a maximum six month jail sentence. A first offense of this section carries a mandatory minimum 15 day jail sentence; a second offense carries a mandatory minimum 30 day jail sentence; a third offense carries a mandatory minimum 90 day jail sentence.

A person who has been convicted of three or more violations of this section and who commits a subsequent violation of this section is guilty of a class 5 felony and must serve a mandatory minimum of 180 days jail, and may be face imprisonment. (Please see our "Classification of Offenses" page for specific provisions on felony sentencing provisions.)

In addition to these penalties, the court, in its discretion, may require the person convicted to register as a sex offender pursuant to A.R.S. §13-3821(C), although such registration is not mandatory. 

Also, pursuant to A.R.S. §13-3214(B), cities or towns may enact and enforce ordinances to suppress and prohibit prostitution, and provide a punishment for misdemeanor violations that is at least as strict as A.R.S. §13-3214(A).

from the website of keith barton law.

------------------

Her Crime? Sex Work in New Orleans

More than half of the people on Louisiana's Sex Offender Registry - which was designed for rapists and child molesters - are indigent women convicted of sex work

By Jordan Flaherty, for ColorLines Magazine
http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=673
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-flaherty/her-crime-sex-work-in-new_b_424774.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/19/new-orleans-cops-use.html

Tabitha has been working as a prostitute in New Orleans since she was 13. Now 30 years old, she can often be found working on a corner just outside of the French Quarter. A small and slight white woman, she has battled both drug addiction and illness and struggles every day to find a meal or a place to stay for the night.

These days, Tabitha, who asked that her real name not be used in this story, has yet another burden: a stamp printed on her driver’s license labels her a sex offender. Her crime? Offering sex for money.

New Orleans city police and the district attorney’s office are using a state law written for child molesters to charge hundreds of sex workers like Tabitha as sex offenders. The law, which dates back to 1805, declares it a crime against nature to engage in “unnatural copulation”—a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney’s office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex. Sex workers convicted of breaking this law are charged with felonies, issued longer jail sentences and forced to register as sex offenders.

Of the 861 sex offenders currently registered in New Orleans, 483 were convicted of a crime against nature, according to Doug Cain, a spokesperson with the Louisiana State Police. And of those convicted of a crime against nature, 78 percent are Black and almost all are women.

Impacts on Women's Lives

The law impacts sex workers in both small and large ways. Tabitha has to register an address in the sex offender database. Her driver’s license has the label “sex offender” printed on it. She also has to purchase and mail postcards with her picture to everyone in the neighborhood informing them of her conviction. If she needs to evacuate to a shelter during a hurricane, she must evacuate to a special shelter for sex offenders, and this shelter has no separate safe spaces for women. She is even prohibited from ordinary activities in New Orleans like wearing a costume at Mardi Gras.

“This law completely disconnects our community members from what remains of a social safety net,” said Deon Haywood, director of Women With A Vision, an organization that promotes wellness and disease prevention for women who live in poverty. Haywood’s group has formed a new coalition of New Orleans activists and health workers who are organizing to fight the way police are abusing the 1805 law.

Activists like Haywood believe that using the law in this way is part of an overall policy by the New Orleans Police Department to go after petty offenses. According to a report from the Metropolitan Crime Commission, New Orleans police arrest more than 58,000 people every year. Of those arrested, nearly 50 percent are for traffic and municipal offenses, and only 5 percent are for violent crimes.

“What this is really about is over-incarcerating poor and of-color communities,” said Rosana Cruz of VOTE (Voice Of The Ex-offender), a prison reform organization that is also a part of the new coalition.

Haywood, Cruz and other activists believe they have an opportunity with the mayoral and city council elections next month to change the system. With all of the candidates attempting to distance themselves from Mayor Nagin, who is prevented by term limits from running again, the new mayor is likely to be open to making changes. This includes hiring a new police chief, as all the candidates have pledged to do. Advocates are hoping this is an opportunity to shift the department’s focus. “When there's a new police chief, we can educate them,” said Haywood.

Many of the women Haywood’s group works with are at the most high-risk tier of sex work. They meet customers on the street and in bars. Most are dealing with addiction and homelessness, and many cannot get food stamps or other public assistance because of felony convictions on their record.

“I’m hoping that the situation will look different because of this coalition,” Haywood said. “I can’t tell you how overwhelmed we’ve been from the needs of this population.”

Condemned

Miss Jackie is one of those women. A Black woman in her 50s, she was arrested for sex work in 1999 and charged as a sex offender. Her name was added to the registry for 10 years. When the registration period was almost over she was arrested for possession of crack. She says the arresting officer didn’t find any drugs on her person, but the judge ruled that she needed to continue to register as a sex offender for another 15 years (the new federal requirement for sex offenders) because her arrest was a violation of her registration period.

"Where is the justice?” she asked, speaking through tears. “How do they expect me to straighten out my life?” Struggling with basic needs like housing, Miss Jackie added: “I feel condemned."

Advocates and former defendants claim that the decision over who is charged under which penalty is made arbitrarily, at the discretion of police and the district attorney’s office, and that the law disproportionately affects Black people, as well as transgender women. When asked about the allegations of abusing the crime against nature statue, New Orleans Police Department spokesman Bob Young responded: “Persons are charged according to the crime they commit.”

Wendi Cooper’s story, however, paints a different picture.

In 1999, Cooper had recently come out as transgender. A Black transwoman, she tried prostitution a few times and quickly discovered it wasn’t for her. But before she quit, she was arrested. At the time, Cooper was happy to take a plea that allowed her to get out of jail and didn’t think much about what the “crime against nature” conviction would mean on her record. As she got older and began work as a healthcare professional, the weight of the sex offender label began to upset her more and more. “This is not me,” she said. “I’m not that person who the state labeled me as…it slanders me.”

Cooper appealed to the state to have her record expunged and talked to lawyers about other options, but she still must register for at least another five years and potentially longer. “I feel like I was manipulated, you know, pleading guilty to this crime…And it’s hard, knowing that you are called something that you’re not,” she said. She is also afraid now that the conviction will prevent her from getting her license as a registered nurse or from being hired.

Although some women have tried to fight the sex offender charges in court, they’ve had little success. The penalties they face became even harsher in 2006 when Congress passed the Adam Walsh act, requiring tier-1 (the least serious) sex offenders to stay in the public registry for 15 years. There’s also an added danger to fighting the charges, according to Josh Perry, a former attorney with the Orleans Public Defenders office.

“The way Louisiana’s habitual offender law works, if you challenge your sentence in court and lose, and it’s a third offense, the mandatory minimum is 20 years. The maximum is life,” he explained.

Perry estimates that on an average day two or three people are arrested for prostitution in New Orleans, and about half of them are charged under the crime against nature statute. “Right now, there are 39 people being held at Orleans Parish Prison [for] crimes against nature,” Perry told a gathering of advocates. “And another 15 to 20 people…charged with failure to register as a sex offender.”

Sex workers accused as sex offenders face discrimination in every aspect of the system. In most cases, they cannot get released on bond, because they are seen as a higher risk of flight than people charged with violent crimes. “This is the level of stigma and dysfunction that we’re talking about here,” said Perry. “Realistically, they’re not getting out.”

Organizing for Change

Advocates have said the ideal solution would be to get state lawmakers to change the law, but they feel there’s little hope of positive reforms from the current legislature. For now, organizers want to put pressure on police and the district attorney’s office to stop charging sex workers under the crime against nature statute.

There is a great deal of work that needs to be done. Haywood is working with lawyers and national allies to develop a legal strategy, as well as a broad local coalition that includes criminal justice reform organizations like VOTE-NOLA and activist groups like the New Orleans chapters of Critical Resistance and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence.

“We’re trying to organize, but we’re also working on the human rights side of how it’s affecting their lives,” she said. “This is a population that works in crisis mode all the time.”

Jennifer, a 23-year-old white woman who asked that her real name not be used in this story, has been working as a prostitute since she was a teenager, and also works as a stripper at a club on Bourbon Street. She recently broke free of an eight-year heroin addiction. Unless the law changes, she will have the words “sex offender” on her driver’s license until she is 48 years old.

Haywood said that stories like this show that the law has the effect of forcing women to continue with sex work. “When you charge young women with this—when you label them as a sex offender—this is what they are for the rest of their lives,” she said.

Jennifer said it’s affected her job options. “I’m not sure what they think, but a lot of places wont hire sex offenders,” she said.

Haywood said the women she sees have few options. Many of them are homeless. They are sleeping in abandoned houses or on the street, or they are trading sex for a place to stay. “The women we work with, they don't call it sex work,” she said. “They don't know what that means. They don’t even call it prostitution. They call it survival.”


Jordan Flaherty is a journalist, an editor of Left Turn Magazine, and a staffer with the Louisiana Justice Institute (http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com). He was the first writer to bring the story of the Jena Six to a national audience and audiences around the world have seen the television reports he’s produced for Al-Jazeera, TeleSur, GritTV, and Democracy Now. His post-Katrina reporting for ColorLines shared an award from New America Media for best Katrina-related reporting in ethnic press. Haymarket Press will release his new book, FLOODLINES: Stories of Community and Resistance from Katrina to the Jena Six, in 2010. He can be reached at neworleans@leftturn.org.

Wendi Cooper, Deon Haywood, and other advocates mentioned in this article are available for interviews.

Photos for article by Abdul Aziz for ColorLines, http://photoactivist.blogspot.com.

Organizations Mentioned in this article:
Women With A Vision: http://wwav-no.org
V.O.T.E.: http://www.vote-nola.org

Recent Reporting by Jordan Flaherty:
New Orleans' Heart is in Haiti:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-flaherty/new-orleans-heart-is-in-h_b_427108.html
Discriminatory Housing Lockouts Amid Post-Katrina Rebuilding: http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=617
Homeless and Struggling in New Orleans: http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=591

Other Resources:
Louisiana Justice Institute: http://www.louisianajusticeinstitute.org
Justice Roars: http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com
Project Transparency: http://www.nolapublicrecords.org
Left Turn Magazine: http://www.leftturn.org

Morrison Institute: Less Prison, More Probation.

This from an unexpected place: The Morrison Institute. Thank you folks, for speaking up. Please do more work on this issue in the coming year in the community - don't just keep it to your academic newsletters and blogs.

--------------

Bill Hart: Time to open the prison gates?

Dec. 23, 2009

Bill Hart, Senior Policy Analyst

Another fine mess. That’s one way of describing Arizona’s overcrowded, billion-dollar prison system, so many of whose graduates — apparently uncorrected — go on to commit more crimes. “Train wreck” is another useful phrase. But it’s worth keeping in mind the one thing Arizona’s prison crisis is not: It’s not a mystery.

Nor is its solution.

Consider the twin basics of Arizona’s prison policy over the past 30 years: First, pass a bunch of laws requiring lots more convicted criminals to be sent to prison (e.g., mandatory minimum sentences); second, pass other laws making most prisoners stay inside longer (e.g. “truth-in-sentencing”).

What did we think would happen?

Arizona for years has ranked among the top 10 states in its incarceration rate, measured as the number of people locked up per 100,000 state residents. Meanwhile, in the past 30 years corrections has run up a larger percentage increase in operating spending than any other Arizona agency. Since just fiscal year 2004 we have added more than 11,000 inmates at a cost of more than $400 million.

Why the rush to lock everybody up? Some say Arizonans simply have a lust for punishment. Fans of incarceration, however, are quick to point out that crime in Arizona has declined since the 1990s. They are less quick to note that America’s leading criminal justice scholars do not agree that incarceration deserves all or even most of the credit for the crime drop. Or that crime has gone down in both states with harsher justice systems and those with milder ones. Or that Arizona continues to hold down first place among states in the rate of property crime as measured by the FBI.

In any case, we’re left with two unpleasant alternatives: Either let substantial numbers of prisoners out early, or continue to struggle through the budget mess hobbled by this billion-dollar ball and chain.

Like it or not, it’s time to open the gates. 

What about the nightmare of wanton violence that opponents warn of? Most inmates in Arizona prisons are locked up for non-violent crimes (though they might be repetitive offenders). Their most common offense by far is drug crimes, which accounted for 8,388 inmates in November, or about one-fifth of all prisoners. Next in frequency come the expected categories: assault (4,976), robbery (3,485), burglary (2,959), and murder (2,606). Then, however, comes aggravated DUI, which requires 2,188 prisoners to serve a total of four months behind bars.

 Which raises another question: Why are we going to all the trouble and expense of sending thousands of drunk drivers to prison (as opposed to jail or home arrest) for only four months? 

In fact, 39% of the total FY2008 inmate population was locked up for less than six months. Most of these are convicts who were granted probation or parole — that is, they were deemed low-risk enough to remain free or be released. Many of most were then locked up for “technical” violations, meaning they didn’t commit a new crime but perhaps missed a meeting with their probation officer or otherwise broke the rules.

It’s hard to see how releasing some of them early — and diverting many more incoming inmates to probation or jail — would pose a threat to the survival of civilization. It’s easier to see the upside: Keeping an inmate in an Arizona prison for a year averages out to around $22,000. Keeping someone on probation for a year runs slightly more than $1,000. 

No mystery here.

Prison numbers may see 1st drop since early '70s
Changes due to tight budgets a factor
Arizona Republic
by Jeff Carlton
Dec. 20, 2009 12:00 AM
Associated Press

DALLAS - The United States may soon see its prison population drop for the first time in almost four decades, a milestone in a nation that locks up more people than any other.

The inmate population has risen steadily since the early 1970s as states adopted get-tough policies that sent more people to prison and kept them there longer. But tight budgets now have states rethinking these policies and the costs that come with them.

"It's a reversal of a trend that's been going on for more than a generation," said David Greenberg, a sociology professor at New York University. "In some ways, it's overdue."

The U.S. prison population dropped steadily during most of the 1960s, and there were a few small dips in 1970 and 1972. But it has risen every year since, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.


About 739,000 prisoners were admitted to state and federal facilities last year, about 3,500 more than were released, according to new figures from the bureau. The 0.8 percent growth in the prison population is the smallest annual increase this decade and significantly less than the 6.5 percent average annual growth of the 1990s.

Overall, there were 1.6 million prisoners in state and federal prisons at the end of 2008.

In the past, prison populations have been lower when drafts were enacted, including during the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

"People who go to war are young men, and young men are the most likely to get arrested or prosecuted," said James Austin, president of the JFA Institute, a research organization that advises states on prison issues.
The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't involved a draft.

Instead, the economic crisis forced states to reconsider whom they put behind bars and how long they kept them there, said Kim English, research director for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice.

In Texas, parole rates were once among the lowest in the nation, with as few as 15 percent of inmates being released as recently as five years ago. Now, the parole rate is more than 30 percent after Texas began identifying low-risk candidates for parole.

In Mississippi, a truth-in-sentencing law required drug offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences. That's been reduced to less than 25 percent.

California's budget problems are expected to result in the release of 37,000 inmates in the next two years. The state also is under a federal court order to shed 40,000 inmates because its prisons are so overcrowded that they are no longer constitutional, Austin said.

States are looking at ways to keep people from entering prison. A nationwide system of drug courts takes first-time felony offenders caught with less than a gram of illegal drugs and sets up a monitoring team to help with case management and therapy.

Studies have touted significant savings with drug courts, saying they cost 10 percent to 30 percent less than it costs to send someone to prison.

"I don't think they work. I know so," said Judge John Creuzot, a state district judge in Dallas.

Federal Mandatory Sentences to be Reviewed

It's about time...When is Arizona going to step up and review our sentencing guidelines?
-----------------
Wall Street Journal

By GARY FIELDS
November 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Congress has ordered the panel that advises judges on prison terms to conduct a review of mandatory-minimum sentences, a move that could lead to a dramatic rethinking of how the U.S. incarcerates its criminals.

The review is a little-noticed element of the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law last month by President Barack Obama. The defense-spending bill calls on the commission to perform several tasks, including an examination of the impact of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws and alternatives to the practice.

Congress in the 1980s began passing mandatory-minimum laws, which dictate the minimum sentence a judge must hand out for a particular crime. Among the results were longer sentences, increased prison populations and ballooning budgets.

Amid cost concerns in recent years, states have tried to reverse the trend. At least 26 states have cut corrections spending recently and at least 17 are closing prisons or reducing their inmate populations, according to the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York nonprofit that studies sentencing and criminal-justice policies.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which advises judges on all other sentences, has now been charged with issuing recommendations on mandatory minimums. Any final change in sentencing law would have to come from Congress.

"It's going to be a massive undertaking," said the new chairman of the Sentencing Commission, William Sessions III.

Mr. Sessions, who is also the chief federal judge in Vermont, said the review would include everything from determining the effects of minimums on the size of the prison population, to spending and the social impact of the policies. "In my view," he said, "it's a very open-ended request."

The inmate population in federal prisons has risen from 24,000 in 1980 to 209,000 as of Nov. 5. Over the same period, the federal Bureau of Prisons staff has grown from 10,000 to about 36,000 employees.

The commission has pushed for changes in mandatory minimums, such as ending the disparity in sentencing for crimes involving crack-cocaine and powder cocaine. Several proposals are pending in Congress to address the crack-cocaine issue. But the commission has not done a full-scale examination of federal sentencing laws since 1991. At the time, there were only 60 mandatory-minimum laws on the books. Now there are about 170.

According to a limited review released by the commission in July, most mandatory-minimum cases in 2008 concerned drugs or weapons crimes. The review found that 21,023 offenders were convicted of crimes that could have triggered the mandatory-minimum sentence. Many got more lenient sentences for a variety of reasons, including cooperation with authorities.

The commission will examine the effects of mandatory minimums on plea agreements. Critics of the system say the threat of such sentences is used to coerce plea bargains.

Members of the commission have been traveling the country to meet with judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Many have pressed the commission to provide alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent, low-level drug defendants.

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest law-enforcement labor organization, said officers believed it was appropriate to review the system. But he said it shouldn't happen "in a way that will result in criminals not being held accountable."

Mary Price, vice president and general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said it was too early to tell where the review might lead.

"Certainly from FAMM's perspective, as much information as the commission can provide on the operation and impact of mandatory minimums can only help us better understand and advocate for their elimination."

Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A6

AFSC Suggestions for AZ Prison Reforms

In case anyone plans to write thoughtful letters to policy-makers, here are a few concrete ideas to raise, from the American Friends Service Committee in Tucson. This list has more to do with the community than the prisons, so does not address the issue of abuse and neglect, sexual exploitation, or poor health care services in AZ prisons, but it sees a future with fewer - not more - people in Arizona prisons, and addresses some critical reforms that could help reduce over-crowding and many of its attendant consequences for both prisoners and corrections officers.
------------------------------------

Suggested Reforms for Arizona

1. Declare a moratorium on new prison construction.
Once a prison is built, the state must keep it full. This is particularly true of privately operated prisons, whose contracts explicitly stipulate 90% occupancy. New prison construction reduces our opportunities to have a meaningful discussion on sentencing reform. We need fewer prisons and more treatment and diversion programs.

2. Eliminate so-called truth in sentencing laws or reduce the percentage of time inmates must serve.
During the tough-on-crime '90's, many states passed truth in sentencing laws that eliminated the use of parole. In Arizona, prisoners sentenced under these laws must serve 85% of their sentence, regardless of their efforts toward rehabilitation or their real risk to the public. Many other states are now revisiting these laws and lowering the minimum percentage that prisoners must serve.

3. Amend mandatory minimums for drug and other low-level offenses.
Many drug offenders are sentenced under mandatory minimum sentences, which remove discretion from judges by mandating the terms people must serve. Most drug offenders are non-violent and would be better served in treatment programs, which are cheaper and more effective.

4. Re-think harsh DUI sentences.
While no one would argue against keeping drunken drivers off the road, prison sentences without meaningful treatment do virtually nothing to address the problem of DUI. Instead of spending $21,000 per person per year on incarceration, these offenders would be better served in community-based alcohol treatment to address the issues that led to their alcohol dependency.

5. Establish alternative sentencing programs and expand use of diversion programs that work.
There are hundreds of effective alternative sentencing models in other states. Plus, there are programs already in place in some cities in Arizona, such as Drug and DUI Courts, and programs that are on the books but are underused, such as work release programs. These programs have proven to be successful at reducing recidivism and are far less costly than incarceration.

6. Reduce the number of probation revocations due to technical violations.
About 20% of all admissions to the Department of Corrections are people who committed technical violations of the terms of their probation. These are not people who commit new crimes. These are people who missed an appointment with their probation officer or tested positive on a drug test. Probation departments can develop new programs to hold violators accountable for their actions without having to return them to prison. Another option is "shock incarceration," where violators are returned to prison for a short period (120 days), but then put back on probation in the community.

7. Improve the treatment and educational services provided to prisoners while they are incarcerated.
Our recidivism numbers would be significantly lowered if prisoners were provided with the skills and services they need to become productive citizens. Simple warehousing that ignores the root causes of crime commits us to a never-ending cycle of incarceration and wastes millions of tax dollars every year.

8. Provide well-funded re-entry services to released inmates.
Most prisoners are sent out the prison gates with no more than a check for $50 that they have no means of cashing. Widespread discrimination against people with felony convictions makes it very difficult for former prisoners to find stable housing and decent jobs. People with drug convictions are barred from receiving public assistance or Section 8 housing. As mentioned above, many of them did not have an opportunity to effectively address their addictions, abuse histories, or lack of education while incarcerated. Is it any surprise that so many of them return to prison?