Friday, October 23, 2015

US Prison Population and Drug Offenses

I saw an editorial in the Union Tribune, which was apparently originally written on October 14 2015 in the Washington Post by Charles Lane. His position is that if we ended the war on drugs, and let all of the previous drug offenders out of prison, we still wouldn't significantly reduce the prison population.

Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations.  The Huffington Post agrees with that number.  I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses.  A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws.  Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related.  Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion.  That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.  

The statistic that is currently being touted by many, including Bernie Sanders and President Obama is that the US has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prisoners.  I get the impression that Charles Lane does, somehow agree this is a problem.  But his arguments against relaxation of drug laws makes him appear to be a strong supporter of the drug war.  At the end of his column he wrote of the US incarceration rate: "The only way to lower it dramatically would be to reduce the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, while continuing to reduce violent crime itself. If any of the candidates has a plan to do that, he or she should speak up."    So it is clear that Charles Lane doesn't have a real solution to the problem. If he does, he probably wouldn't want to advocate it because it could alienate his readership.  As soon as anyone proposes reducing the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, his fellow right-wingers scream "soft on crime" and complain that releasing prisoners will unleash a huge rash of crime in the US,  There are now so very many people making so much easy money as part of the "war on drugs" that they will certainly push the politicians to continue the war.  In the 1960's many Americans complained about the Military-Industrial complex that caused us to buy weapon systems we maybe didn't need.  Now we have a "Drug-war-Industrial Complex" that advocates for continuation of the drug war.   This complex may be larger and much more powerful than the military-industrial complex.  They include high tech companies who make spy and surveillance equipment, border patrol, FBI, NSA, CIA, DEA, Police, prison guard unions, builders of prisons, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys.  They all enjoy relatively high paying positions and are willing to put money into politics to advocate for increasing the war on drugs. 

There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population.  See this article:   However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics.  If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress.  It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado.  If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.  

One way of trying to figure out why we have such a high incarceration rate is to ask: "What makes the US so different from the rest of the world?"  Is it our drug laws?  We aren't much tougher on drugs than any other nation.  Some, like Indonesia have the death penalty for drug law violations.  Is it our "second amendment" that allows everyone to have unfettered access to guns?  That doesn't seem to be the case from prison population counts. Is it our education level?  We aren't the best or the worst educated country in the world.  Is it our racial and cultural mix?  It is hard to see how that would be connected.   Is it our freedom of religion?  Or our lack of a strong religious "moral compass?" is it our TV & Movies that glamorize drugs and violence?  Our movies and TV are shown all over the world, so how could it be unique to the US?   Somehow, I'd think that the many sociologists, criminologists, political scientists,  and other similar professionals would, by now have some solid, scientific-based recommendations to resolve this problem.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Chicago Police "Disappeared 7000 people" in Homan Square

Spencer Ackerman in the Guardian reported that Chicago police set up a "secret" warehouse called Homan Square where they brought people "snatched" off the street and interrogated them for hours or days, without giving them access to lawyers, or letting their family know where they were. According to this amazing Guardian website,  most of the people they took there were black, and according to the report, they were treated badly.  I found that this past March 2015, the Chicago Police Department published a "fact sheet" that disputed all of the claims against Homan Square, and claimed that it was not a "secret" location, and that they treated all people brought there for questioning fairly and in accordance with the law.  Around that same time, Nicholas Roti, the Chicago Police commander who managed the Homan Square site abruptly quit (see this article).  It is difficult to figure out if the Guardian is just simply sensationalizing a reasonable effort being done by the police, or if, in fact, Chicago Police may have overstepped the law in their attempt tocontrol crime.  If so, what they are doing sounds like something that is done in foreign countries to rival political parties.
Somehow this sort of treatment goes against everything I thought America stood for.  According to the article, it appears that most of the interrogation involved suspicion of production, sale, transporting or using illegal drugs.  The Chicago Police Department is trying to crack down on drugs as part of our country's absurd "war on drugs."  I'm sure the police probably think they are doing their city a service, and I suspect that they don't think much of the people they drag in for questioning.  Many of them may deserve harsh treatment.  But in addition to being illegal to bring people in for questioning without booking them and giving them access to lawyers, it also alienates the citizens against the police department.  If I, or a relative or friend had undergone such a treatment, I would probably harbor a resentment against the police for the rest of my life.  I would no longer assist them, I would not respect them and I might do what I could to interfere with them doing their job.  Likewise, if the police are, in fact, breaking the law by what they are doing, they also should be punished for doing it.  I would expect that the police have video of all interrogations, and can produce all of the proper booking information to dispute the charges from the Guardian.  I would expect also that the Illinois Attorney General, and/or the US Attorney General would have investigated, since this has been in the news for quite a while.  It will be interesting to see how this story progresses.

What worries me is that if the Police can treat citizens for relatively minor suspicion of illegal drugs, what would they do for suspicion of terrorism?  Could police round up and "disappear"  large numbers of our citizens for demonstrating against a war or some other policy and treat them as suspected terrorists?


Friday, October 16, 2015

Carlsbad Police Beat a Woman for No Apparent Reason

I read an article in the Coast News this week (Mid October 2015) about a lady named Cindy Hahn who was beaten by police for filing a complaint.  This situation sort of brings the Rodney King or Ferguson MO issue very close to home. Carlsbad borders on my city of Oceanside.

See these youtube videos from local TV stations about the situation:


After the incident, the police booked Cindy for resisting arrest and then the police testified in court.  After the police testified, Cindy's lawyer showed the DA the video taken by a spectator, and the DA dropped the charges. There is a gap before the video started which would be interesting to see.  Hopefully some of the bystanders who watched the scene are available to explain what they saw happen.  Did Cindy provoke the officer in some way?  Were photos taken of Cindy's bumps and bruises as a result of her altercation?  .
It appears that all of the police and Cindy Hahn were white race, so there probably was no "racial bias" in the situation.  I think if the Cindy had been black there would have been a LOT more press and maybe even demonstrations.   I think video is making everyone be a little more careful about what they say and do in stressful situations.  Hopefully Carlsbad police are "armed" with personal video systems.
Based upon the story, there are some facts that the police department needs to answer:
1. There must be recordings of the messages passed over the radio to the officers.Did the police officer get word from dispatch that a complaint was filed against him prior to the seat belt violation traffic stop?  

  • If so, that seems like a bad procedure for the department, since it could lead to retribution. You would think that complaints like that should go to a supervisor for later follow-up
  •  If not, then the assumption that the officer followed her for retribution may be false.

2. Why did the police attempt to arrest Cindy Hahn in the first place?  What was in the officer's police report?  What did the officer or officers say to the DA and the court?
3. Why were they hitting her?
4. Why did additional police officers get dispatched to the scene for such a trivial situation?
5. When the other police arrived and saw the first officer beating up the lady, why didn't they restrain the officer and help the lady?

I also think the DA should answer at least one important question:. Why after seeing the video and hearing the police officer lie on the stand, didn't the DA file charges against the officer?

The City of Carlsbad apparently didn't discipline the officers involved and now say they won't comment until they get into court. I would bet that the City will stretch it out for another year or so.  I'd hate it if the City agreed to an undisclosed settlement and all information was kept secret.  If the police, in fact, were out of control, they should be disciplined in some way.  If they weren't determined to be out of control, it means that the rest of us had better avoid Carlsbad!






Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Toward a 'More Just' Justice System

October 4 2015 Editorial by the San Diego Union Tribune commented on Gov Jerry Brown's veto messages written on a series of bills that proposed to create new crimes. 
The editorial said that possibly the article written by Alex Kozinski concerning the unfairness of our justice system may have been one of the reasons for his vetoes.
Kozinski was the Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and his "Criminal Law 2.0" article in the Georgetown Law Review pointed out the serious flaws in our US system of justice and made a series of recommendations.
I believe I agree with Kozinski's findings and recommendations.  While I have not been in any courts other than a few times on jury duty, I do recognize from the news all of the many injustices that take place.  Prosecutors seem to be anxious to "win at any cost" which gives them a built-in conflict of interest when it comes to justice.  
The US really does need to figure out why we have more people in prison than any other country of the world both by percentage and by total numbers.  Our laws need to narrow down the scope to focus on crimes that actually affect us.  For example, it seems that far too much emphasis is placed upon crimes that occur among consenting adults that incur minimum of harm to others -- obviously drugs, gambling and prostitution.  All of them could easily be regulated, controlled and taxed and it would much better protect the sellers, and buyers.  In the name of protecting the public from these "vices" the Government has then justified defining many more crimes to include RICO, anti gang laws, money laundering laws, restrictions on buying/selling of chemicals that could be used for making or refining drugs, human trafficking (which would be reduced or eliminated if prostitution were legalized), 
The problems created by "illegal gambling" were significantly reduced when legal casinos were built throughout the country.  Now it is a very minor problem.  When prohibition ended, the problems of illegal alcohol almost went completely away.  Yes, we still have problem with DUIs which is a difficult situation for society.  However I believe the "self driving cars" on the horizon will start to resolve that problem long before our justice system will be revised.  

That leaves illegal recreational drugs and prostitution as the only remaining issues that seem to contribute to a very high percentage of our prison population. According to drugwarfacts.org website around 50% of the inmates in the US are there for some sort of drug violation.  These statistics appear to be related to direct drug offenses, and not "secondary" drug offenses.  For example, people could be arrested for gun offenses, or other violent crimes that were a result of disagreements related to drugs.  People could be arrested for money laundering, which could be due to moving drug money.  Gang related arrests and convictions are related to illegal drugs, because so much of a gangs power and finances seem to revolve around marketing of illegal drugs.  I think if all of those causes were included in the statistics, the percentage of drug-related inmates would be much higher.