Example of advocacy letter to promote Pretrial Fairness Act

 Dear Representative [Republican Representative to the General Assembly of Illinois],

    I am writing to you as a constituent and Social Work student regarding a provision of the SAFE-T Act, the Pretrial Fairness Act. I am urging you to vote in favor of the Pretrial Fairness Act. This legislation would eliminate the role of the money bond in Illinois, protecting the families of those who are waiting for trial, ensuring that wealth will not play a role in release and detention decisions. (Grace, 2021)

    On an average day in the United States, there are almost a half a million people who are in jail, waiting for their criminal cases to move forward. A study from this year showed that people in pretrial detention make up more than three quarters of the jail population. Of the Not Convicted population in jail, almost sixty-eight percent are being held on non-violent charges. (Sawyer, 2023) It is not because they are a risk to the public but because they cannot pay bail. For those who cannot afford their bail, this pretrial jail time can lead to the loss of jobs, connections and stability for themselves and their families, not to mention the danger one can be in while in jail. They often must wait for months and years for their cases to be resolved. (Bail, 2021) Bonds can be set around ten thousand. When they are paid in full, the people who pay the bonds can retrieve their money at the conclusion of a case. Most people cannot afford this amount so they have to rely on a bail-bonds company. To work with them, it required that 10 percent of the bail would be paid to the company. One thousand dollars is a lot of money to many. This situation could lead to poor decisions being made such as choosing between getting your friend or family member out of jail or pay rent. On top of the potential scramble for money, unlike paying the full bond to the court, they will not receive that ten percent back from the bond company.(White, 2021)

    In the New York Times a few years ago, there was a story done about a 53-year-old man named Tyrone Tomlin. He had just been at a convenience store when a police officer stopped him. Tyrone let the officer search him. All that he found was a fountain soda with a straw. He was handcuffed and placed under arrest for the possession of drug paraphernalia. The officer said that the straws are commonly used to hold heroin. When he was brought in front of a judge, he pleaded guilty so bond was set at one thousand five hundred. Tomlin could not afford the bond, so he was sent to Jail to be held until his arraignment the following week. When describing the jail, he said “This place is miserable, it’s dangerous. It’s every man for himself. You could get abused, you could get raped, you could get extorted. That stuff is all around”. His Aunt was worried about him and his employer had no idea where we was. When he came back to court, he refused to plead guilty and take the plea deal again, which led to another two week stretch in jail. While he was in the shower, he was jumped by a group of men. He was beaten and stomped and ended up with a misshapen face. Finally, three weeks after he was arrested, the straw was tested and was negative for drug residue. The judge said he was not guilty and was free to go. (Pinto, 2021)

    The Pretrial Act would prevent situations like Tomlin’s from happening here in Illinois. Under this legislation, Tomlin would get a ticket with a court date. He would be able to work while he waits for his trial date, saving taxpayers’ money. It would give people like him a chance to keep their family, work and potentially community from falling apart. It would also prevent them from experiencing potential abuse and violence at the hands of inmates. 

I urge you to vote in favor or the Pretrial Act. If you do so, it will show that you are in favor of protecting the family unit. It will also show that you are for keeping the responsibility of making court dates in the hands of citizens and not the government. 

Sincerely,
______________



References
Grace, S. (2021, October 7). Pretrial Fairness Act - Coalition to End Money Bond. Coalition to End Money Bond. https://endmoneybond.org/pretrialfairness/
Sawyer, W. Wagner, P.   (n.d.). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
Pinto, N. (2015, August 13). The Bail Trap. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html
The Bail Project. (2021, March 4). After Cash Bail - The Bail Project. https://bailproject.org/after-cash-bail/#easy-footnote-bottom-5-39386
White, G. B. (2017, May 12). Who Really Makes Money Off of Bail Bonds? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/bail-bonds/526542/

American Dirt

America is the land of freedom, opportunity, safety, acceptance. People from all over the world dream of coming here and I am aware of the turmoil their arrival causes. I have my own feelings about immigration and how our country should be handling it. Their arrival isn’t something that I think about often, if at all, and I’ve never considered what they experience in the course of running towards their dreams. Yet, in the last four months, I have been moved greatly by two very different stories about becoming an American. In the first, which I wrote about in my first reaction essay, the journey wasn’t planned and it was about a man who suddenly wasn’t anymore – wasn’t a citizen, wasn’t a border patrol officer, wasn’t trusted, wasn’t valuable.

Shortly after I turned that essay in, someone sent me a book suggestion. The book, “American Dirt” by Jeanine Cummins, was the most recent pick by Oprah for her book club and the person who sent it to me, did so knowing that I would check it out simply because Oprah picked it. I downloaded it on Audible and it sat there for a couple of months while I was busy doing other things. I am an avid reader and love using the Audible app so that I am often reading/listening to multiple books at a time. Before I started the book, I didn’t read a review, didn’t read a synopsis or anyone’s write up on the book so I wasn’t sure what the story was or what to expect. I assumed that it had something to do with migration and the border – I honestly wasn’t sure I would even be interested in it – and so I started it while I was cleaning one afternoon. It took a total of 2 ½ minutes to be completely sucked in and I have continued to listen with full focus and reverence. I admit that I have not finished this book yet simply because there are moments in the story that I have to walk away from and process. It’s not a quick read and it’s not simple.

The story is about a mother and her young son who are on the run from a cartel boss in Acapulco de Juárez. Knowing that there is no place safe and no safe way, the mother takes nothing beyond the items they can fit in a backpack and fades into the migratory community beginning the trip to El Norte. The goal for all of the characters that you meet is to get to the US, get over the border and build a new life. As I initially listened, I thought that this was going to be a story about cartels and power and corruption. There is some of that…but “American Dirt” is a love letter and a horror story about the journey that men and women in Central and South America make every day, over and over again while facing danger and uncertainty.

This story has been so eye opening for me and has, quite frankly, made me feel ashamed. I’ve always known about the people trying to get to America. I’ve educated myself on the legal methods of becoming an American, have read about and heard about the illegal ways that people attempt to cross our borders but have never thought about or considered or even cared about what those journeys looked like. As I have read the book, more than once I have googled the situations that the author writes about and in each case, the stories that she tells are true. Young women being taken by a man in their neighborhood or city who decides that she should belong to him.  Their families fighting back and being killed or, worse, not fighting back and allowing it to happen because they have no other choice. In the story, there are two sisters who are running because the older sister had been taken. She kept quiet about it and complied to keep her family safe – then they instructed her to bring her sister in. Understanding that wasn’t something she could do, she took her sister and ran. There were consequences for that decision for both the family and the girls but you’ll have to read it to know. ☺

I think more importantly to me, are the stories about the migrants and the journey they make. To say that it is dangerous is a true understatement. It is disturbing, terrifying, disheartening and something I don’t think I would ever be able to do knowing what could happen. At one point in the story, the mom and son are at a shelter specifically for migrants and are preparing to leave when one of the employees calls everyone together to talk to them about the trip they are about to take. He tells them that of the 25 – 30 people standing in front of him, 27 will never make it the border. They will be killed getting on and off the trains, they will be kidnapped, raped, murdered or arrested by the migration officers and returned to where they came from. The lucky two or three who make it to the border will have nothing left. They will have been robbed or will have to pay off someone to keep from being kidnapped or raped. He then tells them that those 2 or 3 people who arrive in America with nothing will then live in a country that doesn’t want them there and will do nothing to help support them. In the story, none of the migrants change their minds, no one decides to go back or find another way. They all just agree and get ready to move on. 

The migrants attempt to make their trips easier by jumping the freight trains that travel north to the border. They must get on and off of these trains as they are moving and ride sitting on top of the moving cars. Every part of this is dangerous. There are people who don’t make it on or off and reading those passages were really tough for me. There were people who fell off the moving train, were knocked off unexpectedly and some who jumped to just be done with it…but the migrants kept going.

I haven’t finished the book. I will…I have to see how it ends but I am afraid of what is going to happen to these two characters that I have come to worry about. I tell myself that they aren’t real but I think they are. I think that there are human beings out there right now experiencing these same things and taking these same risks all with hoping that there is something better here. But is there? Really? After all of that they come into a country that thinks they are less than and treats them with such disregard. We don’t acknowledge what these people have gone through, what they have left behind, the impossible choices they have had to make or the number of times they risked their lives. This country sees them as a nuisance, as villains, as free labor or as an argument to make or a brick in a wall that needs to be built. But they continue to come and risk it all to live in this country and have what I have right now – something that I didn’t fight for, didn’t risk my life for, didn’t even earn but was gifted by being born into the right place. Reading this book has opened my eyes to this life being lived – survived - by this entire community of people and the question now is, how do I live with that?

Similar works that I have seen/read or been told are good include:

Across a Hundred Mountains by Reyna Grande

The 1983 film by Gregory Nava & Anna Thomas: El Norte.

Signs preceding the End of the World by Yuri Herrera

The 2009 film by Cherien Dabis: Amreeka.

Tell Me How It Ends by Valeria Luiselli

Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini's 2000 film: Well-Founded Fear.

Everyone Knows You Go Home by Natalia Sylvester

Death Penalty Policy

The death penalty is a federal punishment that is given to a criminal that has committed a grave crime. Crimes such as murder, extreme, malicious torture, and/or rape cases whether or not the victim survives are some examples of this (HG.org Legal Resources, 2020). More than half of America still support this form of punishment, though a growing number of the American population is no longer in support. Many find it unethical, though others feel it’s the most justified way to appropriately punish one for committing such horrid crimes. 

Though it used to happen pretty often within the last century (with varied ways of execution, such as electrocution and gassing), now, only “about 60 prisoners are on the federal death row…three federal executions have been carried out in the modern era, all by lethal injection, with the last occurring in 2003” (Death Penalty Information Center, 2019). Also, a court ruling was issued after Furman v. Georgia in 1972, where the number of eligible offenses for the death penalty, which was declared unconstitutional, was expanded to about 60 in the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (Death Penalty Information Center, 2019).

There are varied opinions about the death penalty in the United States. Some people feel the death penalty helps give some sort of consolation and ease for the victim’s loved ones with a death sentence as opposed to the criminal on parole and still a potential threat. In other cases, some feel it “serves the ends of justice and acts as a deterrent” (HG.org Legal Resources, 2020). Some, rather, feel the potential risk of executing an innocent person falsely accused of committing a heinous crime, which, sadly, has happened many times. 

With this being said, there have been significant modifications. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty cannot be given to mentally disabled offenders in Atkins v. Virginia, 2002, juvenile offenders in Roper v. Simmons, 2005, or to “those convicted of raping a child where death was not the intended or actual result” in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008. In addition, the court has mandated that “juries and not judges find facts that make a defendant eligible for capital punishment (Ring v. Arizona, 2002), and impose a sentence of death (Hurst v. Florida, 2016)” (McInnes, 2020).  

In conclusion, there is much controversy and criticism in regard to the death penalty, whether or not it should be a form of punishment given, to whom it should be given and for why, and so forth. The death penalty has long been present in America, and though modifications to ways in which people are killed have been made and criteria have been adjusted to make it more just and ethical, many still feel it should not exist at all.

References

Death Penalty Information Center. (2019, December 7). Federal Death Penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/federal-death-penalty 

HG.org Legal Resources. (2020). Capital Punishment Law - Guide to Death Penalty Law. https://www.hg.org/death-penalty.html 

McInnes, K. (2020, March 24). States and Capital Punishment. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/death-penalty.aspx 

Student reviews $2 a Day

2 Dollar’s a Day Reaction Paper

After reading $2 dollar’s a day, I feel that this book was very riveting and eye opening for anyone that isn’t aware of what takes place in the poor under-resourced communities. When you actually take the time to actually read the stories instead of just hearing vague stories about how difficult it is, the book's narration actually can paint you the mental image of pain and disparity that these people face everyday. Knowing that not everybody is eating every night and that they suffer from circumstances that are insurmountable and that will lead to an early grave is shocking to those who are ignorant about this, but for me that was the community I was raised in. 

Growing up in one of the hundreds of the government housing developments in New York City known as the Bronx River Projects, I watched my own family and others try to survive off of $2 dollars a day income. Seeing people wake up early in their one-of-many attempts to get down to the welfare offices was nothing abnormal in my neighborhood, especially during the crack era in the 80s. I can remember going over to my friends' houses and comparing their poverty to mine, which wasn’t nothing out of the norm for kids in the projects because you always wanted to know if somebody has it as bad as you do. This book was like a time machine as much as it was an eye opener for me. Hearing the stories of how people operated in the “Shadow Economy” reminded me of the morning the NYPD knocked on my door and arrested my mother when I was 10 years old. In the moment I didn’t know what was going on; all I knew is that the cops took my mother away, and luckily me and my sisters didn’t get taken by DCFS because her friend Chrissy spent the night. Later on that day I remember watching the news and seeing my mother’s mugshot flash across the screen as she was being charged with food stamp fraud. Till this day my mother stands firm by her stance of saying that she did that so we wouldn’t starve, and you know what? I can’t blame her. Everyday people are deprived of food, shelter, and the money needed to survive in America. It's not fair.

So in closing I would just like to say that this book was a very good read and should be a part of any coffee table decor, especially in the homes of the privileged. I feel that anyone who is fortunate enough to not have to worry about food or shelter in world is blessed and off to a head start in life already. To know that you have mothers out there struggling to feed their kids and themselves daily and forced to live off of $2 dollars a day is saddening to anybody with a conscience or first hand experience in dealing with hunger pains.

Student reacts to housing instability as depicted in Two Dollars A Day and the Poverty Myth podcasts.

In session four of our social welfare policy classes we were asked to listen to different podcasts relating to immigration policy, political perspectives, and poverty myths. The Radio Lab is known to explore different issues that are going on in the world and sometimes use personal testimonies so that we as an audience get a real understanding. The poverty myths podcast stood out to me most because of the touching stories that were being told. Margaret Smith was interviewed to prove the myth of the safety net. After listening to her interview I had many different opinions on how her situation could have been different. Here are a few of them:

1. How could her landlord have handled the situation differently?
2. A policy implemented for temporary housing
3. Her job understanding the situation in which she was placed

After Margaret’s son was shot on the property of their home, the landlord issued an eviction notice for three days. I do understand that there was some sort of agreement in the beginning on the lease that any kind of crime committed on the property will result in an eviction. However, in the situation here someone was a victim, and it was unexpected. The tenants didn’t commit the crime, they were the victims. You would think that there could have been some sort of extension so that she would not have to split her family up. How was it possible for her to be able to move out of her home comfortably when she was dealing with her son being in the hospital? This places more stress on someone who already has to deal with almost losing a loved one, and to now have to find somewhere for her entire family to stay is an outrage against human decency.

Margaret had to send some of her children to live with family members while the two youngest stayed with her at the shelter. What strikes me is that welfare policies are supposed to be concerned for someone’s safety. However, having two young children in a shelter is unsafe, and the children are suffering from the essential need of having a safe home to live in. The issue could have been brought to court and maybe been appealed because of her position. I do understand that she was responsible for having the children, however she was in no fault for the shooting that occurred.

Her job was unable to hold her position and she was fired. Margaret should have never been let go in the first place. It seemed as if all social forces were working together to steadily knock her down further and further. This placed her in the situation of not being able to provide for her family. So this supports the earlier myth on this episode that all poor people are lazy. Margaret is willing and wanting to work, however she is not able to do so. 

The story of Margaret reminds me of the book we are currently reading by Edin & Shaefer, “Two Dollars a Day”. The character Madonna is currently being oppressed into poverty and not being able to be above the poverty line. Madonna is constantly trying to work towards something good and others place her in the situation where she cannot provide for herself or  her daughter Brianna. “She fell behind, and her landlord, usually willing to work with a tenant in a tough situation, used the opportunity to get rid of a troublemaker” (Edin & Shaefer, 2016). She was evicted from her apartment and had to bounce from one family members’ home to the next with her daughter Brianna. Madonna was not able to have any assistance to help her with her daughter and received unemployment, but it did not compare to how much she made when she was employed.

Both of these women have social forces working together that target how their success will be. This helps to disprove the myth that people in poverty simply are lazy. Not all people who are poor will look for a handout, but on the contrary, many would rather try to get out and work. How are they able to make their situations better when they are simply being turned away from every program that they apply for? I believe that we have discussed in class many provisions that could be implemented so that there should be equal distribution for those who are in need. This class has opened me up to be able to see the errors in many of our social welfare programs.

References

Edin, K., & Shaefer, H. L. (2016). $2.00 a day: living on almost nothing in America. Boston: Mariner Books.

One of the persistent problems we face in working to end poverty is the myth that the poor deserve to be poor.  Like most people, my concern with fairness is balanced with my concern for compassion, so that I think it’s right that some people “deserve more” and some people “deserve less”, but in order to give everyone a fair chance to show what they are capable of doing, some floor of material consumption ought to be provided to everyone, whether they are deserving or undeserving.  In other words, I don't object to relative deprivation so long as the poverty/deprivation does not interfere with people's rights to housing and a home, access to culture and work (they must have access to adequate transportation), freedom from desperate want (they must have access to medical care and nutritious food), and participation in public life (their relative deprivation must not prevent them from attending some public events, engage in socialization with friends and neighbors, participate in politics, and use public services such as libraries). As we learned from Edin and Shaefer, and as you argue in your reaction paper, Americans generally seem comfortable with allowing a severe level of absolute deprivation in which people are insecure in their housing, and transportation access is unstable so that some may be prevented from gaining or keeping a job, and food access isn't really so dependable either.  This creates a situation of desperation and injustice.  Just as we ought to be morally outraged and inspired to act in the public realm to change matters if we learn that our justice system punishes many innocent persons and some of  our public safety professionals harass many law-abiding citizens, so too we should be engaged in transformational action when we are aware of many innocent persons who are pushed into lives of such instability and absolute deprivation. Our current system is short-sighted and unjust.  Edin and Shaefer put emphasis on this point of housing insecurity in their $2 A Day, and that seems right.  We have no mandatory program providing housing to people, even when we recognize that everyone has a right to a home. Thus, we allow landlords to evict crime victims from their residences because they were victimized on the landlord’s property.  Incredible.

Profiling of African Americans by Law Enforcement

This is a student's reaction essay, the sort of thing where a student spends an hour just writing whatever they like about an issue connected with social welfare and policy:

    Racial profiling has long been a problem in our society. In many ways we have become better within the past twenty years or so. Unfortunately, our society still has a long way to go as you will see from the examples within this paper of the racial profiling that African Americans still endure today by law enforcement.

    Racial profiling can be defined “as an act of enforcement by police officers that are more motivated by racial bias of any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that may exist under the circumstances. It is also referred to as the practice of targeting African Americans for traffic stops because the officer(s) seem to believe that blacks are more likely to engage in some kind of criminal activity” (Grant & Byers, 2009). This practice of racial profiling is not only done by police officers, but also by various others forms of law enforcement. “Law enforcement agent includes a person acting in a policing capacity for public or private purposes. This includes security guards at department stores, airport security agents, police officers, or, more recently, airline pilots who have ordered passengers to disembark from flights, because the passengers' ethnicity aroused the pilots' suspicions. Members of each of these occupations have been accused of racial profiling.” (ACLU, 2005).

Those committing racial profiling are more numerous than most would expect. Most individuals would only expect police officers and those working in airports to racially profile. We can see now that this is not the case. Those of the African American race do not only experience racial profiling in their cars on our highways by law enforcement, but also while on a simple shopping excursion. “The targeting of shoppers/business patrons of color for suspicion of shoplifting by private security and other employees has disproportionately affected both working and prominent African-American women. TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey said she was refused buzz-in entry to a store even after seeing white women admitted and making a second attempt. After calling from a pay phone and being assured the store was in fact open, a third try failed as well” (ACLU, 2005).

This is blatant racial profiling. Many prominent individuals are stopped, searched, or suspected of crimes based solely on their color of their skin. The article written by Harris states that no matter what a minority races status of life, transportation, or their willingness to abide by the law is they are subject to being stopped by police and their race used as “evidence” against them. (Harris, 1999). Another article also mentioned this same situation; they referred to it as racial vulnerability.  “As a result of racial vulnerability, a black man is more likely to have several encounters with police. During these encounters, the officer(s) may ask the man to show his identification for proof, have him explain where he is traveling to and from, and the officer(s) also may ask if he uses, distributes, or even manufactures any drugs.” (Grant & Byers, 2009).

Racial profiling largest stage is on our roads. On the interstates and highways of the United States is where some of the largest violations of minorities’ rights are violated. Many wonder if this is such a big problem, why is it continuing. Surely our laws provide some protection. In a way they do. “One of the core principles of the Fourth Amendment is that the police cannot stop and detain an individual without some reason – probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion – to believe that he or she is involved in criminal activity. But recent Supreme Court decisions allow the police to use traffic stops as a pretext in order to "fish" for evidence. Both anecdotal and quantitative data show that nationwide, the police exercise this discretionary power primarily against African Americans and Latinos.” (Harris, 1999). The law enforcement of our nation often abuse this practice. They will stop and search anyone based on their color to “fish” for evidence as Harris put it. Most often the law enforcement officials are not “fishing” for evidence because they believe that individual to have some sort of contraband because of their actions. Rather they search them and “fish” for evidence because they are racially profiling them. 

Racial profiling does not just affect those believed to be committing crimes based on their skin color. It also affects those trying to assert basic human rights such as voting in a presidential election. “Untold numbers, estimated to be in the thousands, were not given affidavit ballots that would preserve their votes pending resolution of any qualification issues. Even the state NAACP president was denied one until she stated her willingness to be jailed over the issue.

Most serious were the hundreds of reports, in African-American communities, of state police harassment of voters at polling places and traffic checkpoints, where they lined up cars, checking driving papers and inspecting vehicles. Racial profiling at its worst, this tactic appeared to be designed to delay and intimidate voters of color.” (ACLU, 2005). These individuals were purposely targeted because of the color of their skin. Many were denied their American right to vote. This was in the 2000 presidential election. Less than 12 years ago members of the African American race were being treated very similar to how they were treated when they first received the right to vote. In this election they were not terrorized by the Klu Klux Klan but by our own law enforcement officers.

    The age of an individual being racial profiled by our law enforcement is one thing that law enforcement officers do not discriminate on. Young or old they may stop you simply because of the color of your skin. Some youth in Michigan learned this first hand. " In April, 2001, the ACLU joined a suit against Eastpointe, Michigan , representing 21 young African-American men who were stopped by the police while riding their bikes there. The ACLU argued that the bicyclists were stopped in this predominantly white suburb of Detroit because of their race and not because they were doing anything wrong. In a 1996 memorandum to the Eastpointe City Manager, the former police chief stated that he instructed his officers to investigate any black youths riding through Eastpointe subdivisions. Police searched many of young men and, in some cases, seized and later sold their bicycles. Police logs and reports in Eastpointe have identified over 100 incidents between 1995 and 1998 in which African-American youth were detained.” (ACLU, 2005).

The state police of Maryland took no pity on an elderly African American couple when they pulled them over and searched them extensively. “In Maryland, in 1997, Charles and Etta Carter, an elderly African American couple from Pennsylvania, were stopped by Maryland State Police on their 40th wedding anniversary. The troopers searched their car and brought in drug-sniffing dogs. During the course of the search, their daughter's wedding dress was tossed onto one of the police cars and, as trucks passed on I-95, it was blown to the ground. Mrs. Carter was not allowed to use the restroom during the search because police officers feared that she would flee. Their belongings were strewn along the highway, trampled and urinated on by the dogs. No drugs were found and no ticket was issued.” (Harris, 1999). Law enforcement officers treated these elderly couple like criminals. They had done nothing wrong, had done nothing to instigate the stop other than ‘driving while black’.

    How long will we as a society stand for this? To what point will we watch individuals be treated in such a vile, unconstitutional manner? Many of these people are hardworking, good, honest people who are being judged and violated with searches of their property simply because of the color of their skin. As we all know an individual’s race does not make them a criminal. We need to instill this idea in our children and fellow human beings. Everyone deserves a fair shake in life. 


References
Grant, K., & Byers, T. (2009). Missouri western state university. Retrieved from http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/403.php
In Text (Grant & Byers, 2009)

Harris, D. (1999, June 7). American civil liberties union. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
In text (Harris, 1999)

ACLU. (2005, Nov. 23). American civil liberties union. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling-definition
In text (ACLU, 2005)

Student paper on prison overcrowding

This is a student paper about prison overcrowding.  I've removed some footnotes where the student gave sources.

Prison Overcrowding

“Based on current projections, by 2011 the U.S. prison population will increase by 13% – which is triple the growth of the entire population as a whole – to more than 1.7 million”* (Alcohol Monitoring Systems). This statistic is astounding and it is all in regards to prison overcrowding.

 A major public policy problem lies in prison overcrowding. Many of our prisons are filled with offenders that have not actually committed violent crimes. Actually, many of the offenses that are against the individuals are non-violent crimes. Perhaps they are in jail because they committed a crime that involved drug usage or being pulled over for a DUI. These types of arrests don’t warrant one to be placed in jail; rather the offender needs to be rehabilitated. I believe a solution would be to provide more services or rehabilitation programs that can better aid the core issues criminals have, instead of incarcerating them. 

Prison overcrowding is at an all-time high. According to Alcohol Monitoring Systems, experts from criminal justice think tanks and the U.S. Department of Justice predict that by 2011 the U.S prison population will increase by 13 percent to more than 1.7 million. That number is triple the growth of the entire population as whole! This means that more money has to be funded to prisons to be able to accommodate this large number. Talk about needing more money! As well, that large increase would cause American taxpayers and local/state budgets an estimated $27.5 billion dollars!

                  Prisons should house people who have committed more heinous crimes such as murder, child mutilation and the like, instead of crimes such as a DUI. Another factor that should be investigated about offenders before they are even placed in prison is why they committed the crime. For example, a person may have committed a murder, but may have been in the wrong mental state.  If they have a serious mental issue, prison will not alleviate the problem, it will simply hide it. The mental issue needs to be evaluated so that upon their release, they will not commit the crime again. Thus, individuals should be screened to address the root cause of the crime, and this would cut down on the amount of prison entries.

                  Another issue to take into account is the rate of recidivism. If you house prisoners for a crime they committed and they are released but return, that can also cause prison overcrowding. It is clear that perhaps a person spending time in prison does nothing to deter them from crime, if they end up back in prison. According to the prison commission, after three years of release 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated. This a very high rate because that is over half of the released population.  If this is true and prisons are not deterring crime, monies should be put in other places. Studies have further shown that about forty percent of offenders committing violations to parole end up going back to jail. In this manner, they are taking up valuable space, space that could be used to offenders who have committed more serious crimes.  I am not totally against prisons; I just think that overcrowding would not be present if there were better alternatives.                 

As well, the monies being placed in the prison systems could be monies placed into more community programs, to prepare offenders to go back into society. Especially needed are reintegration programs for those who have not committed hard crimes, as well as juveniles, as they have the best probability for staying out of trouble after release, and we should expect good programs to lower recidivism from 67% to 40% or lower.. Also, more community programs would make for more jobs to social workers, teachers and the like. Why not help people so that they can in turn help others? As well, what about charging fines to those who have smaller crimes as opposed to incarceration?

The social work profession is founded on believing that people can change no matter what they have done. That is, with the proper services and support. Prison overcrowding would decrease immensely if we focused more on helping troubled individuals, rather than wagging our fingers at them and placing them in a ”time out”. 

Sometimes I have to help students learn to write well

Here is an example of a student paper where I have tried to improve the writing style.  

            The death penalty is something that not only affects the lives of the person that has been sentenced to be executed, but also affects the people of our country and/or state. Not only does the death penalty plug up the processes in the court systems but also has the taxes raised because of the fact that the money spent on the death penalty and the processes for it is unexpected expenses and then get taken away from other things that need the money. The death penalty has raised the taxes on the people in the state and have instead of using the money on fixing highways it is used on the death penalty process, whether it is the cases or the actually execution part. Not only do death penalty cases plug up the courts with lengthy and costly processes, but also these death penalty cases take money away from more important priorities, because their high legal costs divert funding from better criminal justice programs (such as crime prevention), schools, or road maintenance, and keep total public safety spending higher than it needs to be, thus pushing up tax rates. 


Another problem them that seems to have affected the death penalty is the fact that people who were already put on death row have been found to be innocent that has already been put on death row. There is also a little bit of a plus side a possible benefit with the death penalty. It helps lower rates of capital crimes the fact of crime in risk of being put on death row and be executed. The deterrence benefit of capital punishment hasn’t been conclusively proven, and there is evidence on both sides, but some recent work by researchers such as Naci Mocan, Cass R. Sunstein, and Adrian Vermeule (all formerly or currently death penalty opponents) judge the evidence in favor of a life-saving deterrence effect of the death penalty to be strong (see “Does the Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate,” by Adam Liptak, in the New York Times, November 18, 2007, page 1)

It is almost a catch twenty-two. Do you get rid of the death penalty because there is are innocent people that have been put on death row, or do we keep it because it helps out the crime aspect in keeping it lower than what it normally otherwise would be? Another problem the government faces with the death penalty is the fact of that people receive different treatment based on such arbitrary factors as the age, race, and gender of the victim and the convicted offender. For example, the women and juveniles younger offenders have less of a chance to go onto death row because of the their gender and their age. In fact, the Supreme Court decided on March 1, 2005 that it is unconstitutional to sentence any person to death for a crime committed before their 18^th birthday. It is hard for the people  juries, judges, and prosecutors dealing with the cases or the people in the government have a hard time sending to send females and juveniles young adults to death row because our society says that the women are the nurturers and the children are innocent. With these These ideas that society has put into our heads about gender and age, it has have made in it almost impossible for us to be able to be okay with the fact of accommodate ourselves to any situation in which we sentence women and basically children being sentenced young adults to death. 

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Here is a student paper on the mandatory minimum sentencing law.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences Law

Second Medium Length Paper

            The United States started “War on Drugs” in 1971 to fight against distribution, consumption and use of harmful drugs. Richard Nixon was the first president to hold fame in the “War on Drugs”. Nixon had shown promise on this war and created the Drug Enforcement Agency in 1973 for the narcotic and marijuana outbreak in the United States and elsewhere. Later presidents, such as President Clinton in 1996, used this idea, enforced many anti-drug laws, and committed millions of dollars to this war. (Suddath, 2009). One interesting law used in this war was hastily put together without any contributing outside sources, and this was the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing law.

            in 1986 the Congress passed a law that put a mandatory minimum sentencing for cocaine users. This federal mandatory drug sentence depended on three different things, “the type of drug, weight of the drug mixture, and the number of prior convictions” (DPA, 2010). The judge could not look at the person’s reason for using the drug, what role they had in their possession, and whether the person was likely to use the drug again. This prevented wealthy drug traffickers from bribing the judges to reduce their sentences or dismiss the cases against them.

One drug that became a prominent scare and a target of the mandatory sentencing law was cocaine. Through history cocaine was used for almost everything, but in its refined form it has caused addiction, and its use harmfully affected many addicted users. In the 1960s there was a rise in cocaine which led the Congress to classify it as a drug with a high level of potential abuse (ONDCP, 2009).

By the late 1980s, a new and more refined type of cocaine was becoming popular, and it appeared to public health officials and police that this new form was especially potent, much cheaper, and far more addictive than other forms of cocaine, and this cocaine was called crack. Everyone who had five grams of crack cocaine would serve five years imprisoned. This leaves a 100-1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine. If a person had powder cocaine they would need 500 grams of cocaine to be imprisoned for five years. Was crack really that much worse?  Was the harsher sentence for crack related to its lower cost and its relative abundance in poorer neighborhoods, communities where users and dealers were more likely to have African or Hispanic heritage?

If someone is caught with crack, their only hope for escape from the five plus year mandatory sentencing is to snitch on other users. Only the upper level drug dealers would be able to use this escape to their advantage, since they are the ones who deal the drugs to dependent users, and know who the users are. The users that are on the lower distribution level didn’t have the information to give, and so this loophole in the mandatory minimum sentencing law resulted in the perverse situation of the least harmful users spending more time in jail than the more harmful dealers.

            The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ budget has increased from $22 million in 1986 to over $3 billion in 1997 (Huffman, 2006). This law has resulted in prison overcrowding, racial injustice and increases in imprisoned women. Judges generally hate the law, and even some prosecutors will admit that the sentencing guidelines under the mandatory minimum sentencing regime can be unfair. Even with these issues that make many question the law, it does seem that harsh mandatory penalties may help lower drug use.  The dealers and users know what to expect if they are caught possessing a certain amount of illegal drugs, and this knowledge will deter them. Some experts claim this law has stabilized the crack cocaine epidemic and helped contribute to the historic decline violent crime rates that was experienced between 1996 and 2000. (Hutchinson, 2008)

Bibliography

DPA. (2010). Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Retrieved 2011, from Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/

Huffman, A. A. (2006). Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offenses. Retrieved 2011, from California State Conference: http://www.ca-naacp.org/advocacy-drug-offenses-mandatory-minimum.php

Hutchinson, A. (2008). Have mandatory minimum sentences been an effective tool in the war on drugs? Retrieved 2011, from ProCon.org: http://aclu.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000731

ONDCP. (2009). Cocaine Facts & Figures. Retrieved 2011, from Office of National Drug Control Policy: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/cocaine/cocaine_ff.html

Suddath, C. (2009). The War on Drugs. Retrieved 2011, from Time: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1887488,00.html


The paper above was written as a descriptive paper in a journalistic style.  The same student wrote an editorial on this same subject, included next:

The Anti-Drug Act of 1986

            The Anti-Drug Act of 1986 provided a mandatory minimum for drugs. This removed a judge’s discretion, and gave every drug trafficker or user the same sentence. The drug that was mostly targeted at the time was cocaine. A person that possessed five grams of crack cocaine would receive a five year sentence, and a person with 500 grams of power cocaine would get the same sentence. This created a 100-to-1 disparity, and affected a significant group of people. The most targeted were minorities in poverty, and this law affected first time users the same as habitual or repeat users.

            This law has caused more damage than good to many victims. There is a significant increase in prisons, and inequality. Drug arrests have tripled to 1.8 million arrests in 2005. This is a high increase in the prison population of non-violent drug users who are not close to any drug lords, but it the people who wrote these mandatory sentences were writing the laws to help keep drug lords in jail for longer sentences. Six in ten persons in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity (Mauer & King, September 2007). Not only are the common users in jail but also was there an inequality within the prison system. Before the mandatory minimums were effective the “average Federal offense for African Americans was 11% higher than Caucasians. After the mandatory drug sentencing laws, the average drug offense sentence for African Americans was 49% higher than Caucasians” (Huffmann, 2006). 

            There hasn’t been an improvement with the mandatory minimums. This law just brought more African American males into imprisonment for unreasonable amount of time. The only improvement was in the amount of money the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget received, which was $3.9 billion in 1997, way up from $220 million in 1986. There has been more money contributed to enforcement and prisons. With 1.8 million imprisoned non- violent drug users it costs about $9 billion each year (Huffmann, 2006).

            There are many people against this outlandish law like the group, Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Numerous studies done on sentencing have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of a standard sentence given to every person like in a one size fits all law such as this one. There is no proof that this law deters drug crimes, but rather, it seems this law only increases the number of arrests being made. Taking a drug user off the streets into prison only gives more room for other potential users, which brings those who suffer from substance abuse or addiction to an unending harsh cycle involving the criminal justice system.

Bibliography

Carrillo, S. (2000). Should Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Be Repealed? Retrieved 2011, from Speakout.com: http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1127b-1.html

Huffmann, A. A. (2006). Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offenses. Retrieved 2011, from California State Conference: http://www.ca-naacp.org/advocacy-drug-offenses-mandatory-minimum.php

Mauer, M., & King, R. S. (September 2007). A 25- Year Quagmire: The War on Drugs and Its Impact on American Society. The Sentencing Project, 2- 6.

Vagins, D. J. (2006). ACLU Releases Crack Cocaine Report, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Deepened Racial Inequity in Sentencing. Retrieved 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-releases-crack-cocaine-report-anti-drug-abuse-act-1986-deepened-racial-inequity

Send fewer petty criminals to jails

A student wrote this editorial after being inspired by the story on NPR by Laura Sullivan about poor people serving long jail terms for small crimes because they couldn't raise bail. The original story is at NPR. Another part of Laura Sullivan's story is here. The NPR series concluded with this article.

I don't agree with the way that people are sent to prison for every minor misdemeanor. For instance, we read the article about a homeless person who stole a blanket from the store, and was sent to prison because he couldn't pay the $50 bail fee. The thing that people either don't look at or don't care about, is that it costs way more of the taxpayer's money to keep them in prison than the $15 blanket is worth. I understand if it is a major crime like murder, and things that they are tried for right away, but these small crimes aren't even put onto trial for up to a year after they happen. I think it is crazy how much money we pay to keep people in prison. We pay $9 billion each year on funding prisons. Personally, I would much rather pay for a $15 blanket for a homeless person. Maybe there should be $9 billion towards homelessness prevention, and it would probably even cost less than that.

There was also a situation in Lubbock, TX where a guy stole a $150 television set from Wal-Mart while high on meth and was sent to prison for 75 days. For those days, it cost taxpayers $2,850, let alone all the money for the completely full jail cells. Twenty years ago when people were convicted of a crime, they were released until their hearing and they would just come back. Instead, we built a $110 million mega jail. In my opinion, the solution to this problem is doing pretrial release, where they are sent home with an ankle bracelet, drug testing, counseling, or a social worker. This would come out to about $2 per day instead of $9 per day. If this case was made, I think a lot of people would be for it, except for the bond companies. The bond companies make a living off of all the convicted people paying bonds, so they would be opposed to the idea. However, there are a lot more taxpayers out there that could out rule the bond companies.

Reduce incarceration. It's too expensive.

Here is a student's paper on incarceration.

The amount of people incarcerated in this country truly astounds me.  In America we currently have more than 2 million people in jails and prisons.  Countless inmates are serving time for minor drug offenses.  I believe that instead of pursuing the “War on Drugs”, which has led to many of these lockups without a doubt, our country should be putting more time, effort, and focus into alternative incarceration programs.  Diversion programs for first time, non-violent offenders have been proven to work well.   

These types of programs not only cost less than jail and prison, but they also help create a job base for social workers.  I believe that if we implemented more programs like these we could alleviate the growing problem of over populated jails and prisons in the U.S., and save taxpayers money as well.  Alternative incarceration programs allow an offender to receive treatment, employment, and even education and training under the supervision of law enforcement officers.  The offender can either be successful and become a reformed member of our society, or the offender can be unsuccessful, and a judge can simply send him back into the prison system.

Just to give an example of the amount of money that could be saved by creating programs like these, I looked up some statistics.  In New York it costs about $62,595 to house an inmate yearly.  The average cost to put that same inmate through an alternative program would be about $1,400 to $13,000 according to eHow.com.  That’s a minimum savings of $49,595!  In our current economic downturn taxpayers could really use a break like this.  It’s not a dollar amount to be laughed at by most Americans.  I don’t know a person who would say "no" if asked if they wanted to save $50,000. 

Some other benefits of alternative incarceration can be seen within communities.  Because offenders are trying to be a valued part of our society, foster care, shelter, welfare, and child support costs can be managed easier.  Alternative programs also have a significant effect on felon’s illegal drug usage.  It typically falls from 80% to 42% in those participating in the programs.  This is because the social and financial burdens of rehab are now placed back onto the family and community.  [see this 2.6 MB pdf file for more information]

To lend even more support to these programs is the fact that a study conducted by the New York Criminal Justice Agency found that offenders participating in programs like these were less likely to be arrested a second time than offenders who were put in a traditional jail or prison.  This suggests that programs like these are producing results of less crime and fewer repeat offenders.       

Overall, the benefits of alternative incarceration programs can clearly be seen.  Not only do they save money, but they also help reduce crime and repeat offenders as well.  If all states could follow New York’s example, America could regain control over our maxed out capacity jails and prisons, and at the same time fight crime and greatly reduce the enormous cost of housing inmates.  

Student wants fewer Americans incarcerated.

This is a student-written editorial, and I'm sharing it on the blog without my comments.

I am writing about our prison system and the need for reform.   

Senator Jim Webb from Virginia is on a crusade to do just that.  He cites that the United States, with only 5% of the world's population, is housing 25% of the world's reported criminals.  The numbers of people incarcerated for drug related crimes have soared 1200% since 1980 when Ronald Reagan declared a war on drugs.  However, a significant number of people incarcerated for drug offenses have no history of violence or high-level drug activity.  He also goes on to state that there are four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.  Our prisons are overcrowded, but not with the people that should be in our penal system.  

The United States spends about 68 billion dollars a year on corrections. It would be prudent for us to consider whether that money could be better spent on treatment for substance abuse and mental illness.   Certainly the correctional facilities are not equipped to address the needs of those addicted to drugs and/or alcohol or those suffering with mental illness.  We need to move these people out of the prisons and provide them with services that would allow them the opportunity to become productive members of society.  

There was a time when we addressed substance abuse as a health issue. Now we decided these people are criminals and that they should be punished for "breaking the rules".  Then what? They are released after serving their sentence and return to society with the same issues that landed them in the penal system in the first place.    How is it that a person suffering with mental illness can find rehabilitation in the confines of a prison?  While none of us approve of those that break the rules of society, our energy and resources would be better directed at reducing the number of people incarcerated for minor substance abuse violations and non-violent crimes in order to make room for the people that we built prisons for, those that we need protection from.