Sunday, June 14, 2015

Nuance on mandatory minimum sentences




The nation, in a knee-jerk reaction to crime, adopted mandatory minimum sentences as if that were a solution, ignoring the underlying causes. 

 No other nation has this level of incarceration, so clearly the US hasn't solved the problem. 

 This is from 2012 when 3 Strikes was proposed:

3 Strikes - we can do better

If we want to reduce taxes, maybe this is part of the solution in addition to early intervention programs for kids: 

Each Massachusetts inmate costs

taxpayers about $47,000 annually and perhaps

those resources could be better spent -- and at

a savings -- by proactively addressing addiction

rather than reactively.



  • OUR OPINION: Nuance on mandatory minimum sentences





    • Posted Jun. 13, 2015 at 5:45 AM 

      This week, Massachusetts’ Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony for and against repeal of state laws requiring mandatory minimum jail sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
      The most vocal advocate for repeal is Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ralph Gants. He made the case for judges, who hear the particulars of each individual case and understand the nuance, to have discretion instead of employing a one size fits all approach. Perhaps equally important, Gants said in light of the opioid addiction health crisis, those convicted of nonviolent drug offenses should receive treatment, not jail time.
      It was a sentiment echoed by Attorney General Maura Healey who has put the overdose crisis at the top of her policy agenda. In her testimony, she emphasized “smart reforms” that allow for treatment instead of incarceration, especially for those crimes that “fall short of trafficking and do not involve minors.” Noting that nationally, 80 percent of inmates have substance abuse issues, Healey said.

      Each Massachusetts inmate costs

      taxpayers about $47,000 annually and perhaps

      those resources could be better spent -- and at

      a savings -- by proactively addressing addiction

      rather than reactively.
      Yet many of the state’s district attorneys are against overturning the law. Suffolk County DA Dan Conley said the state already exercises discretion when it comes to prosecuting drug offenses, targeting traffickers, not users. He said as a result of precision prosecution, there are 1,000 empty jail cells in the state and two prisons wings at MCI-Norfolk have recently been shuttered.
      Frankly, we think both sides are have merit.
      Nonviolent drug offenses that don’t involve trafficking shouldn’t be subject to mandatory sentencing. However, how are we as a society defining “nonviolent?” Is the person who drives a one-and-a-half ton vehicle while drugged committing a violent crime? Sometimes.
      In March, Sara Sansone was sentenced to only 15 months in jail for driving high on heroin and killing Aron Langlais, a mere 18, as he walked along a Hanson roadway.
      What about the addict who shares his supply of OxyContin or strong batch of heroin with a friend and the friend overdoses and dies? Is that a violent crime?
      Aside from the philosophical considerations are the hard and fast truths about treatment.
      Both Gants and Healey recommend treatment over incarceration for nonviolent offenders. We wholeheartedly endorse this concept, yet the reality is Massachusetts doesn’t currently have the infrastructure to provide secure treatment for all of its nonviolent drug offenders.
      As we noted in our May 2 editorial, there are only 198 Section 35 beds – treatment beds for those civilly committed by the courts. Many of the 10,000 petitions made each year are by family members of drug users who are rightly afraid their loved one will die without forced treatment. On average, those with addiction disease stay just 14 to 21 days in those beds due to demand, even though the law states up to 90 days. Cycling those with opioid addiction out of treatment so quickly puts them at much higher risk for overdosing and dying.
      Talk to family members of those addicted to opioids and they will say most addicts would rather chase a fatal high than seek treatment, which is why Section 35s are a necessary tool. If addicts can sign themselves out of treatment, many will. Opioid addiction is that insidious. Listen in on a drug court session and hear some families say jail is a safer place than the streets for addicts because other than widely abused Suboxone, opioids are harder to come by on the inside and men can receive some measure of treatment while incarcerated.
      It’s important to note, however, that MCI–Framingham, the state’s only women’s prison, doesn’t have any such treatment program for its inmates. A clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause that must be addressed.
      So while we agree with the best intentions of all involved, overturning minimum mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenders without a highly structured and effective treatment system in place will likely result in more break-ins and thefts to feed the habit, and far more overdose deaths.

      http://www.enterprisenews.com/article/20150613/OPINION/306139991/1007/OPINION/?Start=1


    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment