By Will Matthews, ACLU of Northern California & Rebecca McCray, ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project

A recent study from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) demonstrates that decriminalization of marijuana can actually improve our children’s futures while saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
In 2011, Senate Bill 1449 was implemented, which reduced the punishment for simple marijuana possession from a misdemeanor criminal offense to a civil infraction punishable by a fine of no more than $100. Data from the California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center for 2011 reveals an impressive 20 percent decrease in overall youth arrests in the state compared to the previous year, and a 60 percent decrease in marijuana arrests. The CJCJ analysis determined that the “largest contributor to [the overall] decrease was a drop of 9,000 in youths’ low-level marijuana possession arrests” since the passage of SB 1449.
Thanks to decriminalization in California, 9,000 kids avoided an initial contact with the criminal justice system that could have irrevocably thrown their lives off course. It is well established that juveniles who have been incarcerated face a greater risk of committing future offenses than those who have never been in custody; further, they often commit a more serious offense after their release. SB 1449 clearly reduces the probability of this unnecessary and harmful initial contact with the criminal justice system, thereby reducing the risk of youth slipping into a lifetime cycle of criminality and incarceration.
The astounding 47 percent decrease in overall youth drug arrests revealed by this report also indicates that a large majority of young people being swept into the system are not violent criminals or drug kingpins – they are guilty only of possessing a small quantity of marijuana for personal use.
As juvenile crime rates have decreased in California, so have incarceration rates, which underscores the reality that it is indeed possible to increase public safety and simultaneously decrease the number of people behind bars. Reduced crime rates and smaller prison populations are not mutually exclusive.
The social benefits to juveniles in California are only part of the larger beneficial picture of SB 1449. Because the passage of this bill has dramatically reduced the number of youths entering California’s criminal justice system, the state is reaping fiscal benefits as well. Sparing the debt-stricken state the expense of arresting, incarcerating, and later supervising youth on parole or probation has meant an annual savings of $1 billion, according to conservative estimates.
While these statistics are promising, they don’t tell the entire story. The benefits of decriminalization in California are myriad, but it is essential to remember that reducing the penalty for simple marijuana possession from an arrest to a citation does not address the racially biased policing and selective enforcement of marijuana laws that has disproportionately wreaked havoc on the lives of Californians of color.
Arrests for the possession of small amounts of marijuana disproportionately impact Blacks and Latinos in California and across the country, despite the fact that whites use marijuana at similar or higher rates. Even if law enforcement no longer responds with an arrest, individuals are still stopped, and those possessing small amounts of marijuana are still punished.
Because data is not routinely collected on non-criminal infractions, they can be used to harass Black and brown youth with little oversight. And infractions can also be a backdoor to incarceration: youth with little financial means who are unable to pay a fine associated with an infraction can ultimately end up with jail time. Moreover, these punishments, citations, and fines will continue to disparately impact people of color until the root causes of racially biased policing, prosecution, and sentencing disparities are addressed.
As we rightfully celebrate California’s drop in juvenile crime and arrest rates, it is imperative that the bigger picture remain in focus. By eliminating this opportunity for a misdemeanor offense while reducing crime rates, Californians have proven that a large percentage of people our justice system once identified as “criminal” pose no real threat to public safety. Still, reducing the penalty for marijuana possession is but one piece of the larger puzzle of mass incarceration and racially biased policing that continues to devastate our communities and deplete precious resources.
For initiatives like SB 1449 to make a broader positive impact, they must be coupled with carefully crafted policies and training of law enforcement that directly addresses racial profiling. Until these goals are addressed in tandem, our criminal justice system will fail to serve all Americans, and will continue to disproportionately have a negative impact on communities of color.

Date

Monday, December 10, 2012 - 3:23pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar
By Michael Kaufman and Carmen Iguina
In 2009, the Obama administration announced plans to transform the immigration detention system to make it “truly civil” – a recognition that detainees are being held for civil immigration violations, not as punishment for a crime.

Nonetheless, nearly four years later, the federal government continues to detain hundreds of thousands of people each year in a patchwork of local jails, privately run and federal facilities that have been roundly criticized for substandard conditions, poor medical care and abusive treatment. The Detention Watch Network’s Expose and Close campaign has called on the Obama administration to put an end to these shameful practices by closing the 10worst immigration detention centers, and the ACLU has sent a letter to the president urging him to take steps to reform the detention system.
Among the 10 worst is the Theo Lacy facility in Orange County, Calif. Operated by the county sheriff’s office, it was designed as a “maximum-security jail” to house individuals in the criminal justice system. But the jail has now been partitioned, with one section housing up to 408 minimum security and 64 medium or maximum security immigration detainees.
That partition has not masked the reality that Theo Lacy is an extraordinarily harsh and punitive environment unfit to house immigration detainees. The DWN report details a widespread pattern of abuse and substandard conditions at Theo Lacy, including staff who kick and shove detainees, staff who subject detainees to racial epithets including "nigger" and "camel," and staff who neglect detainees’ medical needs. The report also documents overuse of solitary confinement for minor rule infractions, a punishment that can cause permanent damage to mental health.
Rodolfo Garcia-Santos is one of many detainees who have received shockingly poor medical care at Theo Lacy. Garcia-Santos had a painful, and potentially life-threatening, kidney condition that doctors had told him would require surgery. However, , the medical staff at Theo Lacy treated him with nothing more than pain medication, despite three different consultations at which Garcia-Santos pleaded for adequate care. The staff permitted Garcia-Santos to continue to use a temporary drainage tube for his kidney – which was intended to last a week – for months until he suffered a painful infection. Only after the ACLU intervened on his behalf did ICE officials arrange for Garcia-Santos to finally have the surgery.
No one should have to suffer woefully inadequate care medical care or Theo Lacy’s other deplorable conditions. The time has come for the Obama administration to live up to its promise of establishing a “truly civil” detention system by terminating its contract at Theo Lacy and other worst-offending facilities. Ending the reliance on mass immigration lockup is not only the right thing to do from a human rights perspective: doing so would save taxpayers more than $1.6 billion a year, a key benefit in this time of fiscal crisis.
This post was originally published on December 2, 2012, and republished on International Human Rights Day.

Date

Monday, December 10, 2012 - 11:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Immigrants' Rights

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar
By Jason Howe
The passport control agent almost seemed apologetic.
“Sir, he has to fill out a separate family entry card,” he told me, “he” meaning my husband, Adrián. And then, he mumbled “DOMA.”
Jetlagged and groggy after an overnight flight from Dublin, I was not in the mood. But following a silent glare from Adrián, I stood by, fuming, as he filled out a separate card. Even though we’re married -- twice -- and now have two daughters, we don’t constitute a family to the U.S. government. The reason is the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. That set us up for a decidedly second-class status -- the long wait and thousands of dollars we paid an immigration attorney to get his green card, instead of the automatic residency he would have received if we had been a heterosexual married couple; the thousands of dollars more we pay in federal taxes each year because we can’t file jointly; even a tax on the healthcare insurance I receive through his employer. It doesn’t get easier.
So, like other married same-sex couples across the country, we anxiously awaited today’s announcement from the Supreme Court that it will hear two of the marriage cases currently before it. The first, the ACLU’s Windsor v. United States, could finally end the injuries and insults, some grave and some minor, that couples like us endure every day by removing the federal nose from our business and allowing states to determine a marriage’s validity, as in fact has traditionally been the case.
The second, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8. We’re lucky to count ourselves among the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who married during the “Summer of Love,” the five-month window in 2008 during which marriage was legal for California’s gay and lesbian couples. A ruling in that case could be narrowly tailored, ending marriage discrimination only in California, or broad, deeming that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A narrow ruling in that case wouldn’t affect my husband and me, but we’d cease being oddities of “marriage island,” one couple among the fortunate few whom California recognizes as a family.
And those words, “marriage” and “family” matter. It’s easy to enumerate the 1,138 federal benefits we don’t receive from the federal government. What’s less tangible are the status and respect that marriage confers -- the security agent at Madrid’s cavernous Barajas Airport who stopped questioning me when I told her my marido, “husband,” had packed the suitcase, instead of my pareja, or “partner;” the excitement of our families when they met for the first time at our wedding in his hometown of Alicante, Spain (which had no problem marrying us, by the way); the security and stability our daughters will enjoy knowing that their fathers relationship is respected the same as their friends’ parents. None of that comes with civil unions or domestic partnerships. We’re hoping it comes soon from the Supreme Court.

Date

Friday, December 7, 2012 - 5:06pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

LGBTQ Rights

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS