Los defensores de la reforma de la justicia penal advierten que la aprobación de la Proposición 36 significará una fuerte reducción de los fondos para iniciativas contra el crimen. La medida aumenta las penas para ciertos delitos relacionados con drogas y robo, convirtiéndolos en delitos graves que conllevan penas de cárcel. Will Matthews, de la organización sin fines de lucro Californians for Safety and Justice, dice que a los votantes se les hicieron falsas promesas de que la Proposición 36 reduciría los delitos contra la propiedad al obligar a más personas a elegir entre tratamiento y encarcelamiento.

"Realmente fue una iniciativa falsa que ahora resultará en que se desvien miles de millones de dólares del tratamiento de adicciones, enfermedades mentales y ayuda a personas que regresan a casa después de un período de encarcelamiento," explicó Matthews.

La Proposición 36 deroga partes de la Proposición 47, que canalizó los ahorros provenientes de la reducción de los costos penitenciarios hacia programas diseñados para combatir la pobreza y la adicción, causas fundamentales del crimen.

El profesor de ciencias políticas Christopher Hallenbrook de Cal State Dominguez Hills está de acuerdo en que la Proposición 36 le costará al estado cientos de millones, dinero que se desviará de iniciativas contra el crimen.

"No hay forma de pasar la Prop. 36 y no meter a más personas en la cárcel. Cuanto más dinero gasta en encarcelamiento, menos dinero gasta en otras cosas. Esta es definitivamente una evaluación precisa y parece ser una que los votantes decidieron que estaban de acuerdo," argumentó además Hallenbrook.

La Proposición 36 fue financiada en gran medida por gigantes minoristas como Home Depot, Target y Walmart, con la esperanza de que la perspectiva de sanciones más altas disuadirá los delitos a las cadenas minoristas.



get more stories like this via email

The Wisconsin Innocence Project is ending the year with some key victories including helping with the release of two men who each spent decades in prison but the wins highlight a long-standing systemic problem.

David Bintz spent 25 years in prison and Manuel Cucuta spent 27 years in prison. Both were sentenced to life in prison, despite glaring holes in their cases.

Christopher Lau, associate clinical professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School and co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, noted as remarkable as their releases have been, it speaks to a greater systemic issue coloring most of their cases and reinforces what it was designed to do.

"Part of this is just historical, the way our policing and incarceration system evolved was from basically their vestiges of slavery," Lau pointed out. "We try to keep down historically underrepresented people."

He acknowledged while not everyone may adopt such views, there is a lot of pressure to close cases and keep people incarcerated, evident by the fact the U.S. incarcerates more people for longer than any other developed country in the world.

Wisconsin's incarceration rate is 615 per 100,000 residents, a higher percentage of its population than almost any democratic country in the world. Compared with Wisconsin's total population, Black and Native people are overrepresented in the incarcerated population with Black people incarcerated at a rate 11 times higher than white people.

Lau argued in order to even begin to think about reform, the U.S. and the state of Wisconsin need to reexamine priorities and funding, as well as rethink the point of doling out such long sentences when it does not keep communities safer.

"I think there are good arguments that it makes us less safe," Lau observed. "But we still keep doing it because I think it's one, easy politically, and it's because it's where we put all of our money."

He added regardless of guilt or innocence, there are simply too many people who are incarcerated. Wisconsin is one of the few states to not ban juvenile life without parole sentences. Nearly 10% of the state's total life-sentenced population were juveniles when they were sentenced. The Wisconsin Innocence Project receives hundreds of requests per month and many are from juvenile offenders.


get more stories like this via email

Navigating the process of expunging criminal records can be overwhelming but for many, it is a critical step toward building a better future.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice is making the journey easier with the release of the updated Umar Muhammad Clean Slate Toolkit.

Tanita Holmes, justice system reform counsel for the coalition, said the resource aims to help people determine their eligibility for relief and guides them through removing charges and convictions from their records. The goal? To provide a pathway to better economic and social opportunities.

"Having a criminal record can prevent these people from having employment," Holmes pointed out. "It can prevent them from having housing, unification and other benefits, state and private benefits and opportunities."

In North Carolina, nearly one in four people has a criminal record. Among them, around 60% remain unemployed within a year of release. Even those who manage to find work typically earn 40% less than their peers without a record.

Holmes said clean slate laws are essential for helping people with criminal records rebuild their lives. While North Carolina has made strides by expanding expungement laws to cover more misdemeanors, Holmes believes there is still more to be done. She argued there is a critical need to reduce barriers such as notary fees and improve access to resources.

"North Carolina could create better resources and access to judges, clerks and district attorneys," Holmes contended. "Because those are some of the people that you have to get in contact with and work with when you're getting an expulsion."

Research shows clean slate laws in states such as California, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia have been effective in improving both public safety and economic outcomes, demonstrating the potential benefits of broader expungement policies.


get more stories like this via email

A new report offers a detailed look at "standard" conditions for probation in Mississippi and nationwide, affecting nearly 3 million people.

The "One Size Fits None" report highlighted probation regulations across 76 local and state jurisdictions.

Wanda Bertram, communication strategist at the Prison Policy Initiative, explained standard probation conditions apply universally within a jurisdiction, apart from any extra requirements from judges or probation officers. She noted financial obligations are among the most burdensome for those reentering society.

"Mississippi standard conditions of probation require you to pay a monthly fee, and that's irrespective of whether you can really afford it," Bertram pointed out. "If you can't afford it, you can just go into debt to the probation department. About two thirds of people in Mississippi on probation, are making less than $20,000 a year, and that monthly probation fee is $55."

The report recommended state and local lawmakers reform probation rules by reducing probation use, revising rule violation responses and focusing on essential conditions. It also highlighted areas actively working to lower probation revocations.

Bertram noted many states require people to pay probation fees regardless of their financial situation. In some states, probation officers can mandate drug tests at their discretion. She added research has shown no direct link between drug use and reoffending while under supervision.

"People who are struggling with substance use disorder do not need jail," Bertram contended. "They need treatment, and they need treatment that is good enough that they will choose it. Instead, what probation does is coerce a lot of these people into surveillance, we argue in our report that's one of the requirements states should be doing away with."

Bertram added the report showed many jurisdictions restrict travel for people on probation, which can hinder women's access to abortion care in states like Mississippi, North Carolina, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Pregnant women need approval from probation officers for out-of-state abortions, which some may avoid due to privacy concerns.


get more stories like this via email