Death Row Prisoners

Hello Readers,

Thank you for checking back! In my last post, I talked about people that support the death penalty, and their reasoning in doing so. For today’s post, I want to consider capital punishment in terms of the prisoners who are acquitted. Throughout my research, I have been finding so much information about mental illness with regards to the death penalty. The Death Penalty Information Center explains that,

“The Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399 (1986)) that executing the insane is unconstitutional. However, if an inmate’s mental competency has been restored, he or she can then be executed.  Inmates who are intellectually disabled (mentally retarded) also cannot be executed.  Inmates who are mentally ill, but not insane, have no such exemption.”

While the Supreme Court ruling addressed the insane, it neglects a whole group of people who can still be suffering from severe mental illness. That being said, I encourage you to look at this article giving specific examples of people struggling with mental illnesses who were still committed to death. In many of these examples, the person does have aggressive tendencies, and doesn’t have the ability to tell right from wrong. Not to mention that once a person realizes what she or he did wrong, they can be executed for that crime.

Also, even though I don’t have the ability to discuss it at length here, I encourage you to find information about the role of racial bias in capital punishment, especially here in North Carolina.

What do you guys think about this? Please comment below with your thoughts, and let me know whether this new information might change any possible thoughts you had about capital punishment!

Implications of private prisons

Based on the research that I’ve done on private prisons, it is apparent that if nothing is done to reform them, there will be negative results in the incarceration system.  Studies performed on the growth of private prisons points to more and people being held in these facilities without a visible end.  This includes the immigrants that keep being funneled into the prisons.  Secondly, as the industry continues to grow, I think the problem with cutting corners on the worker compensation and amenities provided for the prisoners will continue to worsen.  Who’s to say that the amenities will be cut to an almost unlivable level.  Finally, if nothing is done to change the private prison system, and its influence continues to grow, I believe that these corporations will use their increased influence to  get more and more prisoners for less and less crimes.  They have already been documented paying judges to send kids to prison.  What else could they do if there is no reformation?

The Future of Defendants’ Rights – Implication Post

If defendants’ legal rights are not extended to treat people equally, then accused people who are unable to afford legal services will continue to be discriminated against.

People who cannot afford bail and court fees will still receive additional punishment such as being sent to jail while people who can afford to pay fees will avoid punishment. In the last five years, 48 states have increased the amount of criminal and civil court fees. Many defendants now have to pay for legal services that should be free such as public defenders, supervision during probation, or electronic monitoring. Defendants even have to pay room, board, and cost of care in prisons. The trend of increasing court fees will continue to occur if defendants’ rights are not addressed and the court system are not properly funded. Increasing court fees will worsen the problem by forcing more people in jail for not being able to pay the court system.

Similarly, people who can afford attorneys will continue to receive much better protection than people who cannot afford attorneys and have to be appointed public defenders. According to the NLADA, people who cannot hire private lawyers are appointed public defenders that have excessive caseloads and have limited resources due to underfunding.

Discriminating against the poor in the criminal justice system will create a cycle that punishes people without money. If a poor person is accused of a crime, he or she will be more likely to go to prison because of a overworked public defender or being unable to pay court fees. This will lead to an increase in prison populations and make the criminal justice system more expensive for states, thus forcing them to further increase court fees.

Support for Capital Punishment?

Dear readers,

I apologize for the extreme delay in my blog posts, life has thrown a few unexpected curveballs my way this past week. As a reminder, my last post talked about how the death penalty is actually much more costly than life imprisonment, and discussed whether economic factors have a place in the ethical capital punishment debate.

In today’s post, I want to talk about how many people in our country are in favor of the death penalty. A Gallup poll shows that in the United States, the current support for the death penalty is 60%, with a noticeable partisan difference, where 81% of Republicans but only 47% of Democrats are in favor of capital punishment. Personally, these statistics surprised me, as I would’ve guessed these numbers to be lower. So I started looking into reasons why people voted this way, and found some of the arguments that support the death penalty.

Some of the reasons surprised me, yet again. According to another Gallup poll, one of the most fundamental arguments in favor of the death penalty is to “save taxpayers money”, which is interesting considering my last post, which said that this is a misconception. Additionally, other common arguments were that “they deserve it” (which refers back to my second post, where instead of mercy, being shown, we function on a system of justice alone), and that capital punishment proves as an example to other potential criminals, thus lowering crime rates. I found a separate article that disproves that statement, saying that “there still remains a lack of consensus among researchers on the effect of capital punishment as a crime deterrent.”

What do you guys think? Do you think that these arguments are legitimate? Did any of this surprise you?

Private Prisons aren’t the only problem

This being my last weekly post, I’d like to use it as a medium to explain that more than private prison reform is necessary.  This article highlights the fact that private prisons have grown and definitely have negative implications.  It even said that phone calls are one dollar for every minute that a prisoner is talking on the phone.  So, private prisons are not getting any better as of now.  However, it is apparent that even if every private prison suddenly disappeared, the United States would still have the largest prison system in the world.  Also, as the private prison industry has grown, the public prison system has grown more:

Articles such as this have lead to speculation that the initiatives made by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as candidates would not help the overall issue of the prison system.  There’s no doubt that candidates beginning to acknowledge the problem and try to make changes is a step in the right direction, however I believe that more needs to be done to fix the fact that the US has the largest prison system in the world.  The article mentioned above makes some great suggestions about more electronic monitoring and private probation services that would allow less non-violent criminals to be out of the prison system.

What do you think could be done to fix the US’s problem of mass incarceration?

Theory Post – Pretrial Services Programs

In my previous posts, I discussed various political views on the issue of defendants’ legal rights in court. Some groups believe that defendants, especially those who cannot afford to pay for legal services, are not given enough rights in court. These groups want reforms that increase the rights of defendants because the current system violates many rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Other groups say that states do not have enough money to set up new programs to expand the rights of defendants. States already have to charge defendants court fees in order to finance their courts.

In order to solve this deeply divided issue, there must be a compromise between both sides in which small increases in defendants’ rights are made without spending large amounts of money. The first issue that should be addressed is if a person cannot afford to pay bail. The compromise that can be used to solve this problem is the implementation of pretrial services programs, which can be used to investigate the arrested individual to see if he or she is at risk of fleeing from trial or dangerous to the general public. According to Court & Community, these investigations are used as recommendations to a judge who decides whether the accused person can be sent home, needs to be monitored and supervised, or should be sent to jail. The National Institute of Justice suggests that pretrial services programs “can minimize unnecessary pretrial detention, reduce jail crowding, increase public safety, ensure that released defendants appear for scheduled court events, and lessen invidious discrimination between rich and poor.” The implementation of pretrial services programs benefit groups that want to increase defendants’ rights because it mostly eliminates the issue of excessive bail stated in the Eighth Amendment because investigations by pretrial services officers can allow people accused with minor crimes to be sent home without having to pay bail if they pose little risk. It also helps the groups that want to limit spending because pretrial services programs will reduce overcrowding in jails. This decrease in costs will also allow courts to decrease the amount of court fees they charge defendants. Another solution is to administer electronic monitoring systems. The Yale Law Journal suggests that electronic monitoring reduces fugitive rates by allowing the defendant to be easily located. It also can reduce state government expenditures by reducing the number of defendants that have to be detained.

 

Private Prison Theory: What can be done?

My most recent post, the analysis of private prisons, explained the two different sides of private prisons.  The two sides are very simple: those for private prisons and those against them.  I’d love to give my readers a two sided argument that shows what both sides can do to make a compromise, however it seems that private prisons simply need reformation in order justify their existence.

Primarily, I’d like to reference the website of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).  A statement pulled from their site:

At CCA, we are committed to operating facilities that benefit taxpayers, support economic growth, generate local tax revenue, and provide stable, well-paying jobs with advancement opportunities.

A mentioned in my previous post, almost every one of these “commitments” they mention has been severely refuted by numerous studies.  The only statement that can be supported is the fact that these prisons do provide jobs.  However, the “well-paying” portion may have to be removed as this article states that even workers’ salaries are subject cuts in an attempt to increase profits.  Basically, I believe that if private prisons actually attempt to accomplish these statements, they could be a beneficial aspect to the Judiciary system in the US.

Also, immigrants should not be handed over to private prisons.  The Obama administration has been funneling immigrants into these facilities and even is attempting to certify them as housing facilities.  It is immoral to take advantage of families, including innocent children, by using them as a means to gain money.  Perhaps, these companies could create facilities that actually deserve certification as housing units.  This way, the immigrants could be housed in actual, suitable facilities rather than prisons.

Finally, politicians should stop accepting campaign contributions from private prison groups until necessary reforms are made.  This step has already been taken by Hillary Clinton in her campaign.  If politicians ended the influence that private prisons are able to create, the corporations may make changes in order to receive financial aid/support.

Private prisons have a long way to go before they can be advocated as a beneficial aspect of the U.S. Judiciary system.  However, if reformations are made, I think they could provide valuable jobs to local citizens and offer the government aid with overcrowding.  Not to mention, if the immigrant housing was actually created, this could solve a major problem.  As of now, private prisons should be abolished.  However, with certain changes, or even state supervision, they could be an integral part of the U.S. Judiciary system.

 

Analysis of Legal Rights of Defendants

Fundamental rights in the criminal justice system are often denied or not fairly provided to people who cannot afford essential legal services. These legal services include attorneys and bail. People who cannot afford an attorney are represented by overworked public defenders who cannot provide effective protection as compared to private lawyers. People unable to pay bail or other court fees are often sent to jail. The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights requires the criminal justice system to treat every defendant fairly by administering punishment to each offender through a fair trial. However, the justice system does not treat every defendant fairly and holds a bias against people who cannot afford legal services.

The criminal justice system does not treat defendants equally when providing the assistance of counsel. A principal right in the US Constitution is the right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment  states, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” In the past, this right was often not provided to people who were unable to afford an attorney. However, in the case Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court required state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. These appointed attorneys are called public defenders. Even though Gideon v. Wainwright removed bias in the court system by allowing people unable to afford a lawyer counsel in court, there still is a significant difference in the quality of protection. According to an article from the New York Times, public defenders are suffering from so many budget cuts and growing caseloads that offices in several states are refusing to take more cases or are suing to limit them because defendants’ rights to counsel are being undermined. The article found that from 2005-2008, “the average number of felony cases handled by each lawyer in a year has climbed to close to 500, from 367” and “caseloads for lawyers assigned to misdemeanor cases have risen to 2,225 from 1,380.” This large increase in caseloads for public defenders raises the question of whether public defenders can provide equal protection compared to private lawyers. There are several limiting factors that give a disadvantage to public defenders. One of the major limitations is that you do not get to select your own attorney. Instead of being able to interview a handful of lawyers to find the best one, you are simply assigned one public defender. Additionally, public defenders have less time on each case. According to recommendations based on the National Advisory Council on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, public defenders receive way more cases than recommended and have much less time to handle each case than recommended. Although all public defenders are qualified lawyers who have passed the Bar exam in their state, these two limitations cause public defenders to not be as effective as private lawyers. Appointing public defenders that are not as effective as private lawyers causes unequal treatment between people who cannot afford a lawyer and are appointed a public defender and people who can afford a private lawyer. The criminal justice system favors people who can afford to pay for their own attorney because they are more likely to avoid being sentenced.

The criminal justice system also does not treat defendants equally in regards to paying bail. People who cannot afford to pay bail are often detained in jail. According to the New Jersey Jail Population Analysis, “38.5% of the total [prison] population, had an option to post bail but were held in custody solely due to their inability to meet the terms of bail.” This means that many of the inmates were not serving an actual jail sentence but instead waiting for their trial. These “pretrial detainees” have to suffer through these jail conditions for months until their trials. The punishment of having to serve jail time can be exacerbated by circumstances such as not being able to work and earn money for an extended period of time and possibly being fired because of it. Because of this, defendants are more likely to plead guilty if the chance of acquittal is low or if the expected sentence on a plea bargain is less than the jail time that would be served before the trial. However, people who are able to pay bail are able to avoid jail time before their trial. People should be put in pretrial detention if they have a propensity to run away before their trial or are a risk for causing harm to the public. Instead, pretrial detentions usually ignore these risks and instead mainly put people too poor to pay bail in jail regardless of their risk level. According to the Justice Policy Institute, “pretrial detention has a documented negative impact on pretrial and case outcomes.” People who are held pretrial are more likely to receive a sentence of incarceration and be sentences longer than those released pretrial. When held in jail, the defendant is unable to work with their counsel to prepare the defense, gather witness and other perform other activities need to present a strong case in court. The establishment of bail and pretrial detention does not treat people equally under the law because there is an economic bias in which people who cannot afford bail receive more punishment than people who can afford it.

Poor people are also discriminated against in the area of court fees. States are increasingly charging defendants court fees in order to finance their criminal justice systems. Defendants are charged a variety of fees. Defendants have to pay fees for legal services that should be free. For example, public defenders are lawyers given to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Adding a court fee onto the public defender defeats the purpose of appointing attorneys to people who cannot afford counsel on their own. Numerous court fees can add up to thousands of dollars. The problem arises if the defendant fails to pay these fails. If the defendant is unable to pay these fees, he or she is sent to jail. According an article by NPR, cities “violate the rights of poor residents by issuing arrest warrants when people fail to pay court fines and fees, without first considering whether they are too impoverished.” This contradicts the outlawing of debtors prisons in the United States almost 200 years ago. It also goes against the Supreme Court ruling in 1983 in the case Bearden v. Georgia, which established that judges cannot send people to jail because they are too poor to pay court fines. Similar to the situation with public defenders, the criminal justice system has not entirely implemented the Supreme Court ruling. A 4-month study in 2013 of jail records obtained found that about a quarter of the people in jail for misdemeanor were there because they did not pay their court fines. Miriam Aukerman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said “it’s not that it’s wrong to charge people money as a way to punish them, but there have to be alternatives for people who can’t pay.” The alternative cannot be incarceration for the poor and payment for the rich because this favors people who can afford to pay court fees. The idea that people who cannot afford to pay court fees go to jail while people who can afford to pay do not challenges the principle of the criminal justice system that people are treated alike regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

The criminal justice system does not treat every defendant equally because it denies principle legal services such as attorneys from people who cannot afford them. Furthermore, the justice system incarcerates people who cannot pay bail or court fees while people who can afford them do not go to jail. This vastly differing treatment of defendants based on ability to pay for legal services is unconstitutional and goes against the basic principle of the criminal justice system in which each defendant should receive a fair trial decided only by the law and the evidence provided. As public defenders struggle with limited resources and heavy caseloads due to budget cuts and states continue to increase court fees, defendants will still be unfairly treated within the criminal justice system.

Analysis of Private Prisons

Privatization of prisons in the U.S. began a few decades ago and has altered the prison system drastically in a relatively short period of time. More and more crimes have become punishable with incarceration, such as drug violations and petty theft. This has created an increased number of prisoners in the U.S. over the last few decades. In return, this has created a large prison system that allowed an opportunity for private institutions to step in and take a number of prisoners off the hands of the states for a profit. Since the creation of private prisons, prisoners have been turned over to private prisons to cut costs for state governments. However, there is inconclusive evidence that these are even more efficient. Questioning their effectiveness, today, there continues to be an increase in funds being dedicated to prison aid, even more than for education. All the while, these private institutions aim at the largest revenue possible, so basic amenities are reduced to a bare minimum. Even further, the influence of these institutions has grown to create a corrupt system that sends undeserving people into prison in order to maximize profits. The privatization of prisons has created a corrupt judicial system that treats human beings as commodities to be used for monetary gain.

According to The Sentencing Project, the number of prisoners in the United States has risen from around 400,000 in 1984 (when the first private prison was established) to around 1,500,000 in 2013. This would suggest that there is a correlation between the surge of private prisons and inmate population. This is supported by the fact that more crimes are being punished with incarceration than before. Even further, it has been found that some states, such as Arizona and Colorado, have made deals with their private prisons that they must keep their facilities at one hundred percent capacity. This is the type of corruption that private prisons create in the U.S. Another prime example of this type of corruption is from the Huffington Post. This article highlights a case where two judges in Pennsylvania received over 2.6 million dollars in a scandal where they were paid to send youths to prison for petty crimes. This shows how these institutions will do just about anything to get more prisoners in their facilities. With fraudulent actions such as these, there’s no wonder that the prison population has increased so much since the private prison industry took off.

As mentioned in the intro, private institutions have been known to purchase and take over prisons in towns that are suffering economically. These towns see this as an opportunity for immediate cash and instant jobs. However, one of these institutions has recently tried to purchase prisons from states and maintain them, with a catch. The states would be obligated to keep the facilities at ninety percent capacity at all times. This shows that these companies are not interested in helping the states or helping rehabilitate the inmates; they simply want to maximize their profits.

Surprisingly, the violent crime rate across the country has dropped over the last couple decades, while the number of prisoners continues to rise. How could this trend continue? According to Common Dreams, private institutions have been spending millions on lobbying for immigration laws to be made stricter, which would lead to more incarcerations, and increased profits. This has even lead to a quota being put on the number of immigrants in prisons at any given time.   What does this say about the intentions of these institutions? They are taking advantage of refugee families simply because the number of native prisoners has taken a dip in recent years. This is a primary example of how private prisons treat people simply as commodities rather then human beings.

According to the Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison institution in the U.S., private prisons save taxpayer money by building faster, more efficiently, and running them more cost effectively.   However, there have been research projects in Arizona that point towards the contrary. As reported by the NY Times, inmates in private prisons can cost “up to $1,600 more per year.” Not only is there any solid evidence that private prisons are cheaper, but also they have received more state funding in recent years. The governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, has even made a plan that cut over $75 million from public universities, while making sure to leave over $5 million for a new private prison. This shows these prisons being made a higher priority than education. Additionally, Governor Ducey received $10,500 for his campaign from interest groups that are associated with private prisons. These institutions are using the money they make off of prisoners to influence legislation to further enhance their power and influence on politics.

Even if it was assumed that private prisons do, in fact, reduce costs (which is not proven), the means by which they reduce costs are negligent to the inmates. This article from Soc Theory explains how private prisons cut costs by lowering food rations and disregarding the quality of security. The consequences of malnutrition are obvious, but the cheap guards may be even worse. As guards’ pay gets cut, there has been a trend of more homicide within prisons, both on guards and among prisoners. This is because these guards don’t know what their doing or simply don’t care enough to do things the right way. So, even in the facilities that may be less expensive, the consequences of a cheaper operation are not worth the extra profit.

“In my view, corporations should not be allowed to make a profit by building more jails and keeping more Americans behind bars. We have got to end the private-for-profit prison racket in America.” This is a quote taken from Bernie Sanders’ press conference back in September. Sanders is the presidential candidate that represents the dissenting view on private prisons. Also, Hillary Clinton has campaigned against private prisons recently, saying that it is time to “end the era of mass incarceration.” These two candidates have made points out of this issue that corporations should not be allowed to make a profit out of jailing Americans (Sanders) and that jailing immigrants shouldn’t be focused on making a profit (Clinton). The main argument against private prisons is that incarceration of the American people (and immigrants) should not be based on how many people can be jailed in order to maximize revenue.

Some argue that private prisons are simply more cost effective, and that is why they should be used. However, there are too many reports that suggest the contrary for either side to be inconclusively declared true. So, assuming public and private prisons cost the same (which is largely contradicted), the best way to look at it is their effectiveness. Recent reports have stated that private prisons hold inmates 4 to 7% longer than public prisons.   Also, as stated previously, private prisons have been known to cut corners when it comes to facilities and workers.  Based on effectiveness and morality alone, private prisons continue to prove to be an inferior method of incarceration.

In conclusion, private prisons have no desire to improve the prison system or help states reduce the cost of inmates. They use their profits to influence politics in their favor in order to gain more opportunities to increase revenue. Even though violent crimes have been reduced, the prisons continue to get more inmates through corrupt means to take advantage of youths and immigrants. Also, once their quotas are reached, basic services are cut short at the expense of the inmates and workers. Moreover, states are beginning to spend more money to support these prisons rather than education. Private institutions do nothing to better the prison or judiciary system in the U.S. and need to be eliminated from the system.

Court Fees

Today, I will discuss how the court system is not free and comes with a price. This directly follows up with last week’s post which can be found here.

NPR’s series Guilty and Charged found that states are charging defendants more and more court fees to finance the criminal justice system and other state programs. NPR, with help from the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Center for State Courts, conducted a nationwide survey of fees courts are charging to defendants. The survey shows that defendants even have to pay a fee for their public defender. This brings up a major problem because public defenders are supposed to be free and for people who cannot afford to pay for an attorney. This also challenges the fundamental principle of criminal justice that the rich and poor are treated alike. The criminal justice system also charges defendants at every step, from the courtroom, to jail, to probation. These numerous fees can add up to thousands of dollars. If defendants fail to pay these fees, they are sent to jail. People with money can afford these fees and avoid having to serve jail time. However, people who cannot afford these fees receive worse treatment under the court system and go to jail. The defendant’s sentence is supposed to be the punishment for the crime. Charging fees for the privilege to be prosecuted and sentenced for the crime creates a double penalty.

State legislatures set the fees for the criminal justice system. These legislatures do not want to raise taxes so they fund their court systems by charging fees to defendants.

What do you think about this subject? Should state legislatures be able to charge defendants fees in order to fund their courts? Does this cause the criminal justice system to favor the rich over the poor?