Bends Toward Justice

Election Day

Today is Election Day. Last night in my Facebook news feed I saw a post from a friend of a friend. It really spoke to me. She hopes "her man" wins today and she won't gloat if he does. She hopes others do (or, in this case, don't do) the same if their man wins. She knows this is not a game or an argument - it is the very future of our country. People feel passionately about their candidates, just as she does. (I want to become this lady's friend!)

On a state level, I already know many of the people I appeared in front of for years won't win. They retired or lost in their primaries. One devoted statesman died driving home after the long, exhausting legislative lesson. I know there will be many new faces in our Statehouse come January. While I am anxious about all of the change afoot (meeting new people, providing context for certain policies/proposals, etc.), I am also hopeful and positive. All of the elected officials - old and new - arriving in January are passionate about their state and their issues. They all know - as do all of us living in Kansas - the very future of our state is the serious business taking place here.

Our beautiful rotunda is back and ready to greet everyone in January

Last fall, I wrote this post asking whether there is a "Kansas way", i.e. a mission statement of sorts, that could guide our public policy making in our state. A few months ago, my best friend brought this article to my attention, renewing my interest in the idea. The story is about KU Law Professor Raj Bhala. It begins:

As someone who has visited nearly 50 countries, Raj Bhala feels at home in the world. But he feels most at home in Kansas, where he has spent the past decade transforming KU’s international law program into a world player.

Kansas, he insists, is more open-minded, better integrated, far humbler and less “me-oriented” than other places he has lived, most notably on the East Coast.

It’s not surprising then that one piece of advice he would give to incoming KU students is “Remember your good Kansas values (plain speech, directness, honesty) wherever you go.”

The article continues:

[as others note] . . . Bhala is an indefatigable promoter of the state and KU.

Did you know, Bhala asks, that KU law school admitted women regularly from its beginning in 1878 (75 years before Harvard did)? Did you know that it always admitted African-Americans, that it was never segregated? Did you know that KU has students from 110 different countries? He brims with pride about his adopted state, citing interesting details and anecdotes that would likely surprise a lifelong Kansan.

The article ends with Prof. Bhala explaining he takes it personally when Kansas attracts bad national press. He "frequently fields inquiries from around the world about what Kansas is actually like. His response? To tell the 'really good stories' of Kansas, the ones that counter the stereotypes, the ones that make people want to come here."

I want to be this man's friend, too! He contributes to my ongoing curiosity about a "Kansas way". And he stands up for our state!

And that's what Election Day and every day should be about - we need to make people want to come here. We want people to be proud of our state. We need to write and tell the really good stories about Kansas. Our very future depends upon it.

The elevator resolution from the Statehouse - I never tire of it.

P.S. In other news, this year marks the 100th anniversary of full suffrage for women in Kansas. Kansas was the eighth state to have full voting rights for women.

But Election Day gives me pause for another reason relating to the right to vote. Did you know there are approximately 5.3 million people in this country who can never vote again because they have a felony conviction on their record? Fortunately this is not the law in Kansas. This summer I saw a presentation about felony disenfranchisement in Virginia and it blew my mind. For more information about national laws on this issue, please see The Sentencing Project's website.

P.S. #2 I am anxiously watching the State of California today, where voters are considering Prop. 34, which would end the death penalty in that state. For more information about the work of SAFE CA and its broad base of support, please see its website.

Gideon's golden anniversary

In June 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking into the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida. He was accused of stealing wine, cigarettes and money. Mr. Gideon asked the judge presiding over his case to appoint him a lawyer because he could not afford to hire one. Apologetically, the judge denied Mr. Gideon's request and explained the law of Florida permitted counsel be appointed only when a defendant was facing a capital offense.  Consequently, Mr. Gideon acted as his own counsel. The jury convicted him. He was sentenced to five years. From a Florida state prison, using prison stationery, Mr. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court. Denied there, Mr. Gideon filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court appointed a prominent D.C. attorney - future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas - to represent Mr. Gideon in his appeal.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held "[t]he right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment." In the Opinion, Justice Black writes:

Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.

This past summer, I heard a presentation about this case and saw copies of court documents, TV interviews with Mr. Gideon, interviews with attorneys and judges involved in the case, etc. Last night I found the oral argument online (along with a full transcript of it). I want to talk about my favorite things that Mr. Fortas said, but I know this post is going to be long enough as it is.

Clarence Earl Gideon

Since the summer, I have been excited for this day. I had plans for having a big birthday party, taking literature to the Statehouse recognizing the people of Kansas who do indigent defense (as public defenders and appointed counsel), sending thank you notes out to people I know, etc. Then other things took over my time. Even so, I was still excited about today - until last week. Now I am just irritated. 

Given it's the 50th anniversary of this landmark decision, the past week featured lots of articles, reports, etc. on the state of indigent defense in this country. There was this article in the New York Times about people who sit in jail longer when they have no attorney, who have no access to attorneys because of where they live and other issues. There was this story on NPR that also talked about access to attorneys and attorneys with large caseloads, etc. One of the articles I read talked about how there have been over 300 exonerations - in the same paragraph where it talked about ineffective indigent defense providers.

There was the first of a three-part series from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers called Gideon at 50: A Three-Part Examination of Indigent Defense in America. The report issued last week is called Rationing Justice: The Underfunding of Assigned Counsel Systems, which (according to the NACDL website) "documents the low rates paid to assigned counsel and how that results in defendants receiving inadequate representation. . . . this report serves as a stark reminder that much work remains to secure the meaningful protection of Americans’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel."

There was a speech by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder discussed in this article in the Atlantic. (There were a few articles about Gideon in the Atlantic.) An excerpt from that speech:

In short, America's indigent defense systems exist in a state of crisis. Like many of you, this is something I've seen firsthand. As a judge on the District of Columbia Superior Court -- and, later, as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia -- I frequently witnessed the devastating consequences of inadequate representation. I saw that wrongful convictions and unjust sentences carry a moral cost that's impossible to measure -- and undermine the strength, integrity, and public trust in our legal system. I also recognize that, in purely economic terms, they drain precious taxpayer resources -- and constitute an outrageous waste of court funds on new filings, retrials, and appeals just because the system failed to get it right the first time.

There was this article called "Gideon's promise still unfulfilled" from the National Law Journal, again highlighting the lack of funding for indigent defense, big caseloads, etc. An excerpt:

About 80 percent of the accused rely on court-appointed counsel. Over­whelmed with cases and starved for resources, some public defenders have little choice in representing their clients but to "meet 'em and plead 'em," as the saying goes, spending just a few moments talking with a defendant before entering a plea. "People are just processed through the courts. There are no professional legal services provided," said Bright [president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, which represents people facing the death penalty and advocates for indigent defense reform], who said that guilty pleas account for the vast majority of criminal convictions. Too often, a public defender is reduced to being little more than a messenger, conveying the prosecutor's plea offer but unable to "argue [because] you don't know the facts or anything about the background of the client," he said.

He recounts the plaintive query from one defendant: "What would happen to my case if I had a real lawyer?"

I have been a practicing public defender in Kansas for 13 years. I participated in valuable clinics (both in experience gained from and the services provided by) at KU Law School that provided indigent defense. After reading/hearing all of this recent press, I have three simultaneous gut reactions:

1) You are right.

2) F*!% you.

3) Really?!

As to 1), I recognize and, to some extent, live and breathe what these articles and reports are talking about. I TOTALLY GET IT AND AGREE. There is no doubt that while we have come a long way, this country (on all levels - cities, counties, states, federal) has a long way to go in providing the defense Justice Black and his fellow justices envisioned in Gideon - and in how we pay, equip and support the people providing that defense. While circumstances vary depending on location, etc., believe me - these articles are talking about reality in this country.

As to 2), I know this anniversary should not really be about me and mine. It is about people who stand accused and the rights due to them. (And how ensuring those rights benefits all of society.) It is about equal access to justice. But I cannot get over the fact not one piece of press I have seen/heard has celebrated or thanked public defenders and appointed counsel for the work they do. Not one story I have seen has focused on policy makers and/or other stakeholders who work to ensure access to counsel and adequate resources to that counsel.

And those stories are out there . . . in fact, there was one in August about members of the Kansas Legislature meeting for hearings on new Board of Indigent Defense Services board member appointments. Several senators impressed upon the to-be-confirmed board members that they may be called upon to advocate for funding for indigent defense. Senator Tim Owens "explained the state could be 'in dire trouble' if it doesn't provide more money for public defenders for defendants who can't afford them. Owens, a lawyer, suggested that the state could face lawsuits if it fails to do so." Senator Schodorf "said she believed the indigent defense program had been 'underserved and underfunded' throughout her 12 years in the Legislature". Senator Emler expressed concern over caseloads and funding, calling the situation "problematic". Today I want to give a shout-out to these lawmakers for their attention to this problem and to all of the others who work hard to secure funding and/or defend against funding cuts for indigent defense.

Back to my irritation . . . people - including many criminal defense attorneys - are quoted throughout these Gideon-related articles referring to counsel for indigent clients as "inadequate", "potted plants", "meet 'em and plead 'em" and not "real attorneys." Another National Law Journal article called "Not much to celebrate" talked about "[t]here are lawyers who sleep through trial, abuse alcohol and drugs while representing defendants or are out in the courthouse parking lot while key prosecution witnesses testify."

Instead of focusing on all of the negatives, how about we recognize and celebrate people for the work they do? We can do that while also pointing out the circumstances under which so many people do that work. (And, sure, we can also point out that some people are sucky at that work.) Again, I want to give a special shout-out to all of my friends who are public defenders or take court appointments for indigent clients! And a special thanks to all those people who support us in this work (families, friends, colleagues, criminal justice system stakeholders, community members, policy makers, etc.)!

As to 3), the most offensive thing to me is the way indigent defense providers are blamed for miscarriages of justice. (See A.G. Holder's speech and the National Law Journal articles for examples.) NEWSFLASH: It is not the fault of indigent defense providers that most cases end in pleas. It is not their fault so many people go through the court system. It is not their fault they are often reduced to "messengers". "Inadequate representation" is not the main cause of "devastating consequences". It is not always their fault that unjust sentences result and have a moral and economic cost. Crappy defense counsel is not the main cause of wrongful convictions. 

All I can say is thank goodness for search engines, which brought up this editorial called "Gideon's Muted Trumpet" as I was writing this post. All I can say is thank goodness for Paul Butler, a law professor at Georgetown University, former federal prosecutor and author of Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice, for putting into words what I want to say (albeit some of his language is stronger than mine would be):

Don’t blame public defenders, who are usually overwhelmed. The problem lies with power-drunk prosecutors — I know, because I used to be one — and “tough on crime” lawmakers, who have enacted some of the world’s harshest sentencing laws. They mean well, but have created a system that makes a mockery of “equal justice under the law.”

*****

Today over 90 percent of accused people plead guilty. It’s rational, because the costs of being wrong are just too high. 

*****

Poor people lose, most of the time, in our criminal justice system not just because indigent defense is inadequately financed, although it is, and not because public defenders are ineffective, although some are. They lose because prosecutors and lawmakers treat them like losers. That is the real crisis of American indigent defense.

Like I said in this post last year, the greatest threat to the Sixth Amendment is not an overworked and underpaid public defender/appointed counsel (or even a dope-smoking-in-the-courthouse-parking-lot one), but laws/ordinances/rules created by policy makers (covering everything from what constitutes a crime, sentencing, funding for different parts of the criminal justice system, courts, etc.) and the ramifications thereof.

So for my ask, I borrow the words of Attorney General Holder, but I mean them in a much broader way than he probably did (since he did not acknowledge the executive and legislative branches' roles in creating the obstacles indigent defense providers face):

Today -- together -- it's time to declare, once again, that this is unacceptable -- and unworthy of a legal system that stands as an example for all the world. It's time to reclaim Gideon's petition -- and resolve to confront the obstacles facing indigent defense providers. Most of all, it's time to speak out -- with one voice -- to rally our peers and partners at every level of government and the private sector to this important cause.

Oh, and today please raise a glass to or eat a piece of cake for the legacy of one (extra)ordinary man, Clarence Earl Gideon, and all of the folks who work so hard to carry out, preserve and strengthen that legacy.

P.S. One thing that does make me happy is this new movie called Gideon's Army. I saw clips from it this summer at the NACDL conference I attended. The movie "exposes these inadequacies [in the indigent defense system] and documents the courageous, marginalized and underfunded work of America's public defenders." As director Dawn Porter further explains: "As I continue to share Gideon's Army with new audiences in anticipation of its broadcast on HBO later this year, I'm reminded over and over why I was compelled to make this film: I am committed to telling the stories of the men and women who work so hard to fix our nation's broken justice system." Maybe Bends Toward Justice can help bring Gideon's Army to a theater near us soon!

P.P.S. For an article talking about Missouri primarily (with a mention of Kansas), see here for a recent KC Star piece.

Happy birthday!

Today is Bends Toward Justice's first birthday. Last year I started a blog and an associated Twitter feed after attending a conference on public policy advocacy and criminal justice issues. I thought about these things as I drove across Kansas last August. As I explained in my introductory post:

[Bends Toward Justice intends to be] a series of open letters to raise awareness about the things in Kansas that are working and ways we could do better in the area of criminal justice policy. I envision this blog as a resource for constituents and policy makers alike. My goal is to provide data, information and stories about the complex issues at hand.

a view of the Kansas sky during that drive across the state last summer

I have tried to stay true to that mission. In the last year, I have published 16 posts. The blog has had over 3,500 views. In this last legislative session, I have - as an individual and/or as a representative of certain entities - advocated for what I believe to be "smart on crime" public policy measures. I received the support of people from all across the political spectrum. What I already believed was reinforced: It works when people call and write. It works when you show up and testify. One person can make a difference sometimes.

I recently returned from the same conference that got me started down this path last year. I want to continue this work, this blog, this Twitter feed. But I want to expand the scope of Bends Toward Justice. We now have a Facebook page. I registered it as a community organization because that is what I hope Bends Toward Justice will become -- that it will grow from an individual into a group. My husband registered a web address for Bends Toward Justice so we can make a webpage. That way it will be easier to provide, share and archive information for readers, constituents and policy makers. 

In addition, I am thinking of ways Bends Toward Justice - as an organization - can proactively introduce legislation or otherwise encourage good public policy on criminal justice issues. Bends Toward Justice is concerned with the "Sunflower State and beyond". I want to see us look to other states for opportunities to share our successes (or failures) and/or learn from theirs. 

This first birthday comes at a time of change. Just yesterday Kansas had its primaries and the balance I talked about in this post did not come to pass. Nevertheless, I think this is an exciting time to be a Kansan working on criminal justice policy issues. For example, there is a growing nationwide trend of conservative lawmakers advocating for "smart on crime" measures. This post on FAMM's (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) blog is an excellent summary and starts with this bit:

The Republican National Committee has released a partial list of speakers tapped for the GOP convention scheduled for later this month in Tampa, Florida. In making the announcement, RNC Chair Reince Priebus said the list includes “some of our party’s brightest stars, who have governed and led effectively and admirably in their respective roles.” 

Conservative criminal justice reform advocates should be pleased with the list. While not every speaker has embraced the “Smart on Crime” model, many of them have done so enthusiastically, and in the process have demolished the tired idea that conservatives aren’t open to common sense criminal justice reform.

Twice at these conferences I referenced above I have heard speakers from Right On Crime, a project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Right On Crime makes "the Conservative Case for Reform: Fighting Crime, Prioritizing Victims, and Protecting Taxpayers". I am impressed by their work. Perhaps we can get them to Kansas next year.

Given this blog comes about in large part because of something Wendell Berry wrote (quoted in my introductory post), it seems fitting to mention him again. Last week on a friend's Facebook page, I saw the last three sentences of the below excerpt, which is from a Wendell Berry essay called "Poetry and Marriage" in his book Standing By Words:

There are, it seems, two muses: the Muse of Inspiration, who gives us inarticulate visions and desires, and the Muse of Realization, who returns again and again to say "It is yet more difficult than you thought." This is the muse of form. It may be then that form serves us best when it works as an obstruction, to baffle us and deflect our intended course. It may be that when we no longer know what to do, we have come to our real work and when we no longer know which way to go, we have begun our real journey. The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings.

Many times I do not know how to effect the change I want to see in my state and my country. The mission, the desired results, the necessary changes - they can be so overwhelming. Changing (or sometimes even maintaining) public policy is a journey. I hope you all will continue on with me for another year.

How big is this tent? You can help decide.

Back in March, a friend shared a Wall Street Journal article called "Race Comes to Dark-Red Kansas". I haven't stopped thinking about it yet. (I can't figure out how to embed - if that's even the correct term - links now that Typepad has changed its format so here's the link: http://on.wsj.com/SetrJW. I have excerpts from it below.)

The article is about Rick Santorum coming to Kansas. His presidential campaign is now history but the issues raised in the article are totally present-day. The article is about the "retooling" of the Republican Party in Kansas.

In many ways, Kansas is emblematic of the national party and the identity questions it now confronts. As the Republican presidential candidates have laid out their visions, a key question has emerged: Just how conservative should the GOP be?

In Kansas and across the country, the Republican Party is trying to reconcile two versions of conservatism. For now at least, the answer in Kansas is decisive, as a focus on limited government, tax cuts and social issues has prevailed.

Centrist Republicans, long a guiding force in state politics, say their party has left them. Not even favorite son Bob Dole could win a GOP primary in this political climate, they say.

Mr. Dole, a longtime senator and former presidential candidate, isn't willing to pooh-pooh his own prospects in his home state. But he said Ronald Reagan would struggle in today's Kansas.

"When you keep demanding more conservatism, people either leave the party or become independents," Mr. Dole said in an interview Thursday. "There just has to be a balance.

******

Brenda Smith, the past state president of the Kansas Federation of Republican Women, said moderates and conservatives should be able to coexist.

"We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't have a mix in the party," said Ms. Smith, who lives in Salina. "We're headed toward one group deciding what's best for Kansas…. That's not healthy."

Before I go further, let me say this. This post is truly about balance. I am not here to badmouth or applaud any particular type of candidate. (But I am here to say I do not appreciate organizations - nor sitting elected officials in our highest offices - that make it their mission to do away with a statewide balance.)

This year all seats in the Kansas House and Senate are up for grabs, so to speak. Mere days before the deadline for candidates to register, the federal court approved a redistricting plan. Many candidiates and constituents find themselves in new districts.

August 7 is the date of the Kansas primaries for both Republican and Democrat candidates. Traditionally, voter turnout for primaries is low. This year, however, much about how the 2013 Kansas Legislature will look will be determined in those primaries(i.e. if our state will have a balance in her Republican party).

I believe a balance of views is important all around, but this is a blog primarily about criminal justice issues. Those issues present a good example of how a balance is important to good public policy. I have allies in both parties, along all points on the political spectrum. Sometimes people identified as moderates support my ideas while people identified as conservative do not. Sometimes it is the other way around. And lots of times no one agrees with me. :)

This year, the only senator to score in the first tier on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index released yesterday (a project of the Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, the Kansas Policy Institute and the Voice for Liberty, found at http://www.kansaspolicy.org/economicfreedomindex/) was one of three senators (and was the only Republican) who voted against SB 453, the original version of the DUI bill that, among other things, criminalized all chemical testing refusals in suspected DUI stops (the subject of an earlier post of mine and a move I also opposed).  

Our state - just like the other 49 of them - has her own concerns and ways of dealing with them. I am with Sen. Dole on this one - I believe in a balance. Again, I do not appreciate organizations who actively campaign against said balance and/or against a mix of views. Furthermore, some organizations actively seek to not only oust a balance/mix, but also commit candidates/those elected to a policy position. And I mean commit in writing in pledge form. Commit to a position, not to the voters or constituents or to what is best for Kansas at a given time. This is incredible, in my opinion.

Yesterday I read an article in the Wichita newspaper about Gov. Brownback and former Gov. Graves weighing in on candidates in the primaries. (You can find it here: http://www.kansas.com/2012/07/12/2405200/graves-and-brownback-take-opposite.html)

The roles that Graves and Brownback will be playing in the primaries illustrates the choices Kansas voters will have when they go to the polls.

“Do I vote with the conservative coalition or do I vote with folks who calls themselves traditional Republicans and have these longstanding roots to the past?” asked Wichita State University political scientist Edward Flentje.

Flentje said that Brownback represents a new era for Kansas Republicans, promising to slash taxes, shrink government and exert a bigger influence on such social issues as abortion.

Graves, meanwhile, reflects an era represented by such legacy Republicans as Alf Landon, Dwight Eisenhower and Bob Dole, who believed the government needed to pay for essential services while limiting taxes and government spending.

“The voters essentially have two choices here,” Flentje said. “Sign up with Brownback and give him a lock-step Legislature. Or not, and vote with these folks who call themselves traditional Republicans.”

*****

Over the last decade, [Derrick] Sontag [state director of Americans for Prosperity] argued, Kansas Republicans have become increasingly conservative. The Republican Party has a big tent, he added, but Graves doesn’t reflect what most Kansans now want from government.

Here's the ask: Kansans, show us what you want. July 17 is the deadline for registering to vote in the August 7 primaries. You can register to vote online - as well as find other voting information - at www.voteks.org/, the Secretary of State's website which promises to "guide you through each step of the Kansas election process, including changes implemented in 2012. We hope it will be useful as you exercise your voting privilege and responsibility."

Help decide how Kansas is going to look - you can contribute to a more representative outcome in these important primaries by voting in them. If you are in a district with a Republican primary, become a registered Republican (if you aren't already, of course). Then do some research and decide for yourself what is best for your district and your Kansas. Then vote on August 7.Let it be a bunch of Kansans - not just a few of us - who decide whether to maintain a balance and a mix, however that looks.

Registering to vote is probably the easiest part. Redistricting has created many changes. If you need to know what district you are in, visit www.kslegislature.org (and click on Find your legislator) or a website run by Kansas Grassroots: http://openkansas.org/.

If you are looking for information about primary contests in your district, you can visit the Secretary of State's website at: http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_upcoming_candidate_display.asp. This spreadsheet shows all of the candidates, their parties, their contact information, etc. You can then google the candidates in your district for more information.

Some organizations have put out endorsement lists - I haven't actively looked for them but I know of these (and I haven't really studied these yet):

*Mr. Glendening's press release on the Kansas Chamber's website: http://www.kansaschamber.org/pressreleases/chamber-pac-announces-endorsements-in-house-and-senate-primaries/. One can presume from his March comments in the Wall Street Journal that the people on this list are the Republicans who, in the Chamber's opinion, are acting like Republicans or are likely to act like Republicans if elected. (Whatever that means. I think it is offensive to all Republicans - like they can't decide what is best for their constituents and their state in different situations and under various scenarios? I think it is offensive to all Kansans - that Republicans should "act" a certain way rather than consider the views and wishes of their constituents.)

*Kansas National Education Association: http://www.knea.org/home/1618.htm

That's all for now. You have until July 17. Thanks for reading.

P.S. My husband wanted me to call this post "Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves" based on the "political cage match" (between Gov. Brownback and Gov. Graves) reference in today's Wichita newspaper article. I said no. But in the spirit of compromise, I leave this comment.

The power of constituents (a.k.a. it works when you call!)

[Note on 4/27/12: I wrote this last night but now it is three hours until the hearing . . . so the time to act is now, if you want to. But first I guess you want to read what I am talking about . . . ]

Sorry for the not-so-creative title. Time is of the essence. In fact, in about 12 hours this message is likely to turn from an ask to an archive.

Late this afternoon, I was crossing a street in downtown Topeka when a man next to me said, "Smile, it's not that bad." I laughed and said he was right - in fact, things were pretty good. I was coming from the Statehouse, where I witnessed the influence of "ordinary people" over the legislative process in their state. Just as it should be.

Let me explain. A few weeks ago, I had this post about the right to a jury trial. It ended with the story of me testifying about the proposed criminalization of chemical test refusals for people suspected of DUI. Before I go any further, I am not trying to go easy on people suspected of DUI. I am trying to question why Kansas would criminalize yet another act, especially when we have other options and when the data suggests criminalization is not the solution it is being touted as (sorry for the poor sentence construction). Anyway, here is part of what I said in my last post:

A few weeks ago, I was graciously given a last-minute chance to argue in front of a conference committee (three Representatives and three Senators appointed to work out differences between the other chamber's version of a bill) against criminalizing refusals of blood, breath and/or urine tests when one is suspected of DUI. Under current law, refusing to submit to such a test leads to administrative penalties (driver's license suspension for a year, followed by required ignition interlock for 1-10 years depending on prior record of refusals) and the refusal can be used against a person in a criminal proceeding (ex. DUI trial). SB 453 will make refusal a crime with the exact same punishment as DUI itself. . . . [It would be a misdemeanor or felony depending on a person's record. In any case, there would be mandatory time in jail.]

I understand why many people think this is a good idea. I am not trying to go light on suspected drunk drivers. I am trying to look at the possible immediate and long-term consequences of this major policy change. I suggested another option (not an original thought - thankfully people help me with ideas): make it worse administratively when a person refuses. I spoke to the fact SB 453 increases the amount of ignition interlock time a person would get for a refusal, so let's give that a chance to take effect. (Later I was happy to see this article about how alcohol-related traffic fatalities have decreased from 138 in 2010 to 76 in 2011 - one contributing factor is thought to be ignition interlock.) I pointed out there is currently no fine for refusal. If the legislature imposed a hefty fine, that would be an incentive for people to take the test (and refusing would cost the offender, not the taxpayers).

Today I wrote up yet another batch of information - lots happened during the interim break this month - to share with the six people deciding this issue in conference committee. What I gave them is at the end of this post.

This afternoon was the conference committee meeting. That's where I witnessed the power of people making their voices heard. Here is a recap of what happened.

Rep. Colloton and Sen. Owens both said they wanted to revisit the issue of criminalization of refusals. Rep. Colloton made several references to the message being “loud and clear in the interim” and how criminalization was “universally rejected” by people she heard from and talked to about this issue - people were offended by the general concept. Sen. Owens said there was “more work for the postal service” over interim and there was “considerable pushback” in the form of letters, calls, “all kinds of things”.  Rep. McCray-Miller cautioned that criminalization may not be the solution people think it is. Sen. Haley voiced his concerns about criminalization as well.

After much discussion, Sen. King made a suggestion that would be “specific to trying to address the DUI avoidance strategy” of refusing. He suggested criminalizing second and subsequent refusals or a refusal by a person with a prior DUI conviction. He suggested using a 10-year lookback period so DUIs and administrative refusals in that period would count. Rep. Colloton said she thought that proposal might satisfy the objections she heard and then they continued the hearing to tomorrow at 11:00.

Legislators rethinking what seemed to be a done deal about a month ago - that's the power of constituents.

I think this concept of still criminalizing some refusals has problems (and the Nebraska data suggests criminalization does not make their roads safer and I have seen no evidence that the number of jury trials would decrease). In the next 12 hours, I intend to call the conference committee members and leave this message: “Thank you for rethinking criminalization but instead of an unresearched, unvetted, last-minute addition, why not let last year’s DUI bill and this year’s SB 60 do its job first? Already we have seen a 45% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities from 2010 to 2011. We can revisit this issue in a few years when the DUI law sunsets or sooner. We can make changes as needed if things do not continue to improve."

If you have an opinion about this issue, please consider calling the six people on the conference committee before 11:00 a.m. on Friday 4/27: Rep. Pat Colloton 785-296-7631 (Johnson County); Rep. Lance Kinzer 785-296-7692 (Johnson County); Rep. Melody McCray-Miller 785-296-7687 (Wichita); Sen. Tim Owens 785-296-7353 (Johnson County); Sen. Jeff King 785-296-7398 (Independence); and Sen. David Haley 785-296-7376 (Wyandotte County). You can leave a message on the answer machine or with their assistants simply saying your position on SB 60. (For some additional information on this issue - from my perspective - please see my written submission from yesterday below.)

Thank you for reading this far and please keep on believing that "ordinary" Kansans can have a say in what becomes law in our state!

                                                                       * * * * *                   

While the Legislature was on break, a few important things happened that impact the proposal to criminalize refusals of blood/breath/urine tests. In addition, I have some additional information that needs to be considered.

1. Proponents hold Nebraska up as the model and reason we need criminalization. Recent statistics show otherwise. The main proponents of criminalizing refusals are prosecutors. In part, they point to 2005-2009 data from Nebraska to suggest “that the coercive effect of criminalizing refusals is effective in reducing DUI-related fatalities.”[1] About three weeks ago, KDOT released numbers showing that alcohol-related fatalities in Kansas dropped about 45% from 138 in 2010 to 76 in 2011. There was an overall total of 382 fatalities in Kansas in 2011. Thus, 20% of Kansas' 2011 fatal accidents were alcohol-related. By contrast, Nebraska had 164 fatal crashes in 2011 and 53 were alcohol-related. Thus, 32% of Nebraska's 2011 fatal accidents were alcohol-related.[2] Furthermore, Nebraska had a 6% test refusal rate in 2005, the same year 31.1% of its fatal crashes were alcohol-related.[3]

As the Nebraska numbers show, criminalizing refusals doesn't prevent drunk driving  - it just adds another criminal charge to those arrested for DUI who also refuse. However, criminalizing refusals sweeps in people who "refuse" for reasons that are innocent in nature (ex.: you can't adequately perform the test, can't understand what is being asked of you, the machine improperly registers your sample as inadequate but we never know that because Kansas machines have that engineered out, etc.).[4] In addition, the number of refusals in Kansas has dropped over the last three years, even without criminalization.[5]

2. Recent escapes and furloughs . . . we cannot afford a new criminal offense when there are alternatives we have not tried. As you know, four DOC prisoners escaped from a county jail, a jail they were in because DOC is overcapacity. Our courts had a furlough day on April 13. These are real-world consequences of an extensive criminal code, lack of funding, etc. Adding a new crime will only exacerbate these problems. We need to consider alternatives to criminalization before we expand the fish and fish bowl.[6]

3. Criminalizing refusals does not change what is admissible at a DUI trial and will not necessarily reduce the number of jury trials. Proponents say refusals should be criminalized because of an increase in jury trials, a concern expressed by courts and prosecutors. However, criminalization does not guarantee a reduction in jury trials – the prosecutors just want to have an additional hammer. The Summer 2011 issue of the The Kansas Prosecutor,[7] references a 3-year study in Omaha that found a DUI conviction rate of 97.5% in cases where the driver refused chemical testing. The article 1) does not say how many jury trials they have in Omaha or elsewhere in NE; 2) does not give the conviction rate for anywhere in Kansas; AND 3) does not mention that Kansas prosecutors currently admit as evidence in a trial that a driver refused the test. In other words, criminalizing refusals changes nothing about what is admitted at trial or necessarily how many cases go to trial. Furthermore, by making refusal a crime, prosecutors must prove that crime with all of its elements - even if they think that will be a "slam dunk", it is more time-consuming than simply admitting the failure as evidence in a DUI trial, which happens right now.

What criminalization of refusals on this rationale does is undermine our Constitutions and the role of Kansas jurors. The federal and state constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to a jury trial and to have the State prove all of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That's part of why we have courts and prosecutors. And what do these comments by the proponents say about juries? If it is "hard to make their case" even when the jury is told the person refused a test, then maybe the jurors didn't think or questioned whether the person was guilty of DUI. Are they not entitled to have the State meet its burden? If we start using this reasoning - i.e. too many people are exercising their right to a jury trial and/or the State is finding its cases "harder to prove" - to criminalize certain acts, then it's all over as far as I'm concerned.

Conclusion: SB 60 already doubles ignition interlock periods for refusals. If proponents really want to encourage people to submit to chemical testing, then add a fine. Make it impact the driver refusing, not the taxpayers. The DUI laws [must be] review[ed] in 2014 [turns out it is 2015] - if we continue to see drops in alcohol-related fatalities and other accidents, then we know we are doing the right things. We need to give time for the current laws (and those proposed in SB 60) to work. 

[1] “The New Kansas DUI Statutes: What Passed, What Didn’t”, The Kansas Prosecutor, Summer 2011, p. 16 (attached but can also be found online at http://www.kcdaa.org/KSProsecutor/KSProsecutor-Summer11.pdf)

[2] “Alcohol-related traffic fatalities in Kansas down”, Lawrence Journal-World, 4/8/2012; KDOT Traffic Safety Fatality Summary Page, current through 3/23/2012; Nebraska Alcohol-Related Crashes/Fatalities, modified 3/6/2012 (all attached).

[3] See footnotes 1 and 2 for sources of this data.

[4] This was covered in written testimony submitted to this Committee earlier this month as well as last year’s testimony regarding what was then SB 7.

[5] Kansas Sentencing Commission Fiscal Note Assessment, DUI Test Refusal Provision, 3/26/2012.

[6] Referring to a quote from Senator Owens in the story about the county jail escapees: “Kansas jailbreak raises questions on crowding”, Kansas City Star, 4/18/2012 (attached).

[7]  See footnote 1.

                                                                              

What's left of the right to a jury trial?

Ever since this summer, I have been particularly sensitive about the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It all started with this article called "The Devil's Bargain" in July 2011's Reason Magazine. The author's premise is plea bargaining undermines justice. 95% of cases are resolved by plea bargains -- "this standard operating procedure was not contemplated by the Framers [of the Constitution]."

In fact, the Constitution says “the Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury.” It is evident that jury trials were supposed to play a central role in the administration of American criminal justice. But as the Yale law professor John Langbein noted in a 1992 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article, “There is an astonishing discrepancy between what the constitutional texts promise and what the criminal justice system delivers.”

No one ever proposed a radical restructuring of the criminal justice system, one that would replace jury trials with a supposedly superior system of charge-and-sentence bargaining. Like the growth of government in general, plea bargaining slowly crept into and eventually grew to dominate the system.

The article explains the Government likes plea bargaining because it saves time and money. In addition, prosecutors and judges "acquire more influence over case outcomes."  Furthermore, says the author, plea bargaining also limits scrutiny of investigatory agencies' conduct, how the Government or State resolves cases, etc. No juries (and maybe no judges, either) will hear about arguably illegal searches or seizures, evidentiary problems, misconduct, etc. - and, consequently, neither will the public.

[Caveat: I am not saying plea bargaining is always bad. I am not saying prosecutors (or judges) always wield the hammer given to them by lawmakers. I am not saying investigatory agencies are always suspect. In reality, sometimes a combination or all of the parties involved in a case try to figure out how to avoid the heavy hammer because it is contrary to what is just in that case. While a plea bargaining system is largely controlled by the Government or State, the source of that power is laws passed by lawmakers. So what I am saying is this system has problems, as discussed throughout this post.]

This accountability/transparency idea struck me when I read this article last week about Justice Clarence Thomas giving a talk at the University of Kentucky.

[Justice Thomas] made big news today by revealing the obvious: Oral arguments aren't that big of a deal—especially to Thomas, who has gone more than six years without asking a single question at a hearing. Referring to the discourse between justices and lawyers, Thomas told a University of Kentucky audience, "I see no need for all of that. Most of that is in the briefs, and there are a few questions around the edges."

The article ends with:

Still, even though health care oral arguments may not have been that important to the justices, it doesn't mean they aren't consequential to the public at large. That's why last month's charade got so much attention: The arguments weren't influencing the justices, necessarily, but they gave the public a window into the disposition of the members of the court, which ended up revealing that yes, five justices could conceivably rule against the individual mandate.

I disagree with some of the points and characterizations, but the conclusion makes my point. What does (or doesn't) happen in courtrooms is consequential to us as people in this country. When constitutional rights are at issue, we should have a window into the proceeding. That's why the Framers included "public" in front of "trial" in the Sixth Amendment.

me in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last summer (the crazy but informative taxi driver giving us a whirlwind tour while the children slept in the backseat risked a ticket to stop long enough for me to jump out and have my mom snap this picture)

But back to the Reason article. The author concludes:

The most common apologia for plea bargaining is a pragmatic argument: Courthouses are so busy that they would grind to a halt if every case, or even a substantial share of them, went to trial. But there is nothing inevitable about those crushing caseloads. Politicians chose to expand the list of crimes, eventually turning millions of Americans into criminals. . . .

In any case, trials are one of the few things the government indisputably should be spending money on. . . . The administration of justice ought to be a top priority of government. (Emphasis mine.)

It's that last part I keep coming back to (and - spoiler alert - how this post ends): why is saving money by avoiding jury trials - or avoiding jury trials in the first place in 95% of cases - in criminal cases seen as such a positive?

Then last month I saw this editorial called "Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System" in the Sunday New York Times. Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (a book that has been in my bedside stack since the summer), talks about a conversation she had with Susan Burton, a woman who runs five safe homes for formerly incarcerated women (and who was incarcerated herself earlier in life). Ms. Burton asked Ms. Alexander, "Can we crash the system just by exercising our rights?"

The answer is yes. The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation....

Such chaos would force mass incarceration to the top of the agenda for politicians and policy makers, leaving them only two viable options: sharply scale back the number of criminal cases filed (for drug possession, for example) or amend the Constitution (or eviscerate it by judicial “emergency” fiat). Either action would create a crisis and the system would crash — it could no longer function as it had before. Mass protest would force a public conversation that, to date, we have been content to avoid.

untouched photo - this is really what the stack looks like (sadly)

But right now, "in this era of mass incarceration — when our nation’s prison population has quintupled in a few decades partly as a result of the war on drugs and the 'get tough' movement — these rights are, for the overwhelming majority of people hauled into courtrooms across America, theoretical." In this era of mandatory minimums, "three strikes" laws, disproportionate sentences, etc., it is too risky for people to exercise their right to a jury trial. People waive their right to a jury trial and plead in order to get home sooner rather than later (or not at all), to get out of jail, to get to treatment, etc. "The result is a dramatic power shift, from judges to prosecutors," who control charging, what plea is acceptable, etc.

(And speaking of forcing this topic to the top of the legislative agenda, remember my post from January before the start of the session. Kansas had 99 sentencing law changes since 2005 "to make sure crime does not pay". The result has been prison overcapacity. It is my opinion this session has not and will not produce much meaningful relief on this front. The erosion of the jury trial right caused by legislative enactments affects people who pay taxes that fund the criminal justice system and corrections. That's you.)

This "standard operating procedure" of plea bargaining impacts another Sixth Amendment guarantee. About three weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Missouri v. Frye, which holds the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel ex­tends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected because that right applies to “all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings.”

. . . the State contends, it is unfair to subject it to the consequences of defense counsel’s inadequacies, especially when the opportunities for a full and fair trial, or, as here, for a later guilty plea albeit on less favorable terms, are preserved. The State’s contentions are neither illogical nor without some persuasive force, yet they do not suffice to overcome a simple reality. Ninety-seven percent of federal convictions and ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. [I omitted the citations, which are lengthy.] The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages. Because ours “is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,” Lafler, post, at 11, it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. “To a large extent . . . horse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.” Scott & Stuntz, Plea Bargaining as Contract, 101 Yale L. J. 1909, 1912 (1992).(Emphasis mine.)

While I could take offense at my work being referred to as "horse trading", I won't and I can't. That is sometimes how it feels. Sometimes I feel like I am negotiating a car purchase, and it makes me feel sick. Frankly, sometimes it makes everyone involved feel bad: prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, probation officers, etc. People try to reconcile justice with the heavy hammer of statutory law passed by policymakers. 

I am glad the Court tells it like it is. And the Court points out another consequence of how our system does business:

[Defendants] who do take their case to trial and lose receive longer sentences than even Congress or the prosecutor might think appropriate, because the longer sentences exist on the books largely for bargaining purposes. This often results in individuals who accept a plea bargain receiving shorter sentences than other individuals who are less morally culpable but take a chance and go to trial. Barkow, Separation of Powers and the Criminal Law, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 989, 1034 (2006).(Emphasis mine.)

[Post-publishing note: today I came across this article in the NY Times from 9/25/11. In retrospect, I think my husband showed it to me back then because it looks familiar. Anyway, it basically makes the points I do above, only way better and with lots more authorities weighing in.]

Even if you are not involved in the criminal justice system and/or think you never will be an accused and/or think our current system is acceptable, etc. - please at least consider these other ways the erosion of the jury trial right negatively affects all of us.

Speaking of culpability, during this legislative session I testified in opposition to SB 307, which specifically excludes any lesser-included offenses ever being given to a jury for consideration in a felony murder case. In other words, regardless of the strength of the State's evidence in a felony murder prosecution, the jury's choices will be guilty of felony murder or an acquittal. This is the only charge in our criminal code this exclusion applies to -- in every other prosecution (including those more serious than felony murder), the judge (often at the request of the defendant and/or the prosecutor) will continue to review the evidence to determine whether a jury could reasonably convict of a lesser-included offense. If so, the jury would be given that option in jury instructions.

Thank goodness for my friend Randall, who wrote our testimony and made sure I understood it (no easy task on either count). Here is the part about the role of Kansans in the jury trial right:

The right to a jury trial is fundamental under the United States Constitution and the Kansas Constitution.  A critical component of the right to a jury trial is the jury’s responsibility to finally determine whether the prosecution has proved its charges beyond a reasonable doubt or whether the prosecution has proved some lesser-included offense.  This is a critical check on the prosecutor’s unbridled power to charge or to overcharge offenses.

By providing for the possibility of consideration of lesser-included offenses, the Kansas Constitution and Kansas law properly assigns to twelve Kansas citizens the role of being final arbiters of guilt across the criminal code.  The proponents have not suggested any reason why Kansas citizens should have any different or lesser role in felony murder cases.

Under SB 307, juries would not even be given the option of finding the appropriate level of culpability in most or any cases.  SB 307 would force juries into an all-or-nothing proposition in felony murder cases.  So even in scenarios where the jury has a reasonable doubt whether the state proved felony murder, but has no reasonable doubt regarding a lesser homicide, the jury would have to choose between acquitting a person (a difficult proposition when there is a tragic loss of life) and convicting a person of felony murder even though jurors had a reasonable doubt regarding that charge. 

Before I testified, one of the proponents said the only person affected by this change is the person on trial, since it could mean the difference between a life sentence (felony murder is life with no parole eligibility for 20 years) or something less. I pointed out this change could make a difference not only for a defendant, but also for a victim's family. If a jury is given the choice between felony murder or nothing, it could end up not reaching a verdict (making a retrial a possibility). A jury could acquit. Either way, that would impact a victim's family. It also affects the Kansas citizens who are put into this difficult position as jurors. And now it occurs to me that it affects the public as a whole -- communities are affected when someone is held more culpable or less culpable than he/she should be because of the choice between felony murder or nothing. 

But it goes beyond just this example. If 94% of state convictions and 97% of federal convictions are the result of pleas, think about the impact on defendants and their families. And victims and their families. And our communities. Don't tell me this system doesn't create injustices where many people are treated too harshly (or where innocent people plead to something for the reasons discussed earlier) while others are not treated harshly enough.

Last example of why I fear for the jury trial right.  A few weeks ago, I was graciously given a last-minute chance to argue in front of a conference committee (three Representatives and three Senators appointed to work out differences between the other chamber's version of a bill) against criminalizing refusals of blood, breath and/or urine tests when one is suspected of DUI. Under current law, refusing to submit to such a test leads to administrative penalties (driver's license suspension for a year, followed by required ignition interlock for 1-10 years depending on prior record of refusals) and the refusal can be used against a person in a criminal proceeding (ex. DUI trial). SB 453 will make refusal a crime with the exact same punishment as DUI itself. (By the way, there were 4,837 refusals in Kansas in 2011. Those would no longer be administratively handled - they would be misdemeanors or felonies with mandatory jail time of various lengths, depending on a person's history.)

I understand why many people think this is a good idea. I am not trying to go light on suspected drunk drivers. I am trying to look at the possible immediate and long-term consequences of this major policy change. I suggested another option (not an original thought - thankfully people help me with ideas): make it worse administratively when a person refuses. I spoke to the fact SB 453 increases the amount of ignition interlock time a person would get for a refusal, so let's give that a chance to take effect. (Later I was happy to see this article about how alcohol-related traffic fatalities have decreased from 138 in 2010 to 76 in 2011 - one contributing factor is thought to be ignition interlock.) I pointed out there is currently no fine for refusal. If the legislature imposed a hefty fine, that would be an incentive for people to take the test (and refusing would cost the offender, not the taxpayers).

The main reason given by those who want criminalization dealt with jury trials. The proponents said when people refuse the test, it makes it harder to prove the DUI at a jury trial. In Johnson County, a majority of jury trials are DUI cases where the defendant refused the test. Courts and prosecutors say there is a cost in time and money to have these cases go to trial. The increase in the number of jury trials is the concern. (As one legislator put it days prior, "there will be prosecutors across the state rejoicing" over the criminalization of refusals.)

Nervous and near tears by this point (this jury trial right concern had been rolling around in my head for nine months), I responded: I thought that was the point of our Constitutions. I thought the federal and state constitutions guaranteed a defendant the right to a jury trial and to have the State prove all of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought that was part of why we have courts and prosecutors. And what do those comments say about juries? If it is "hard to make their case" even when the jury is told the person refused a test, then maybe the jurors didn't think or questioned whether the person was guilty of DUI. Are they not entitled to have the State meet its burden?

Bottom line: If we start using this reasoning - i.e. too many people are exercising their right to a jury trial and/or the State is finding its cases "harder to prove" - to criminalize certain acts or to make other policy choices, then it's all over as far as I'm concerned.

What stops us from tumbling down a slippery slope once we start? Maybe people aren't up for "crashing the system" per se, but I sure hope people will at least question it. And ask their policymakers to do the same.

P.S. I forgot to mention the felony murder bill is basically a done deal as is the criminalizing refusals. However, I keep a sliver of hope on the latter (just because I can't let things go - obviously). :) But even so, we can still make our thoughts known on issues generally even if a specific proposal is not on the table.

P.S. #2 Another post-publishing note: this morning (4/12) I saw an article about Trayvon Martin's parents on the Today show. It says, in part:

"I believe it was an accident," Fulton [Trayvon's mother] said. "I believe that it just got out of control, and he couldn't turn the clock back. . . . 

Zimmerman, who is being charged with second-degree murder, is currently being held in protective custody at the Seminole County jail, awaiting a court appearance. Earlier in the interview, Fulton said she is prepared to endure the trial, "even if that means that he may be found not guilty." "We just want him to be held accountable for what he's done," Fulton said. "And by him not being arrested, that would not have been done. So we are happy that he was arrested so that the committee gives his side of the story." (Emphasis mine.)

Sometimes these posts just write themselves.

Little bits of beauty

Greetings! Since I last wrote, Kansas had a birthday (on January 29, turned 151) and my nerves over the session have settled down. I feel good about what I have been doing, but I haven't been doing it alone. I have been working with others and am fortunate to have help and support from my husband, many friends, family, colleagues, folks at the Statehouse and others. I have a lot of criminal justice policy topics to talk about, but I am going to save them for later. Right now we have a holiday to acknowledge.

Happy Valentine's Day! In honor of today, below is one of my favorite poems. As my friend Connie says, it is a perfect midwestern valentine. Today when I read this poem, I am thinking of all of the hardworking people I come in contact with at the Statehouse.

To Be Of Use

by Marge Piercy

The people I love the best
jump into work head first
without dallying in the shallows
and swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element,
the black sleek heads of seals
bouncing like half-submerged balls.

I love people who harness themselves, an ox to a heavy cart,
who pull like water buffalo, with massive patience,
who strain in the mud and the muck to move things forward,
who do what has to be done, again and again.

I want to be with people who submerge
in the task, who go into the fields to harvest
and work in a row and pass the bags along,
who are not parlor generals and field deserters
but move in a common rhythm
when the food must come in or the fire must be put out.

The work of the world is common as mud.
Botched, it smears the hands, crumbles to dust.
But the thing worth doing well done
has a shape that satisfies, clean and evident.
Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.

(from Circles on the Water, 1982)

One of those hardworking people I see at the Statehouse is my friend Callie. She fights for justice and looks super cute while at it. She came to Senate Judiciary when I happened to be there and she took my picture. If you think I look happy in this "before the hearing" photo, you should have seen me after. People who almost never agree with me did so that day and we were asked to work together to see if we could reach agreement on any other parts of the bill at issue.

Senate Judiciary, February 1, 2012  

Callie has inspired me to think about the legislative experience in different ways - the Statehouse as a place of beauty, for example. I am going to start taking my camera with me.

 Recently another hardworking, inspiring friend - Melinda - wrote me about a mentoring experience she had where she was the mentor. She gave her "mentee" a file folder with a pretty bird design on it. I had given Melinda the file folders after she told me about the marked-up manila file folders she takes to meetings.  The mentee asked Melinda why she chose the field of work she did. Melinda replied: "I had to think - it's because I had a great support network encouraging me and cheering me on. Little bits of beauty keep us moving on. Like pretty folders."

If I was going to have a grave stone, I would want it to say "little bits of beauty keep us moving on." Being creative and incorporating little bits of beauty into everyday life is what keeps me sane. And if there is a way to incorporate work and little bits of beauty, that's even better. For instance, I made myself composition pad covers from a pattern in this book. I use one at work for phone messages, one for taking notes on legislative matters and one for sewing class.

I made business cards and post cards from moo.com. I used the photo from my blog header, a photo I took out of a moving car while driving across Kansas this summer and a beautiful sunflower photo taken by my friend Meryl.

How do all of these points relate? Well, it goes back to the "jump[ing] head first into work" line. I know a lot of hardworking people. Some of them work outside their homes, some work in their homes. Jumping head first into work takes its toll on people, regardless of the work they do. And to them I say, make sure you take time for little bits of beauty. It will keep you moving on.

I hadn't come up with an ask for this post (I couldn't even come up with a unifying theme, as you can tell) before I came to work. In my inbox was a Valentine's Day present from my best friend Stacey. This magnet is my ask.

P.S. Have a great Valentine's Day, everyone. I promise to have more public policy talk and less mushy stuff/crafts in my next post. Goodness knows I have lots of material. :)

 

Here we go

The 2012 Kansas Legislative session starts today. For me, it feels a bit like being a student starting a new school year, only with none of the nervous excitement. Just the nerves.

Last night I read this article with the headline "Kansas issues coming to a boil" with a subheadline (I doubt that's the technical term) of "Brownback is pushing lawmakers to attack a king-size bowl full of heated issues this year". Says Senator John Vratil: "We've got more major policy issues on the table this session than any session I can remember." To make things even more interesting, the entire Legislature is up for re-election this year.

I am excited about one thing. I am hoping this session brings about some positive changes to how we use our state dollars in the criminal justice system. This article from last week's KC Star begins: "Ninety-nine times over the last six years, Kansas legislators have changed the law to make sure that crime doesn’t pay." That's right: 99 sentencing law changes since 2005. (I have been going to the Statehouse since 2005 - maybe I should just throw in the towel?!) The article continues:

A recent tally showed that Kansas men’s prisons were more than 250 inmates over capacity. In a decade, they’re projected to be short about 2,000 beds. Prisons for women also will exceed capacity in about seven years, according to the Kansas Sentencing Commission.

State officials are considering solutions that will keep the public safe while releasing some prisoners sooner than planned or keeping them out of prison in the first place, said Kansas Corrections Secretary Ray Roberts. So far, the idea of mass releases that some states have turned to is not on the table.

The article also mentions that 27% of Kansas prisoners have severe and persistent mental illness, but money for transitional housing and other programs has been cut.

To address these overcrowding/loss of resources/budgeting issues, the article mentions these proposals:

[Secretary] Roberts and Rep. Pat Colloton, a Leawood Republican on the sentencing commission who chairs a House-Senate committee on corrections and juvenile justice, listed some other options:
• Allow more inmates into a drug treatment diversion program, and let them in more often. The program now admits only minor offenders who can use it only once to avoid prison.
• Let all inmates into a behavior program that can shave 60 days off their sentences.
• Colloton is introducing a bill that would promote the Johnson County district attorney’s mental illness diversion program, which allows minor offenders to have charges against them dropped.

It is things like this that will keep my spirits up and give me a reason to keep showing up to the Statehouse.

So to preface the ask, here's a quote from House Majority Leader Arlen Siegfreid, from the above-mentioned legislative preview article:

All in all, I'm excited about the session. I'm anxious to get started. We can profoundly change the future of Kansas if we have the courage and the character to do so. I think we need to get out there and be leaders.

Let's get out there, folks. Make your voices heard! Just as a reminder, you can find legislators' contact information on the Legislature's website. If you need to find the names of your representative or senator, you can look here.

Let's change the future of Kansas, particularly with regard to criminal justice issues. I don't want things to look like this come May:

P.S. I found this "book" at an antique store in Paxico.

P.S. #2. As of right now, Bends Toward Justice has had 2,102 views since its creation in August 2011. Not only am I honored that people are reading, but that's 2012 backwards! Maybe that's a good sign for the year to come . . . 

 

Gift Giving Guide

Looking to do some last minute gift shopping? I have some ideas for you.

A couple of weeks ago I saw this article about a perfect combination: being crafty and helping people. Right after that, I saw a friend's plea for support for a Kickstarter project called Bloodsworth: An Innocent Man. This will be a movie about Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.  If you are interested in the creation of Kickstarter and what it does, you can read about it here and here. (While the Bloodsworth support drive is over, I bet you could find other projects there relating to what I am about to say.)

Then it hit me: combine holiday gifts and criminal justice reform, with a little craftiness/creativity thrown in!

Disclaimer: Some of my suggestions involve a lighthearted approach to issues that truly keep me up at night. In other words, while I am being funny, I am also being serious. If that makes sense. I am not trying to offend people. It's just like we say at work: sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying.

I got my friend Jake (I sure hope he isn't reading this before next week) a pocket Constitution printed on 100% recycled paper by presses powered by renewable energy at the BuyOlympia website. At the same website, I got other cards to give as presents/gift tags, including one about the Bill of Rights (at this time, I will resist making editorial comments about current affairs and their impact on said document, which celebrated its 220th birthday yesterday). And one could send these cards using Kansas stamps!

Speaking of the Bill of Rights, do you have a person on your list who is freaked out (or should be) by the direction we are moving in this country with respect to fundamental constitutional rights? How about the mug below and a donation to the ACLU or another organization that works to protect the rights of all?

How about this unlikely pairing: the wine pictured below with a donation made on behalf of your gift recipient to the Innocence Project? As its website says, IP is a "national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice." According to IP's website, "eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing." I blogged about this topic here and here. (For a more serious approach, ditch the wine idea and give your recipient a book about and/or written by an exoneree.)

Do you or someone on your list like to support organizations that stand for limited government, free markets, individual liberties, etc.? How about a donation to Right On Crime? A project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Right On Crime makes "The Conservative Case for Reform: Fighting Crime, Prioritizing Victims and Protecting Taxpayers". Signatories to the ROC Statement of Principles include former Gov. Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich and William Bennett. The website has lots of information about how to best use corrections dollars, using evidence-based practices in supervising offenders, etc. Maybe pair this gift with a Don't Mess With Texas shirt? I don't know . . . I bet you could think of something clever. (And see below for possible packaging idea.)

Do you have a runner on your list? How about something like a hat or key holder or race bib belt and a donation to Running Free, the women's running group at Topeka Correctional Facility? (If you live in the Topeka/Lawrence/KC areas, you can find cool running gear at one of the five Gary Gribble's Running Sports stores.)

Which reminds me . . . speaking of shopping locally, that is another way to link gift giving and criminal justice reform. According to Independent We Stand, a movement of independently-owned local businesses, "if every family in the Lawrence [Kansas] metro area spent just $100 of their holiday budget at locally-owned, independent businesses, over $2,994,856* would be directly returned to the Lawrence community. That means better schools, better roads, more support for police, fire and rescue departments and stronger local economies." The * comment explains "[w]hen you spend $100 at an independent business, $68 returns to the local economy versus $43 when spent with a national chain." So, if you do buy something to accompany one of these donation ideas, please consider a locally-owned, independent business. Your community would have more resources to put toward local criminal justice reform, as I discussed here.

Do you or a loved one on your list oppose the death penalty? How about a contribution to the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty? (Or your state's equivalent, which you can look up on the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty's website.) You could pair it with a relevant movie, book or other publication. (Example: a nice edition of To Kill A Mockingbird.)

While I haven't thought of creative accompaniments to them, here are some other ideas.

Need a family gift? How about a donation to Families Against Mandatory Minimums? In December, FAMM has its annual matching gift drive so your gift would double in size.

Looking for something to help kids? How about donating to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, a national campaign working to end the practice of sentencing youth to life without parole. I wrote about their work here.

This is just a sampling of ideas. There are many excellent local, state and national (and international, for that matter) organizations working on criminal justice reform issues. There are books, magazines, movies, etc. that relate to the same.

One last idea. I stole this one from my friend at Artsyville: homemade "whatever holders"! My friend used brochures and embroidery floss and made them to fit gift cards. As I am both lazy and a giant nerd, I made them quickly with my sewing machine from a Pew Center on the States report on overincarceration, a Drug Policy Alliance brochure, fabric and a map - and big enough to hold a card announcing whatever the donation is.

Well, I need to get back to my own list. As you can see from the photos below, I am in the middle of many projects I have one week to complete. This room will go back to being mainly an office in less than a month, when the legislative session begins. But I am going to try not to think about that for now. Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa and Happy New Year!

 

 

Finite Resources

I turn 42 this week. No big deal, right? 42 is not the start of a new decade. It's not the voting age or rental-car-eligible age. It's not old enough to run for President. But it is significant to me because it is 21 times 2. And I realize how I felt half my life ago is somewhat akin to how I feel now.

Shortly after I turned 21, I realized I was overcommitted to the point it was not sustainable. I vividly recall one evening when I could barely function, and that's when I knew something had to give. I ended up taking a semester-long break from college and was so much better for it.

At 42, I don't feel overcommitted so much as overwhelmed. I am easily freaked out by "the world", present and future. It impacts my functioning. The way I have been reacting to "the world" is not sustainable (much like "the world" itself, at the rate things are going on many levels). But "taking a break" is not as simple at 42 as it was at 21. Furthermore, I can't "take a break" from "the world." So one of my 42-year-old solutions is to unclutter my living spaces and my virtual spaces. With less stuff comes more ability/clarity to create a sustainable reaction to/relationship with "the world" (that's my hope anyway). Plus it brings me closer to fulfilling my new fantasy of living out of a VW bus.

my husband planning the route in our rented bus

In other words, my current actions and my decision half of my life ago are driven by the simple fact that many of my individual resources are finite. I only have so much time, energy, head and heart for all that I need and want to do in my life (which is itself finite).

How does this relate to criminal justice policy? A lot. It's the same principle: certain resources are finite. These days, we do not have unlimited funds to spend on criminal justice policy. And in some instances, our reactions to/relationship with criminal justice policy are not sustainable.

In addition to thinking about my own finite resources (small scale), I have been thinking about criminal justice issues on a smaller scale: in counties, cities and towns.

Back in September and October, Topeka was in the news concerning prosecution of misdemeanor domestic battery cases. The issue arose when the County Commission proposed to cut and then did cut the District Attorney's budget by 10%. The District Attorney's Office warned a budget cut would cause a loss in staff and an end to prosecution of misdemeanors that could be handled in municipal court. Those misdemeanors included domestic battery. There is no question domestic battery prosecutions are important - in the words of the District Attorney, they are homicide prevention. In response, the City repealed its domestic battery ordinance in order to make the District Attorney's Office continue prosecuting those offenses, with no restoration of funding. While this was being sorted out, there was a period of time when neither entity was filing misdemeanor domestic battery charges. This was a crisis stemming from shrinking local financial resources - a crisis distressing to Topekans as well as people all over the country.

After that crisis was front and center in the news, I found a less apparent crisis in artices published within days of each other last month. The first article was about how the Lawrence Police Department's property room is almost out of space and how evidence has to be stored in more than one location because of space constraints. The department has approached the city about getting a new space for the entire department.

The next day, there was a feature about Joe Jones, the first Kansan to be exonerated by DNA evidence after spending almost eight years in prison. The story talks about how Mr. Jones, at the beginning of his life sentence, saw "a snippet in a scientific magazine about DNA evidence. That small article planted the seed in his mind that the emerging science might help his case. . . . But time would pass, and Jones would wait several more years before he again heard about DNA." Thanks to Mr. Jones's attorneys, Ron Wurtz and David Gottlieb of the Defender Project at KU Law School (all three resources that led me to my work and/or help me with it), evidence from the case had DNA testing and Mr. Jones was excluded as a perpetrator.

At this same time, I saw a news release about Henry James's exoneration on the Innocence Project's website. Mr. James spent one month shy of 30 years in prison in Louisiana for a rape he did not commit. He owes his freedom not only to the Innocence Project, but also to a man named Milton Dureau. According to the news release,

Although officials at the Jefferson Parish Crime Laboratory were cooperative, the initial search for the evidence proved fruitless. The legal team eventually filed a motion on James’ behalf seeking testing on the evidence, but another search on February 18, 2010 also proved fruitless. On May 3, 2010, Milton Dureau, who worked for the lab, was looking for evidence in a different case when he stumbled upon a slide from James’ case. Fortunately, he remembered the case number from his earlier search. The evidence was sent to a lab, which did STR DNA testing on the slide. The testing, which was completed on September 26, 2011, excluded James as the perpetrator in the rape.

These stories demonstrate the need for law enforcement departments and crime labs to have ample, appropriate space to store evidence. Not only does it lead to freeing innocent people, but also capturing guilty ones. While resources (including space) are finite, this need for storage facilities should be a priority for local policy makers.

To shift gears a bit, I came across some examples of how big cities are using its resources. They are food for thought. My friend Connie told me about the City of Seattle's policy of asking for misdemeanor sentences in most cases to be 364 days rather than 365. As explained in this news release from the Seattle City Attorney, this is about city laws' impact on noncitizen defendants:

The policy change will not eliminate the immigration consequences of criminal convictions for all noncitizen defendants. The cases this new policy is likely to impact are those where (1) the defendant is in the United States legally or has an avenue for obtaining legal status and (2) a 365-day total sentence would be the sole factor triggering the defendant’s loss of legal immigration status or loss of the defendant’s avenue for obtaining legal status. Certain crimes, such as most domestic violence offenses, render a noncitizen defendant deportable regardless of the sentence, and others, including many misdemeanor traffic offenses, do not necessarily render a noncitizen defendant deportable even if the sentence imposed is 365 days or more.

These changes are part of the City Attorney’s Office’s broader ongoing efforts to review and, where appropriate, revise its criminal sentencing recommendation policies to bring greater proportionality and fairness to misdemeanor prosecution in the City of Seattle.

The State of Washington subsequently adopted this 364-day sentence for gross misdemeanors this past session. You can read the bill here. According to a press release in July 2011,

Starting July 22, a simple change in state law – reducing the maximum sentence for a gross misdemeanor by one day – will have a big impact on noncitizens who are in the country legally.

Substitute Senate Bill 5168, which the Legislature passed with large bipartisan support during the 2011 session, reduces misdemeanor sentences from one year to 364 days.

This bill probably does save money and jail bed space (finite resources) but also demonstrates the use of a more infinite resource: proportionality and fairness. Both are concepts that can lead to finite resources (i.e. money, programs, prison beds, etc.) being used effectively.

Another example (that sparks vigorous debate) of how cities use resources is found in Denver, Seattle, Oakland and other U.S. cities - either the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana or policies that state it is a low (or lowest) priority for law enforcement. Here and here are articles about those initiatives/laws. I am not going to comment on all of this one way or another but only make this point again: resources are finite. As a result, it is necessary for local policy makers to prioritize.

I read this editorial about the "stop and frisk" of people acting "suspiciously" in New York City. The author talks about how this local policy is implemented and its disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic people as well as its impact on constitutional guarantees. The author ends by saying we all have a stake in how things play out in New York City because we all have a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment.

Even my hometown struggles with finite resources. My mom sent me this article about overcrowding and recidivism in the Saline County Jail. Many of the people stuck in the "revolving door" of the county jail are there for less serious offenses, one example being driving while suspended. Sheriff Kochanowski, who sounds understandably frustrated, says, "The system we have now is not working." The overcrowding and recidivism has prompted discussions about expanding the jail. The article mentions a successful idea from South Dakota - a program targeting second-time DUI offenders that features immediate jail sanctions for a positive breath test. This is an example of a promising new way to make use of finite resources, in this case tax dollars and jail beds. 

Now that I have probably riled people up, I come to my ask. Well, I suggest uncluttering. And gathering information and speaking up on matters of local criminal justice policy and related issues, whatever your feelings and beliefs may be.

We have finite resources. Sometimes we have to "take a break" on a local level to assess where we are, why we are there, how we got there, where we want to go, what our priorities are, etc. 

It matters

Last Tuesday, I read this article about Kansas Secretary of Corrections Ray Roberts' testimony to the Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight. In short, he said the Kansas prison system is overcrowded and understaffed. According to the news story,

Roberts said that budget cuts over the past few years have reduced staff and programs designed to prevent recidivism and to help inmates succeed once they get out of prison. Meanwhile the Legislature continues to approve bills that increase prison sentences, which leads to a "stacking effect" in the system. 

Secretary Roberts also testified that inmates with mental illnesses make up about 27 percent of the prison population and setting aside space for them is  "[o]ne of the immediate problems." One option being considered to address prison overcapacity is "releasing inmates early who are at a low risk of re-offending, and keeping them under house arrest and monitoring them by electronic means."

Then I read this little story in Sunday's paper about a Kansas man who cut an electronic monitoring device off his ankle while on parole. He pled to tampering with an electronic monitoring device (the statute is here) and was sentenced to 3 ½ years in prison. What the story does not explain is the severity level (and consequently length of sentence) for tampering with the device is greater than the sentence for the low-level drug crime for which this man was on parole. Furthermore, the law requires his new tampering sentence and the time remaining on his drug sentence to run consecutively. The cost of DOC incarceration averages about $25,000/year.

What started out as heartening to me on Tuesday ended with me coming unglued on Sunday. This situation reminds me of the Kansas offender registration act, which requires registration for sex, violent or drug offenses as defined in the act. Failing to comply with the registry's requirements is very often a higher severity level and/or is scored more seriously when calculating a person's criminal history than the offense for which the person is required to register. 

When the Legislature considers the prison overcapacity issue next session, it needs to take a careful look at sentences and be smart on crime. In trying to remedy one crisis, legislators need to make sure they do not create others.

Moving on to my next point . . . I am still heartbroken over the execution of Troy Davis. Wednesday night was my first experience with being glued to my Twitter feed for up-to-the-minute updates. I read a number of things about this case, including this statement by six former Georgia corrections officials, including a warden who oversaw executions, urging their state to reconsider. According to the statement, "Living with the nightmares is something that we know from experience. No one has the right to ask a public servant to take on a lifelong sentence of nagging doubt, and for some of us, shame and guilt. Should our justice system be causing so much harm to so many people when there is an alternative?"  

"Mr. Davis' execution has brought a huge amount of publicity to the issue of eyewitness identification," writes Maggie Clark of the Pew Center on the States in this story. Of the 273 people exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, about 75% of those cases involved "faulty eyewitness testimony [as] a determining piece of evidence that sent an innocent person to prison." "Bills to change eyewitness identification rules are expected in a number of legislatures next year, and key court cases are due at both the state and federal levels. More and more police departments are also embracing the need to change."

Part of my sadness comes from acknowledging that an unknown number of other people are in the same position as Mr. Davis was. Furthermore, the 273 people exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing are just part of the story - there is an unknown number of others in the same position as those people were before exonerated. (By the way, 17 of those 273 people were under death sentences before exonerated.) Improvements to the system must be made.

One last thought. I wanted to say something about the power of language in my last post about state sovereignty but bit my virtual tongue. This weekend I cleaned out my basement and found some letters.

I found a letter from my Poppa Joe, my paternal grandfather,dated 9/10/96. My Poppa Joe writes,

. . . if you are looking for a pattern the Golden Rule seems to cover it the best. Wish I could solve the problems of the world but find the best way is to live each day thinking of, and helping my fellow man. . . .

I'm not trying to discourage what you think but only to remind you, as your father says, "A piece of paper has to be terribly thin to have only one side." Think that's how it goes.

I also found this letter, from the same time period:

It's from a neighbor who apologized for blocking in my car in our apartment complex parking lot. He writes, "[t]his is a real apology, not a lighthearted retort" and states this is an "explanation (NOTE: This is not an excuse.)" and "I do appreciate the mature way you handled the situation rather than resorting to a sarcastically bitter note full of cuss words. Thanks!" He concludes, "(I'm not just some beer-drinking partier who cares about no one but himself)".

Why do 15-year-old letters discovered in a Rubbermaid tub remind me of state sovereignty?

What my Poppa Joe said - that IS how it should go: The Golden Rule. Thinking of your fellow man. Multiple sides to paper, ideas and arguments.

How my neighbor said it - THAT is how conflict should be handled when making policy: With respect and sincerity. With ownership of weaknesses or mistakes. With civility. (And parenthetical comments don't hurt, either.)

When people in positions of great influence and power use terms like "ObamaCare", it is like nails on a chalkboard to me. My issue here is not with U.S. health care policy - it is with how language is used by policymakers in public spaces (actual, virtual, in print). Referring to "ObamaCare" does not instill in me a feeling that people are bringing their best selves to the table to decide important matters of public policy.

This past session, I was reviewing new bills and came to HR 6008: "A Resolution Opposing the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory train wreck." I thought it was a joke by the person who draws up the calendar. But it wasn't. That is the exact title of the resolution, which passed in the Kansas House 100-22. That 100 includes people I know, respect and with whom I often agree. My issue here isn't with the substance of the resolution (and, believe me, there are laws I do think of as train wrecks) - it is with the language used in an official state resolution.

Having our elected lawmakers introduce, debate and pass a resolution with that title is embarrassing to me as a Kansan. A piece of paper has more than one side, but what you write on that paper says a lot about you: the way you conduct yourself, what you value, how you resolve issues.

My asks:

1. This won't be the only time I say this, but please do not fall for postcard politics. Legislators are going to have decisions to make next session in the face of prison overcrowding and ongoing budget restraints. Some folks might try to turn lawmakers' votes into a postcard "soundbite". Resist it. Insist on information. Context matters.
2. Support and encourage best practices in the criminal justice system. For example, improvements to how eyewitness identifications are handled benefit everyone, including the accused and the victims.
3. Acknowledge two-sidedness (or more) and when referring to/debating policy or laws in a public way, please consider the language used. The world is watching. Words matter.
4. Finally, take time out to write and mail a letter to someone. Handwritten or typewritten - just write. It is a treasure for now and later.

To end, here's my favorite song about sending a letter.

  

P.S. I decided on the title of this post last night - I couldn't come up with anything better. Then this morning, my friend forwarded me this article called "The Arc of the Moral Universe: Justice May Be Just Around the Bend". The author writes, "[i]n short, I want to suggest that life is good, and that it matters."

He goes on to write about the quote from which my blog title comes, as well as what the quote means for us in this time. The timing of this article coming into my hands is not lost on me. I feel I have been given a sign and I am very thankful for and comforted by it.