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.
Comments