w2

Sentencing Reform and America�s Drug Laws

You have to realize that a change in the National Policy could cause a serious backlash if not handled correctly. With almost $100 billion dollars spent every year (locally and federally) to fight the Drug War, legislation would cause a recession. If Drug Law Sentencing Reform were to ever be accomplished, all the concerns from the opponents and proponents of the issue would have to be addressed to make it work.

I will get into the reasons why first, then I will list my idea of a solution.

It seems that corporations through lobbyists push most legislation. With 22,000 lobbyists in Washington alone how could this not be true? In California and other states, the biggest lobbyists are prison guard unions and police & prosecutor organizations. The Prison Industrial Complex is massive. Their lobbyists wield a lot of power. Many of our congressmen depend on the large contributions these organizations give toward their re-election campaigns. It�s the accepted way things are done at state & federal levels.

A lobbyist that works for Corrections Corporation of America was recently quoted as saying that he was responsible for getting 39 NEW �Get Tough on Crime� bills passed between 1995 & 1998. Seems like a conflict of interest, when a corporation can lobby to change laws that will put money in their pockets. Right or wrong, I don�t agree with this. It�s the �Fox guarding the Henhouse.�

Any sentencing reform legislation to-date has always been attacked by the organizations mentioned above. Congressmen from rural areas that depend on the prison economy will fight tooth and nail to protect the prison economy. Many small towns thrive off the money brought to their county by a prison.

I�m not saying that some people don�t need to go to jail for violating drug laws, what I�m saying is that I feel there should be a balance in punishment. Right now, the scales of justice are leaning to far to the side of punishment.

Since 1996, when the Mandatory Minimum Sentences for drug law violators were instituted, federal prison budgets have shot up from $227 million annually to $4.7 BILLION annually. As of the year 2000 the cost continues to climb. At least 60 prisons are in the planning stages as we speak. Over 2 million people are in jails & prisons in the United States. 60% are non-violent drug law violators.

I am aware of the fact that any politician who speaks out against the Drug War is committing political suicide. I�m also aware of the fact that economically; it could case a recession if drugs were legalized at this point of time. The backlash from prison closures and law enforcement cutbacks would be devastating to our economy. Roughly 11% of every states budget goes directly or indirectly towards the Drug War. With almost $100 BILLION spent every year on this policy we have to find a way of balancing the economic side of the issue with fairness in sentencing. THERE IS A SOLUTION.

It is possible to institute fairness in sentencing (Sentencing Reform) and at the same time protect the economy. By protecting the jobs of the people who work for the various agencies that could be affected by Sentencing Reform, this would cancel out any economic backlash that could result in Sentencing Reform.

I will list a few points that would be important to all sides concerned with sentencing reform.

1.) By going back to the sentencing practices used before Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, the amount of time served by an inmate for a non-violent drug offense would be reduced in most cases. There are benefits to this for not only the inmates and their families, but also for the government. Inmates would return to society and be reunited with their families sooner, becoming productive citizens and saving the government billions of dollars annually. There would be a faster turnover to help reduce the issues of overcrowding.

2.) All existing prisons and their employees would be guaranteed to keep their jobs. Most prisons and jails are bursting at the seams; overcrowding is the reason we have to continue to build new prisons every year. By changing Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and releasing non-violent drug law violators earlier, the prisons could thin out their numbers they were designed to house in the first place. Stress levels would drop and the environment would be safer for both staff and inmates. Most prison administrators would agree to such a plan if it guaranteed job security, and lifted issues of overcrowding & safety for everyone concerned.

3.) A policy change such as this could balance the scales of justice.

4.) The bottom line is this: You can�t institute Sentencing Reform without making it workable for all concerned. The economic repercussions alone would wreck the economy if not handled correctly. A bill advocating reform would never pass if it didn�t meet the concerns of people on both sides of the issue. It has to appeal not only to the reformers, but also to the many people who work in the jails, prisons and law enforcement. If done correctly, a politician could back a bill like this without losing the support of the party he represents while also keeping the confidence of those who would vote for him.

Thanks for your time: Rusty

Prohibition II

Prohibition of drugs is a failure. But, with the cost approaching $100 million dollars a year being spent in U.S. tax dollars to fight this war on drugs, it can�t be stopped without causing a major recession.

The bottom line is that the prison industrial complex, and all the government agencies that get the tax dollars to fight this war would be devastated. The lobbyists that work for their unions and corporations would fight tooth & nail to oppose any legislation that would harm their industry, as would all the congressmen in their districts. Right or wrong, this drug policy is making a lot of people rich through government contracts, and it�s paying the salaries of many. The only employer in the U.S. bigger than the Federal Bureau of Prisons is General Motors.

There is a way to change drug policy without sacrificing these jobs, thus striking a compromise between forces on both sides of the issue.

Drug Law Sentencing Reform, although not the answer everyone is looking for, would at least be a compromise that would work for everyone. If drug laws were rolled back to pre-1986 levels, without the mandatory minimum, and enhancements, we would have �fairness in sentencing� as a result. At the same time, all the existing prisons could remain open, and actually thin out their populations to more manageable levels. Most are at well over the capacity they were designed to hold. By doing so, every employee�s job would be much safer. (Remember, the author of mandatory minimum sentences says it was the biggest mistake of his career instituting them).

The plan is a win/win proposition for people on both sides of the issue. While creating safer working conditions for guards, it guarentees job security, too.

Drug Law Violators are doing much more time than is warranted in most cases. As a result families will be reunited and justice will be served. Rusty