Skip to main content

Eric Amparan likes the system the way it is now. As a bail bondsman, he's part of an industry that pulls in $2 billion in revenue every year. Eric lays out how he profits off of financial desperation in our latest video in the Prison Profiteers series (video after the jump):


Should commercial bail be allowed in the United States?

88%16 votes
11%2 votes

| 18 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Frankie Barton's son has Hepatitis C. It's treatable, but she says the for-profit Corizon Prison Health Management has skimped on giving him the proper treatment while he's incarcerated. 


Should prison health care be privatized?

8%2 votes
92%23 votes

| 25 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Co-authored by Sarah Solon, Communications Strategist at the ACLU

While the two of us were writing this blog post, we called each other twice. Our organizations -- the ACLU and Brave New Foundation -- paid for the calls via flat monthly payments to our respective phone companies. The rates are reasonable, and if they weren't, our workplaces could switch to different companies, which keeps prices competitive. Pretty straightforward.

That's not how it works if you have a loved one in prison.


Should the FCC reduce prison phone rates?

100%13 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes

| 13 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Next week, it will be 50 years since Martin Luther King Jr. gave the "I Have a Dream" speech. He railed then against "the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination," contending that the African-American was "an exile in his own land." Yet he could not have imagined that Jim Crow would soon be replaced with another oppressive system: mass incarceration. As Attorney General Eric Holder said last week, the United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population but nearly 25 percent of its prisoners -- the highest rate on earth. A total of 65 million Americans now have a criminal record. And though this system has affected all racial groups, people of color have borne the brunt, accounting for about 60 percent of those behind bars. Inner-city communities have been ravaged as children have grown up with parents in prison and people with convictions have been unable to get jobs. There's a new underclass, and it has a racial tinge.

But the story doesn't have to end there. Our Turn to Dream is a short film that Beyond Bars has produced to commemorate the 50th anniversary of King's speech and reveal the movement being born to fight mass incarceration. Our new film profiles Kenneth Glasgow, a pastor in Alabama who's helping to build this movement by providing services to the formerly incarcerated and advocating for just and humane public policies. We also interview author Michelle Alexander, whose book The New Jim Crow has probably done more than any single thing to get a national conversation going on this issue. In releasing this piece, we've partnered with some of the best civil rights groups in America, including the NAACP, PICO, Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, and many others. These groups know that the way to honor King is not just to celebrate what he did, but to use our collective memory of him as a source of hope for the battle we must fight today.

See the film here:


Is mass incarceration the new Jim Crow?

54%12 votes
36%8 votes
9%2 votes

| 22 votes | Vote | Results


U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) says federal aid to his home state after the tornado should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere. We'll see how well the ideological integrity holds up if offsets aren't quickly found, but nevertheless, the question of how to fund disaster relief is increasingly urgent. It arose late last year when Superstorm Sandy ravaged the East Coast. And though we cannot know whether man-made climate change was specifically responsible for either of those acts of nature, we do know federal spending to cope with extreme weather events has been rising. Indeed, from 2011 to 2013, the federal government has spent $136 billion on disaster relief.

One area of spending that Americans from Left to Right are willing to cut is incarceration and the War on Drugs. According to a 2012 poll, 82% of Americans believe the country is losing the drug war, and a plurality say we should be spending less money on it. In another survey, voters overwhelmingly contend we should save money by shifting nonviolent offenders from prison to cheaper alternatives involving rehabilitation. Groups such as Right on Crime and Justice Fellowship demonstrate that many conservatives are now rethinking criminal justice policy. And of course, progressive organizations have long been beating that drum.

There is plenty of federal money to be saved. To start, President Obama's latest budget contains $8.5 billion for prisons and detention. With about half of all federal inmates locked up explicitly for drug offenses (never mind for the collateral consequences of prohibition, including black market violence), that's a hefty chunk of change being spent by the federal government on drug-related incarceration. Obama's proposed budget also allocates $25.6 billion to fighting the drug war through law enforcement, interdiction, international operations, and other means. These are substantial federal investments in an approach to criminal justice that most Americans no longer believe in.

Counting state and local appropriations paints an even bleaker picture of our spending priorities. As of 2007 -- the last year for which data is available -- the United States spends a massive $228 billion annually on cops, courts, and corrections. Much of that money goes toward arresting, prosecuting, and locking up nonviolent offenders. As a result, our country has become the incarceration capital of the world. With less than 5% of the world's population, we have nearly 25% of the world's prisoners. That gives us the highest rate of incarceration and the highest number of prisoners -- besting Russia, China, and all the rest.

Money aside, there is something fundamentally unfair about how our criminal laws are applied. Given that this year is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, we would do well to reflect on the vast racial inequalities that have only gotten worse when it comes to the justice system. Consider that blacks, whites, and Latinos use and sell drugs at about the same rate. Yet people of color are far more likely to be arrested for drugs; once arrested, they're more likely to be prosecuted; and once prosecuted, they get longer sentences. In all, two thirds of the people incarcerated for a drug offense are black or Latino even though those two groups make up less than a third of the U.S. population.

This trend of mass incarceration has had sweeping consequences. Millions of formerly incarcerated people have vastly diminished economic prospects. Millions of children have a parent behind bars. And people of color have borne the brunt of the unequal application of our nation's criminal laws.

So as we figure out where to come up with more money for disaster relief, here's one question we face: Would we rather spend billions on rebuilding lives and communities destroyed by natural disasters, or billions on a criminal justice system that is itself destroying lives and communities?

It's not like taking money out of the justice system would be inherently bad for public safety. There are numerous cost-effective alternatives to mass incarceration that would free up money for things like disaster relief. Beyond Bars' new video, produced in partnership with the liberal evangelical group Sojourners, explores those options:

Policymakers hoping to find meaningful offsets to fund disaster aid or any other initiative will have look at three things: 1) Where there's a lot of money, 2) where the spending is unjustifiable, and 3) where the politics and public opinion are conducive to allowing cuts, since there are very few areas in which that's true. Mass incarceration and the drug war meet all three criteria. They just might be the only areas of spending that do.

Sen. Coburn and other politicians who insist on offsets for increases in spending should look anew at America's approach to criminal justice. It's perhaps our best option for making such cuts a reality.


Is the public ready to start rolling back the War on Drugs?

6%1 votes
25%4 votes
68%11 votes
0%0 votes

| 16 votes | Vote | Results


By now you've probably heard about Kiera Wilmot, the 16-year-old Florida girl who botched a science experiment with a plastic bottle and toilet cleaner. The bottle ended up exploding, and though no one was hurt and no property damaged, Kiera was expelled from high school and is now being prosecuted as an adult for discharging a weapon on school grounds. She had an exemplary behavioral record up until that point.

Kiera is, as one might expect, black. The notion of a white girl getting hauled off to jail for a harmless expression of intellectual curiosity is dubious, to say the least. And though the rise of "zero tolerance" policies in American schools should theoretically be race-neutral, that's not the reality. According to the Dignity in Schools campaign, "students of color... are more likely to be suspended and expelled than their peers for the same behavior" and "African American students [are] 3.5 times as likely to be expelled" as whites. What happened to Kiera Wilmot is part of a broader story about racial disparities in our criminal justice system.

Yet we don't have to go macro to get the whiff of racial bias in this case. The prosecutor who decided to throw the book at Kiera is one Tammy Glotfelty, an assistant state attorney in Florida. The officer who arrested Kiera named Glotfelty in his police report:

Sounds absurdly harsh, right? And there has been no reversal of this decision since then. But Glotfelty isn't always so heartless. Just last week, she decided not to prosecute a teenager named Taylor Richardson who accidentally shot and killed his younger brother with a BB gun. Glotfelty declared the case "a tragic accident." I don't doubt that it was. The Richardson kid will probably have nightmares about this incident for the rest of his life. But I do wonder how to make sense of a prosecutor who one week shows understandable compassion for a kid who made a terrible mistake and the next week insists on giving a teenager the harshest possible sanction for something that didn't harm anyone.

The first Tammy Glotfelty has a normal-sized heart in her chest. The second one has a hole there.

There is one fact, however, that may help us figure out the discrepancy between Glotfelty #1 and Glotfelty #2: The Richardson family is white.

Am I accusing Glotfelty of conscious racial bias? Nope. Self-awareness isn't the issue here. And maybe she has good reasons for treating these two cases differently. Hey, Taylor was 13 instead of 16; perhaps that makes all the difference in her eyes. But I can't shake the feeling that these two stories would have unfolded quite differently if the races of the children had been reversed. Somehow the white Kiera Wilmot would have had her story end with an adult touching her shoulder saying "I'm just glad you're alright." And the black Taylor Richardson would have heard platitudes about "taking responsibility" while being led away in handcuffs.

The school-to-prison pipeline has become a very real phenomenon in this country, at least in communities of color. Suspending and expelling students for minor misbehavior has become routine despite there being no evidence that these steps improve school safety and strong evidence that they are linked to increased odds of behavior problems later. Moreover, prosecuting children as adults can destroy their chances of becoming productive members of society later in life. If prosecutors like Tammy Glotfelty really want to get serious about public safety, they'll work to transform our racially disparate justice system and refuse to put harmless black students behind bars.


Is Kiera Wilmot's prosecution racially motivated?

54%76 votes
29%41 votes
16%23 votes

| 140 votes | Vote | Results


Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 03:22 PM PDT

On One Issue, Two Empty Chairs

by Jesse Lava

With the presidential debates now over and just a week to go before the election, it's clear that the vigorous back-and-forth between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will leave out one of the great issues of our time: mass incarceration.

This issue doesn't get much national press. Ask rank-and-file progressives about it and they're likely to nod gravely, knowing there must be something wrong with our criminal justice system but unsure exactly what -- or why they should care. This year's general election provided an opportunity to air out the issue and it didn't happen.

The first thing Americans should know about mass incarceration is that it exists. As the Beyond Bars campaign points out nonstop, the United States has more people incarcerated than any country on earth, both per capita and in absolute terms. Our total of 2.3 million prisoners exceeds second-place China, which has 1.7 million. Our rate of 743 prisoners per 100,000 residents tops second-place Rwanda (595) and third-place Russia (568).

It didn't used to be this way. The U.S. incarceration rate has quintupled in the past four decades. So why do we imprison so many people?

Is it to protect the population from violence? No. Over half of the people incarcerated went in for nonviolent offenses. Many are locked up because of the war on drugs, others for property crimes (many of which are drug-related anyway).

Is it to teach criminals a lesson and deter future crime? Nope: About two-thirds of those who leave prison get nabbed again for something serious within three years. According to a Harvard study, our soaring incarceration rates have had only a small effect on crime rates.

Is it for the justice of payback? Mass incarceration could hardly be described as just. It has left some 2.7 million children without a parent and ensured that people who commit even low-level crimes are burdened forever with problems getting a job. People of color, especially African-Americans, have suffered the most, getting locked up at rates far outpacing the number of crimes they commit.

This system doesn't come cheap, either. Taxpayers are on the hook for about $74 billion a year for the prison system. That number goes up to $288 billion once we count cops and courts.

So why do we have mass incarceration? The answer comes down to politics and profit. Politicians have tapped into Americans' fears with "tough on crime" rhetoric that ignores the complexities of public safety and inevitably has a racial tinge. Meanwhile, big prison spending has numerous special interest defenders -- from private prisons that profit from excessive sentencing to corporations that sell products to public prisons to the police departments that get federal money to round up drug users and low-level dealers.

Politicos like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama may think they have nothing to gain from broaching this subject. But with a little vision, they might gain quite a bit. After all, voices for change are coming from both political directions. On the conservative side, figures such as Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich are finally speaking out for a more cost-effective approach to criminal justice. On the progressive side, groups have long been calling for more fairness. And today, state budgets have become so tight that politicians who once saw only an upside to macho posturing are having to start thinking about ways to cut spending sensibly. Curbing mass incarceration might be one of the only issues on which there could be bipartisan cooperation.

In this election season, that case hasn't been made. But the next president, whoever he is, should consider calling for a rethink of America's incarceration policies. The opportunity is there for politicians willing to take it.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site