"We cannot afford to continue arresting tens of thousands of youth every
year for low-level marijuana possession,” Alfredo Carrasquillo, a civil
rights organizer with the activist group VOCAL-NY, said in a release.
“We can't afford it in terms of the negative effect it has on the future
prospects of our youth and we can't afford in terms of police hours."
It's bad enough that the United States alone has already squandered over a TRILLIONdollars fighting The War on Drugs; now we get a glimpse of all of the time that is wasted on it as well.
Just think of all of the other things that could have been properly addressed with this kind of precious time and tax-payer money!
Schools
Health Care
Elder Care
Veteran Support
Early Childhood Education
Mental Illness Support
Substance Abuse Rehabilitation
The Environment & Green Jobs
Homelessness and Affordable Housing
Infrastructure
Fraud
Law Enforcement Officers could be solving exponentially more homicides, assaults and cases of child abuse and paedophilia. Instead of building and staffing more jails we could be funding laboratories and skilled workers that process crime scene evidence and expedite the processing of sexual assault forensic examkits. (Something that is obviously lost on the likes of Ol' Sheriff Joe!*)
We must evaluate where our priorities lie as citizens of our communities and as members of the Human Race. Ask yourself where *you* want your hard earned taxes to go. Where do *you* want police to focus their attention? "Herbal" offenses? Or on actual crimes that really do hurt us all?
Visit the updated website for the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada and get involved!
Along with the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada, there are many, many organizations working to reform and change our drug policy laws. Check them out today!
*Sheriff Joe! ~ Maricopa County
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office spent so much time and money seeking out
non-violent people that he prompted an internal investigation which
discovered at least 32 reported child molestations in which the
sheriff's office failed to follow through, even though suspects were
known in all but six cases. El Mirage, a community near Phoenix,
alleged there were many cases in which sheriff's investigators wrote no
follow-up reports, collected no additional forensic evidence and made
no effort after the initial crime report was taken. Arpaio's office
eventually reopened more than 400 of
its sex-crime cases countywide after finding they were inadequately
investigated or not examined at all. Read about this tragedy here at THINKPROGRESS: Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Failed To Investigate Over 400 Sex Crimes, Including Molestations Of Undocumented Children
Unless present policy is redirected, we will perpetuate the same
problems, tolerate the same social costs, and find ourselves as we do
now, no further along the road to a more rational legal and social
approach than we were in 1914. - "Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective", issued 40 years ago today. (March 22 1973 - March 22, 2013) From "Shafer Commission Report on Marijuana and Drugs, Issued 40 Years Ago Today, Was Ahead of its Time"
by Eric E. Sterling. Please read this, it is an amazing article!
"Ironically, these policy failures are often cited by law
enforcement as a justification for continuing current policies.
Just as the costs of enforcing marijuana laws are cited as
a cost of drug abuse rather than public policy, these social
problems are misrepresented to the public as evidence that
marijuana use requires criminal sanctions rather than regulation.
Policy failures brought about by this lack of effective controls
is not a valid justification of current policies. The statistical
data cited in this report on the supply, availability, use,
price, and value of marijuana demonstrate that the amount
of lost taxes and other fiscal costs of current policy are
increasing and proliferating over time."
From Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws by Jon Gettman - Read the full report of the
tremendous annual cost of marijuana prohibition in the October 2007 issue of the Bulletin of Cannabis Reform
"Addressing members of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in the U.K., Brand argued bluntly that treating drug addiction as an illness rather than as a criminal activity is not only a humane approach, but a sensible one that will "prevent people from committing crimes." (Seriously, go read the whole Strombo Health post.)
Forty years after Nixon's War on (People Who Use Certain) Drugs infected countries the world over, the truth is being recognized and shared everywhere; prohibition has failed and government cannot incarcerate people out of addiction.
Four Decades of overly punitive criminal convictions haven't achieved their goal of reducing recidivism and an ever-expanding mountain of expert research and evidence correlates that Harm Reduction programs like Rehab, Therapy and even Yoga, trumps imprisonment significantly in terms of reaching and maintaining sobriety. Plus, these Harm Reduction strategies also cost less than keeping (primarily non-violent) drug offenders locked up where they are less likely to have access to adequate therapeutic and job skills programs.
Also worth discussing, what will become of us now with the passing of Bill C-10? I hope Canadians are prepared for the influx of recreational cannabis users, small time pot growers, and illegal substance abusers (some who are sadly victims of mental illness and childhood abuse) into our taxpayer supported penal institutions. Rehab spots behind bars were scarce before, and I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin' yet! Correctional Service of Canada and the Justice Department might as well change their names to Punishment Disservice of Harperland and the "Tough on Crime!" Ministry respectively.
Drug abuse, whether it is for illegal drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc. is uniquely personal. Treat the person as a patient and they have a fighting chance to manage and successfully beat their addiction(s). Criminalize and convict them, and it further damages their mental state and exponentially hinders their potential for recovery.
Just because a person uses drugs does not mean they are undeserving of compassion, and realistically our drug policies must reflect that truth. So Thank You, Mr. Brand, for bringing even more attention to the failure of the War on Drugs, your passionate testimony is much appreciated by those of us campaigning for the reform of our national and global drug laws.
My response to this article: It's time for Canada and all nations to admit that the War On Drugs is lost, in fact, just like The Noble Experiment it could never have been won to begin with. We do not respect the laws of drug prohibition because they are unenforceable. To prohibit the use of a plant that we have used for thousands of years for medicine, relaxation, paper, food, fabric, fuel, etc. is not only unjust, but an impossible endeavor. I respect laws that are created to keep society safe from truly violent and dangerous people. As a Mother I believe a majority of police and judicial resources must be focused on those who truly pose a threat to society. But the law of Cannabis Prohibition is so ridiculous that it causes disrespect for the law and law enforcement, which is a shame because there are many great police, lawyers, judges, etc. out there who really do care about people, most notably members of L.E.A.P. ~ Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Politicians must concede that they cannot legislate human behavior when it comes to what we eat and drink, how we medicate or what we grow in our gardens. It is the ultimate persecution of our freedom(1) of personal autonomy and wreaks of ownership! We're not perfect, we're Human, we use drugs, we always have, deal with it! The mere notion that government believes laws can stop plants from growing in the ground is ludicrous. End the Drug War that empowers and enriches cartels and organized criminals. Provide truthful facts to our children about all substances and regulate the sale of drugs to adults. Revive the farming of the Industrial and food grade Hemp plant the world over so we can help our environment and conquer famine and malnutrition. We can concentrate on more important things like our disastrous economy, health care, school boards and old and failing infrastructures. Every taxpayer dollar we spend fighting this unwinnable war is a dollar stolen from proven programs that really do help support the health and safety of all of us. When it comes to paying for helicopters flying through the air searching for plants(2) or schools and hospitals, I know without a doubt where I want my tax dollars to go!
via YouTube: David Bratzer, a police officer in British Columbia, Canada, says he has seen how marijuana prohibition and the failed "war on drugs" directly lead to the growth of organized crime and cause gruesome illegal market violence. David is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which anyone can join for free atCopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com
"The Law Makes Us Lawless" The awesome Ken Burns and Lynn Novick documentary "Prohibition" can be viewed at PBS online.
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable."
Finally posting this, the baby woke up just before I was finished and then the day went speeding by.....
1:39 A.M. - So at this late, or early depending how you see it, hour, it's up for debate on the validity of some expletive enhanced Tweets sent from NDP MP Pat Martin's Twitter Account.
Imagine that! @PatMartinMP is Human! Admit it, you've probably used that word talking about Politics.
I was watching the Bill C10 clause by clause Senate debate on CPAC and a Conservative MP complained about how long it was taking to go through it all. So I say out loud to myself (and to the oblivious baby, who's too enthralled with an Elmo book to take any exception to my cussing) with the sheer gusto that this MP is going to hear my reply to his whining:
"Well! That's what happens when you mash NINE fucking crime bills into one big whopping wad of FAIL!"
Sure he didn't catch my response, but I felt better putting my opinion out there into the Universe. Indeed, the cursing solidified my point.
Crime is complex and justice demands that each case is handled individually and fairly. We employ Judicial Discretion because it is imperative to democracy. Bill C-10 is overly broad "You bad! - Go to jail!" Cave Man thinking. It's actually dangerously stupid to treat something as important as our legal and correctional system so recklessly. You know it, Steve knows it, the media knows it, we all know it! I mean, what could be dumber than combining crime legislation?
There's a reason crime is lower in Canada than in the United States, it's because we've resisted the ideological temptation of locking up non-violent first time offenders for long periods of time when community supervision or probation would be more beneficial. It's called a Correctional System for a reason, the goal is to correct, not to make one's mental state so broken and fragile that it's no surprise when people re-offend. Not only does helping people turn their lives around make our communities safer, it is also exponentially more cost effective. (I could really get into it about the Prison Farms program here, but I digress)
Prisons are also increasingly becoming warehouses for the mentally ill and alcohol & drug addicted. With a lack of programming people are released back into our communities without the benefit of medical and psychological attention and they get into trouble all over again. Ask yourself, do you want Canadians to be helped while they serve their sentence so when they get out of prison they stay out? Or do you want people released unstable, angry and ripe for recidivism?
We've seen the social and economic disaster unfold before our very eyes in the United States over the last four decades from one size fits all persecutions and yet the Harper Conservatives still insist on careening down the same destructive path, our safety and hard earned tax dollars be damned!
Honestly, if the Conservatives had drafted really good separate bills pertaining to violent crimes, especially those committed upon children, then I would wholeheartedly support them. I don't play to party lines when it comes to the best method of keeping our kids safe and reducing crime. I want the smartest, most effective laws on the books for the benefit of my own kids and my fellow Canadians. Alas, because C-10 is a "Everything plus the kitchen sink" omnibus bill the only smart, logical, reality-based choice we have is to fight against it.
Anything less would be fucking criminal.
"It represents a huge step backwards; rather than prioritizing public safety, it emphasizes retribution above all else. It's an approach that will make us less safe, less secure, and ultimately, less Canadian."~ From "Bar association blasts tough-on-crime bill" ~ Organization representing Canada's lawyers says proposed Bill C-10 has been rushed, ignores evidence and will create out-of-control costs
After Christy Clark said she supports Harper's Crime Bill, a group of 40 concerned citizens organized by http://www.LeadNow.ca gathered in front of her office to "Just Say NO to C-10!" and show that tens of thousands of Canadians have signed a petition opposed to this omnibus crime bill. As of November 17th, 111,000 Canadians have signed the petition! Sign the petition and get updated on future activities at http://leadnow.ca/
"The United States is the world's leader in incarceration with 2.3 million people currently in the nation's prisons or jails -- a 500% increase over the past thirty years. These trends have resulted in prison overcrowding and state governments being overwhelmed by the burden of funding a rapidly expanding penal system, despite increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means of achieving public safety."
"In addition to the extreme human toll this is taking on our Nation, the financial costs are staggering: The National Association of State Budget Officers estimates that states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in FY2008, or 1 in every 15 general fund dollars. Adding local, federal and other funding brings the national correctional spending total to $68 billion. This is money that cannot be spent on education, health, transportation, or other projects that benefit society as a whole." ~ NAACP Supports Legislation To Help States Reduce Prison Population
"I would love to have all you soft of crime guys come post after some one close to you was violated for ever. Why do you want criminals out early.
You look at the cost to society of keeping them in jail. No one mentions the cost to society of letting them out. " - "Gambitdude2" on CBC Message Boards re: Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill
The above is just an example of some comments talking about "us Lefties letting criminals run rampant through our streets". Here's my response:
You're missing the whole point, Mandatory Minimum drug laws and much of the legislation laid out in the Tory Omnibus Bill are for *after* a criminal offense has already taken place. After. While Benjamin Franklins' famous quote "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" was actually fire-fighting advice, it also stands true as a way to fight crime. My bleeding heart doesn't need to "Hug a Thug" - it wants to divert people from becoming involved in the criminal justice system in the first place. That's not being "Soft on Crime", that's addressing the subject of crime realistically and proactively.
As we know, crime in Canada is at a historic 30 year low. If the Conservatives pour billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars during these tough economic times towards building new prisons and the astronomical budgets needed to operate these facilities (along with additional ballooning legal costs to persecute more Canadians entering the justice system, not to mention how much Provinces are going to have to pony up) it diverts funds away from true necessities like hospitals and health care, education, job creation, childcare, mental health supports, the environment, infrastructure, transit and other essential services that benefit all Canadians. The more educated, healthy, employed, industrious, productive and happy we are, the less likely our citizens will engage in criminal activity. This is being SMART on crime.
Anybody who believes every human will be "perfectly behaved" is fooling themselves. Of course Canadians are concerned about crime and we want to be safe where we live, work, go to school, play and socialize. Alas the reality is that no place on Earth ever has been or ever will be Crime Free because we are Human. We are a species driven by emotion - you'll be hard pressed to find someone who actually looks up the sentence of a criminal code violation before breaking a law. (You know it's true.)
History has shown throughout our whole existence people have committed crimes fueled by what they feel or by way of mental anguish or defect. No decree, police force or punitive law will stop this reality of Human Nature. Of course hurting others is not acceptable and those who victimize others physically and/or financially should face punishment, but it's reckless to drive crime policy based on fear and an absence of judicial discretion, Canadians deserve better than that! Our very own Canadian Justice Department has concluded that Mandatory Minimums don't work, cost taxpayers dearly and fail at keeping people safer.
Obviously violent, dangerous offenders should be sought out by police and incarcerated - that is the most important utilization of law enforcement and our correctional system. You'll get no argument from me about keeping paedophiles and murderers like Paul Bernardo behind bars and off our streets, but we also must have the common sense to leave ideology, deceiving (Tough on Crime!) mantras and knee jerk reactions out of our legal system as all crime is not "equal".
We are smart enough (I hope!) to recognize that a couple of college kids growing 6 cannabis plants should not be lumped in with a bill that targets child molesters, (Seriously, read this about C-10:Child rapist to get less time than pot grower, Incarcerated weed offenders to skyrocket) Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms legislates that sentences should be proportionate to an offense. The state of California has gone broke because of correctional spending, proving that locking up non-violent drug users and pizza thieves as long as gun-wielding carjackers is superfluous and does nothing to improve community safety. Why would we want to emulate such a disaster?!
I'm not the only one calling the Tories out on this, if this mish-mashed, rhetoric-laden, incoherent patchwork of an Omnibus(ted) Bill passes through Parliament let's say goodbye to our great country and prepare to suffer the harsh societal consequences of American-style "justice". Git 'er done!
And p.s. to "Gambitdude2" - I HAVE been a victim of crime.
UPDATE October 26th. 2011: Even Texas says to the Conservatives You're Doing It Wrong.
"Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute.
"If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."
Here's more amazing articles recently published discussing the colossal failure that is Bill C-10:
Judge deems Harper's crime bill 'strain' on system: http://www.vancouversun.com/Judge+deems+Harper+crime+bill+strain+system/5468859/story.html
"As Justice Bauman said, Parliament and the legislatures have a constitutional obligation to ensure that the judiciary, which is a separate and independent pillar of our government, is able to bring people to justice in a timely fashion and that citizens have access to justice.
Both the criminal and civil legal systems are cornerstones of a civil society and they are both in jeopardy."
The mandatory minimum mess: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/mandatory+minimum+mess/5559692/story.html
"And remember the phrase "real property that belongs to a third party"? That's what a rented apartment is. Imagine a university student living in a rented apartment with her boyfriend, suggests University of Toronto criminologist Tony Doob. She grows a single marijuana plant. She rolls a joint for her and her boyfriend. And just like that she's a "trafficker" subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of nine months in jail.
Are these outcomes simple, clear, and predictable? Hardly. They're shocking as hell. But mandatory minimums have a nasty tendency to do that.
Remember the infamous case of the pizza thief sent to prison for life in California? The law didn't say "pizza thieves shall get a life sentence." The law said anyone convicted of a third felony would get a life sentence. Pizza theft is normally a misdemeanor. But that poor sap had committed previous felonies and a different law said that petty theft committed by anyone convicted of felonies must be prosecuted as a felony. So misdemeanor pizza theft became his third felony and he was sent to prison for life - an outcome almost everyone thought was insane."
Bill C-10 will create the prisoners to fill Conservative prisons: http://rabble.ca/news/2011/10/bill-c-10-will-create-prisoners-fill-conservative-prisons "Bill C-10 is a massive piece of legislation of roughly 100 pages that rolls nine laws from organized and drug crime, to pardons, to child sex offenders, to migrants entering Canada and young offenders into a single omnibus law. The panel is focusing on how the bill's policy on mandatory minimum sentencing for selling, or even giving away a small amount of drugs, will criminalize a generation and attack some of the most vulnerable people in our society." Harper's omnibus crime bill won't reduce victimization rates: http://www.behindthenumbers.ca/2011/10/24/omnibus-crime-bill-won't-reduce-victimization-rates/ "Lorraine Berzins worked in federal penitentiaries for 14 years and was the victim of a hostage-taking. As spokesperson for the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, she says the Harper tough-on-crime agenda “goes so much against all the evidence about what keeps communities safe, and it does so much harm, and they are going to spend so much money, that it’s really surprising that there isn’t more opposition.”
Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services (and erstwhile Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime) says “victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison. . . . The best protection victims, their families, and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behavior before he or she is released.” In other words, rehabilitation programs are key.
In spite of eloquent pleas by victims’ advocates, the Harper government forges ahead with a retrograde, antediluvian and discredited approach to criminal justice. Its only “solution” for any and all crimes is a long prison sentence." Safe Streets and Community Act Will End Real Justice: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/js-vijaya/tough-on-crime_b_1021169.html
"Some of my fellow criminal lawyers have cynically pointed out that ultimately we lawyers alone will benefit from the draconian mandatory sentences that are attached to the new legislation. We will now be able to look clients in the eyes and say, "Well, why should you plead? There is no upside to 'making a deal.' Let us put the government up to task and let them prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not as if the judge will have any discretion in sentencing even if you were allegedly carrying on in the spirit of Mother Teresa!"
From the Church Council on Justice and Corrections: CCJC Bulletin – Omnibus Bill: http://ccjc.ca/2011/10/20/ccjc-bulletin-omnibus-bill/
"The CCJC urges everyone to actively and vocally express their concerns about Bill C10. Let us not by our silence condone the suffering of others."
and Will the Omnibus Bill Bankrupt Canada?: http://ccjc.ca/2011/09/19/will-the-omnibus-bill-bankrupt-canada/
"The government’s Parliamentary Budget office projected the increase costs related to just one of bills would be more than five billion dollars – more than doubling current expenditures for the corrections system alone. Furthermore, he revealed that the provinces and territories would have to contribute the largest proportion of the increase."
More from the Globe & Mail: Coalition of churches condemns Ottawa’s justice plan: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-of-churches-condemns-ottawas-justice-plan/article1884171/
And lastly, Leadnow has created an email campaign for Canadians:
"The good news is that more and more Canadians are speaking out and public opinion is close to a decisive shift. We need to strengthen each other’s voices to show the Conservative government that they must choose a better path, or pay a serious political cost for a cruel Crime Bill that will make Canada a meaner and more dangerous place." "Our Conservative government is trying to rush through a cruel Crime Bill with mandatory sentences that will fill new prisons. Even conservative Texans think the Crime Bill is too harsh, costly and ineffective. Send a message to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to stop the Crime Bill from making Canada meaner and more dangerous."
I will continue to add story links as they are published. Funny that we're not seeing many articles in support of the bill. Where are they, Conservatives?
*crickets*
*TheChurch Council on Justice and Corrections (ccjc.ca)is a national faith-based coalition of eleven founding churches incorporated in 1972. We promote community responsibility for justice with an emphasis on addressing the needs of victims and offenders, mutual respect, healing, individual accountability, and crime prevention. It is primarily by education and community development initiatives that we foster healthier communities and crime prevention through social responsibility. CCJC has demonstrated in publications, pilot projects and numerous other initiatives how to strengthen community through its understanding that real justice requires the pursuit of wholeness for all. We work with both multi-faith and non-religious partners and have achieved international recognition for our contributions to creative thinking about criminal justice.
One of the great things about social media is connecting with intelligent people who you'd otherwise never get the chance to "meet". Facebook and Twitter have brought thousands of new friendly voices into my realm over the past few years and they are what I lovingly refer to as my "Mad Posters" - meaning, they/we love to share news and videos and education regarding not just the Drug War, but injustice in whatever form it happens to take throughout the world.
"Posting Links" is one of the best tools that social activism has, on any given day I am gifted with personalized judicial and ecological news from Canada, the States and beyond. With the click of a mouse a daily itinerary is before me and I appreciate those who take the time to "Pass It to the Left".
While much of what we share is from news outlets and other mainstream media, what I cherish the most are contributions from everyday people passionate about making a difference. On Saturday a "Note" was posted on Facebook and it was so informative that I asked the writer, Lydie Meunier, if she would let me post it here to share with all of you and she graciously accepted.
Lydia brilliantly opens our eyes to scheming corporations and the U.S. Prison Industrial Complex coveting much sought after jobs and profiting greatly from free and cheap inmate labour. It's also a shocking glimpse of what will happen here in Canada if the Conservatives are re-elected and allowed to proceed with their fear driven crime agenda and American style prison plans.
GUEST POST U.S. Unemployment Exacerbated by the Outsourcing of Jobs to Prisons By Lydie Meunier
SLAVERY IS BACK IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Call your Congress Members and Ask them to Put a Stop to this Infamy!!!
I know that many people don't want to look into prison labor and the impact it has on unemployment figures because this is a disturbing issue. And yet, Jobs are outsourced to prisons, and slavery is being reinstated because corporations are counting on, and taking advantage of folks' apathy and disdains for prisoners... Meanwhile jobs for law abiding citizens are taken away from them to be given to cheap prison labor.
Today, prisoners are being exploited by corporations, paid more or less 40 cts/hour, more often less than more, sometimes paid nothing at all (see current situation in Georgia prisons not covered by the media), in lieu of the minimum $7.25/hour that corporations would have to pay to law abiding citizens. The difference, quite clearly, contributes to major corporate profits, while law abiding citizens are still unemployed and continue to lose their jobs.
On the FREE National market (vs. the WALLED industrial complex market), only 9% of our GDP comes from manufacturing. You can not sustain a middle class lifestyle with a service economy. To turn that 9 % into a much higher number, we need to introduce a new Bill in Congress to stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to prisons (outsourcing to prisons is now called "insourcing").
When you consider the major corporations that employ prison labor (furniture factories, Microsoft, Boing, IBM, Starbuck, Victoria secret, BP, Sodexo, medical supplies, road signs, military supplies, etc.) you quickly realize that moving jobs back to law abiding citizens would surely help diminish unemployment figures!!!
The way these prison partnerships typically work is that a manufacturer wanting to increase profits moves their equipment, technology, materials and unfinished goods to a factory setting within a prison industry facility. Once up and running, the same products come off the assembly lines and are shipped as before. The difference is this, private sector employees of the company have been terminated or laid off. A handful of employees are usually kept on long enough to train inmates and prison supervisors in the manufacturing used to make the products. Once that is accomplished, they are also eliminated and their positions taken over by a prison industry supervisor.
This insourcing of labor creates quite a number of unemployed citizens. Burdens are placed on state and community social help programs, unemployment compensation, etc. So while the corporation saves lots of money in labor costs - no more unemployment insurance premiums, less expenses in lease of facilities (usually leased by the prison operators at $1.00 per year), and no more employee benefits such as medical insurance, vacations or paid time off - the communities they vacated are left to fund the unemployed left in their wake. In addition the local government loses taxes that were paid by the corporation, previous landlords of the facilities once leased to the corporations are left with vacant property and local shops and other businesses suffer a drop in sales due to the newly unemployed workers left behind.
Efforts to involve Union officials, management and labor leaders in rectifying this issue have been unsuccessful for some reason. Politicians and Union leaders are too busy arguing about outsourcing of our jobs overseas and seem to not have any interest in eliminating or addressing insourcing. The next time you or your neighbor loses your/their job; before looking toward China or India to see if you can see your job making its way there, look the other way and see if perhaps some criminal that stole your car has just as easily stolen your job and income as well.
The prison industrial complex shows the fastest growth in profits, with politicians and judges and lawyers, and the top 2% investing in its stocks, which constitutes the most corrupt conflict of interests: for each incarceration, the private prison industry is not only paid big bulks by our tax money, it also disposes of the people as private property subcontracted to corporations. Meanwhile, we keep paying for the prison industrial complex to sustain itself with our tax money, oblivious to the fact that we are also paying with the loss of our jobs!!!!
Wake up folks!!! This is not only a national disgrace, it is a national scandal!!!
The United States has the highest incarceration rate!!!! Do you want to know why? Follow the money!!!
Here are more links related to more recent news in Georgia where prisoners have been forced to work without pay for their labor, a violation of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude:
Corporatocracy can best be described as: "A type of government in which huge corporations, through bribes, gifts, and the funding of ad campaigns that oppose candidates they don't like, become the driving force behind the executive, judicial and legislative branches". It explains why prison labor is ignored by politicians and main stream media!!!!!
"One might think an enterprise able to pay unskilled workers just 21 cents an hour would be able to manufacture goods it could sell at rock-bottom prices. Unfortunately, that is not so when the enterprise is Ohio's Penal Industries system." Penal Industries Costs Out of Line - February 3, 2011 - The Intelligencer
"ACLU 2010 report presents the results of a yearlong investigation into modern-day "debtors' prisons," and shows that poor defendants are being jailed at increasingly alarming rates for failing to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford." American Civil Liberties Unions - 2010 - See 2011 update
Last year, officials in McIntosh County, Okla., south of Tulsa, issued about 1,500 debt-related arrest warrants, up from about 800 a year before the crisis, according to a court clerk. More than 950 borrowers got similar warrants in Salt Lake City courts last year. Maricopa County, Ariz., officials issued 260 debt-related warrants in 2010 Welcome to Debtors' Prison, 2011 Edition
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
The United States continues to have the largest incarcerated population and the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. - Human Rights Watch, World Report, 2008
Me! Okay, while I don't have a big advertising budget to create and air, not an "Attack Ad", (Those are just so.... UNCanadian, to me) but a Truth Ad, I thought I'd utilize the Power of The Internets to share a spot on video with my fellow Canadians highlighting the Conservative push to replicate the failed American War on Drugs*.
The following was originally created by the Drug Policy Alliance in the United States. Marc Emery paid for a Canadian version for the last Federal election as Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been pushing their Stupid On Crime Agenda for many years now.
"INCARCEREX" - Do not mix with The Charter or Common Sense.
Chances are (If we're lucky!) there's an election coming this Spring** and Canadians have to decide just where our priorities lie. Ask yourself: "What do Canadians need more? Money for Education, Health, Child and Elder Care, Infrastructure, (Which will also create jobs, we all use roads and bridges, lets make them safe & smooth!) the Environment, etc? Or do you want to copy failed U.S. Drug War policy, and shovel BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of your hard earned tax dollars towards building and operating prisons, especially at a time when crime is at a 30 year low and we're SIXTY BILLION dollars in debt? (See the Canadian Debt Clock to your right--->)
And FYI, for all the bleating the Conservatives put forth about being the only party who care about victims of crime, let us be reminded that in 2010 the Tories slashed Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative by 43% & the Contributions to the Victims Of Crime Initiative by 34%. Please also read the Globe and Mail article: Canada warned not to follow U.S. tough-on-crime ‘mistakes’, although, I'm sure the Conservatives will stupidly continue to ignore the advice from our neighbours to the south. #FAIL
*****
"What purpose does it serve the Conservatives to quash judicial discretion? To disregard evidence and research that clearly demonstrates that Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is ineffective, expensive and a fallacious approach regarding drug policy and criminal legislation? I ask my fellow Canadians, "Are YOU comfortable with the knowledge that your government blatantly ignores the findings of our very own Justice Department?" ~ Con Job! Tories Ignore Justice Department Reports
****
*the Conservatives are refusing to allow Canadian taxpayers to be privy to the estimated costs of Bill S-10 along with other crime bills citing "Cabinet Confidence", and the Opposition just may call the Tories out with a vote of non confidence. **War on Drugs ~ AP: Billions Spent Had Meager Effect In 40-Year War On Drugs
An Associated Press analysis of America's 40-year war on drugs concludes that the country's costly effort has met virtually none of its goals. In 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, he declared drug abuse "public enemy No. 1 in the United States" and promised to wage an "all-out offensive." His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.
The AP tracked where that money went and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent: $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries, including $6 billion in Colombia; $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs; $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs; $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, and $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone.
CON JOB: verb-transitive ~ To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.–noun ~ A swindle. –adjective ~ Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a con artist.
ALARMIST: person or group/organization who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
In a cheap attempt to sway uninformed Canadians into voting for them, the Conservatives continue to be alarmist, trying to convince you that Canada is bursting at the seams with dangerous criminals lurking on every corner like a Boogeyman in your closet. Harper, Toews, Nicholson, Glover et al want you quivering, believing that no one can save you and your family from becoming victims except for the "Tough on Crime!" party! The kicker? Crime has actually been declining in Canada, in fact, crime rates fell by about about 3% in 2009 — 17% lower than a decade ago. Joseph Neuberger puts some context to this: "The last time Canada's crime rates were as low as Statistics Canada says they are now, The Sting and American Graffiti played at the movies; Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon ruled the airwaves and M*A*S*H was tops on TV." (Please read the whole awesome article Tough on Crime Bill Is Tough on Us All)
The following is from a previous post I wrote called "Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear". This information is applicable to Bill S-10 and deserves to be highlighted as the Conservatives continue to attempt to label the opposition as *soft on crime and pull one over on Canadians who are unfamiliar with the consequences of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing from drug offenses:
The judiciary in Canada and elsewhere are opposed to mandatory sentences of imprisonment. The Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987) found in their survey of judges that slightly over half felt that minimum sentences impinged on their ability to impose a just sentence and that inappropriate agreement between defense and Crown counsel may result.
The future of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada remains unclear. There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits. Nevertheless, mandatory sentences remain popular with some Canadian politicians.
Where mandatory sentences do exist, they have been the object of considerable (and growing) opposition from a variety of parties, including advocacy groups, judges, academics and criminal justice professionals. This opposition has led to a number of Bills to amend or repeal the mandatory sentences legislation. While a number of countries have passed mandatory sentencing legislation within the last decade, there is evidence that jurisdictions with the most severe mandatory sentencing laws are beginning to repeal, or consider repealing, the most punitive sentences of imprisonment.
Trends in Mandatory Sentencing Legislation - After a decade in which a number of common law countries enacted mandatory sentencing legislation, there is clear evidence that several jurisdictions are now either repealing or amending these punitive laws. For example, in 2002 the Michigan mandatory sentencing laws were significantly amended. The effects of these amendments include the following:
• elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing for certain controlled substance violations; • creation of provisions that permit courts to consider important mitigating factors; and • revision of the quantities of drug that trigger certain sentences.
This movement towards a more flexible, judge-determined sentencing scheme is a result of several factors with international repercussions including:
• a shift in public opinion away from supporting strict mandatory minimum sentencing (see above); • the impact of Advocacy groups such as Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM); • growing public disenchantment with the “War on Drugs” that initially triggered many of the most punitive mandatory sentencing laws (see Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004); • news media coverage of “three-strikes” cases in which offenders whose “third strike” consisted of a less serious felony and stories of offenders receiving lengthy prison terms for offenses such as stealing a bicycle from a garage have undermined public support for this kind of sentencing; and • growing concern among criminal justice professionals that mandatory sentences have played an important role in keeping prison populations from declining, even in an era of falling crime rates.
Mandatory Sentencing and Public Opinion - Although this report deals only with the statutory regimes with respect to mandatory sentences of imprisonment, it is worth noting that there is evidence from a number of jurisdictions that public support for mandatory sentencing has declined over the past decade. Mandatory sentences of imprisonment represent the most punitive sentencing reforms of recent years and are found in many western nations. Often justified by reference to public opinion, they have proved highly controversial in practice. Where do members of the public stand with respect to the issue? Few studies have addressed public knowledge of statutory minimum penalties; fortunately, the surveys that exist on this issue have generated the same findings: the general public has little knowledge of the offenses that carry a mandatory minimum penalty, or of the magnitude of the statutory minima. For example, in 1998, members of the public responding to the British Crime Survey (BCS) were asked if they were aware of the mandatory minimum prison term of three years for offenders convicted of burglary (see Roberts, 2003).
Even though this mandatory sentence had been the object of considerable media attention, less than one quarter of the sample responded affirmatively. This finding is consistent with earlier research in Canada that found that very few members of the public had any idea which offenses carried a mandatory sentence (Roberts, 1988 - It should not be surprising that public knowledge of mandatory sentences is poor. Opinion surveys conducted in several jurisdictions have shown that the public knows little about maximum sentences, sentencing options, alternatives to imprisonment, sentencing patterns, recidivism rates, or many other elements of the sentencing process (see Roberts and Hough, 2005, for a review). For example, respondents may overlook the fact that mandatory sentences of imprisonment violate important sentencing principles such as proportionality in sentencing. In addition, mandatory sentences of imprisonment may prove expensive by increasing the costs of the correctional system as more offenders are admitted to custody (and for longer periods of time).)
There is clear evidence that even in the United States, where support is stronger for mandatory sentences, public support for the concept is declining. For example, in 1995 over half of the sampled public in the US held the view that mandatory sentences were a good idea (Roberts, 2003). In 2001, this percentage had declined to slightly more than one-third of respondents (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002; Roberts, 2003). In fact, over half the polled public in the US now favour the elimination of “three-strikes” mandatory sentences (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002). The most recent polling on the issue of mandatory sentencing comes from the state of New Jersey. When asked whether mandatory jail or mandatory drug treatment was the more effective approach to non-violent offenders, respondents chose treatment over imprisonment by a three to one ratio (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004). Three-quarters of the sample favoured allowing judges to set aside mandatory sentences “if another sentence would be more appropriate” (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004).
The Future of Mandatory Sentencing - It would be overstating the case to say that the pendulum has swung away from mandatory sentencing to a model of sentencing that privileges judicial discretion. However, it is clear that public and legislative interest in mandatory sentencing laws has declined, and is likely to continue to decline in the near future. Although the public supports tough sentencing measures for violent offenders, the experience with mandatory sentencing legislation in a number of countries has shown that these laws do little to promote public confidence in the sentencing process.
This report has demonstrated that while mandatory sentences of imprisonment proved popular in the 1990s across a number of common law jurisdictions, closer examination of the laws reveals that many countries allow courts the discretion to sentence below the minimum when exceptional circumstances exist. This usually means that courts are permitted to consider mitigating factors relating to the offense or the offender, in some cases, as long as the judge provides written reasons for doing so. In addition, while the general public appears to favour the use of mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of the *most serious offenses and repeat offenders, there are important limits on public support for strict mandatory sentencing laws. When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender, the tendency is not to favour punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences.
*most serious offenses ~ s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "sentences should be proportionate to the offense and reflect the degree of responsibility of the offender."
Thomas Gabor, Professor Department of Criminology University of Ottawa Nicole Crutcher Carleton University Research and Statistics Division January2002
An excerpt from section 5.4 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses states:
Some of the most sophisticated research in this area has been undertaken at the Rand Corporation (Caulkins et al., 1997). Through various mathematical models, Rand researchers compared the cost effectiveness of various drug prevention/control strategies, including lengthy MMS. Their analysis considered the cost of each strategy and the expected yield in terms of both drug consumption and crime reductions. Their conclusion was that conventional sentences imposed on dealers are more cost effective than long MMS reserved for fewer offenders and that treating heavy users is more cost effective than either approach in lowering drug use or drug-related crime. MMS were found to be the most cost effective strategy only in the case of the highest level dealers; however, the low thresholds at which MMS tend to kick in means that these laws are more likely to ensnare low-level offenders. Also, high-level dealers are more likely to avoid MMS, as they are in a better position to have information to trade for an exemption from these penalties. Finally, these investigators note that the time horizon of evaluations is critical, as MMS become less cost effective over time.
Hansen (1999) asserts that the tide is turning against MMS for drug infractions. He notes that they have done little to reduce crime or to put large-scale dealers out of business. Rather, they have filled prisons with young. low-level, non-violent individuals at great cost to taxpayers. Hansen points out that, in Massachusetts, 84% of inmates serving mandatory drug sentences are first-time offenders.
...MMS fail to discriminate between these hardcore drug dealers and those who feel compelled to sell due to an addiction or difficulties encountered in participating steadily in the work force. The implication is that employment opportunities, more accessible drug treatment, and alternative sentences would be preferable to the “iron fist of the war on drugs.”
Harsh MMS and the “drug war” approach in general show little effect in relation to drug offense. Judges routinely circumvent the “mandatory” death sentences for drug trafficking in Malaysia and the tough MMS in the US have imprisoned mostly low-level, nonviolent offenders. MMS do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way. A variety of research methods concludes that treatment-based approaches are more cost effective than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers. Optimally, it would appear that tough sentences should be reserved for hardcore, high-level dealers, while treatment may be more appropriate for addicted dealers and employment opportunities may be more cost effective in relation to part-time dealers who are underemployed.
Conclusion: 9.5 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses
Severe MMS seem to be least effective in relation to drug offenses. Studies using a variety of methodologies seriously question the value of the “drug war” approach. The draconian penalties in Malaysia are routinely circumvented by the judiciary and the tough MMS in the US (both at the state and federal levels) have imprisoned mostly low-level, nonviolent offenders. Drug consumption and drug-related crime seem to be unaffected, in any measurable way, by severe MMS. Both mathematical modeling techniques and field work arrive at the conclusion that treatment-oriented approaches are more cost effective than harsh prison terms.
9.9 Concluding Remarks
From a utilitarian point of view, incarcerating occasional, non-violent offenders, for substantial periods, constitutes a colossal waste of justice system resources.
...Therefore, MMS should not be introduced merely to placate a political constituency or without regard to a thorough understanding of the infractions or offenders for whom they are intended. ~ Fin
*****
"Discretion is a science of understanding, to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretenses, and not to do according to their men's will and private affections." ~ Justice Edward Coke
*****
What purpose does it serve the Conservatives to quash judicial discretion? To disregard evidence and research that clearly demonstrates that Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is ineffective, expensive and a fallacious approach regarding drug policy and criminal legislation? I ask my fellow Canadians, "Are YOU comfortable with the knowledge that your government blatantly ignores the findings of our very own Justice Department?"
Prevention. It's worth more than a pound of Tory rhetoric for Canadian families and hard working taxpayers. Lets ignore the Con Job, Canadians, of course we are all concerned about crime, but lets be brave and approach solutions to keeping our kids and communities safer by being smart, logical and realistic about crime policy.
Ignoring evidence that clearly proves that Mandatory Minimum Sentences escalate crime and violence in our neighbourhoods? Now that's scary!
Fortunately, we can see what has happened in the United States when a government is "Stupid on Crime" because they don't want to be labeled "Soft on Crime".
*****
“Still, my own personal view is that it’s a mistake to take away discretion from judges, In the last couple of decades, the U.S. has gone the way of mandatory sentencing for a whole bunch of crimes and the result is their prisons are jammed.
I find it hard to understand how the richest country in the world has one of - if not the - highest prison population in the world. There’s something wrong there, and the problem is mandatory sentences. I’m disappointed to see Canada drifting in that direction.” ~ Retired Quebec judge John Gomery
*****
*soft on crime ~ From: It's a 'myth' Canada is soft on crime It is a myth that Canadian courts are soft on crime and that the Charter of Rights is responsible for criminals escaping conviction or receiving light jail terms, says Canada's chief justice, Beverley McLachlin.
The Charter of Rights, signed on April 17, 1982, as part of the repatriated Constitution, gave judges the power to not merely interpret laws, but to strike them down if they were found to violate any of the established rights.
They include freedom of religion, expression and association, the legal right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Equality guarantees, including freedom from discrimination based on age, sex, race, or disability, came into effect in 1985.
Mama, Wife, Writer, Political Junkie, Legalizer, Freedom Fighter, Student of Life, Atheist, Lover of Music & Written Word.
#420Friendly #Spoonie
****************************
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast Guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable." ~ Alexander Shulgin PhD, Chemist and author
Posts
