Late to the Party: Legalization Frenzy in the NYT and the Guardian

Hey, you! Yes, you! Come over here; I have big news. Did you know that the war on drugs is wasteful and has not made a dent in drug abuse and trafficking? And that some substances should just be decriminalized? Amazing, right? Well, this revolutionary thinking comes to you straight from the nation's most respected newspaper!

Apparently, the New York Times and the Guardian think this is a major novelty. This from the NYT:

The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.

We reached that conclusion after a great deal of discussion among the members of The Times’s Editorial Board, inspired by a rapidly growing movement among the states to reform marijuana laws.
There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.

We considered whether it would be best for Washington to hold back while the states continued experimenting with legalizing medicinal uses of marijuana, reducing penalties, or even simply legalizing all use. Nearly three-quarters of the states have done one of these.

But that would leave their citizens vulnerable to the whims of whoever happens to be in the White House and chooses to enforce or not enforce the federal law.

The social costs of the marijuana laws are vast. There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to F.B.I. figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives. Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals.

There is honest debate among scientists about the health effects of marijuana, but we believe that the evidence is overwhelming that addiction and dependence are relatively minor problems, especially compared with alcohol and tobacco. Moderate use of marijuana does not appear to pose a risk for otherwise healthy adults. Claims that marijuana is a gateway to more dangerous drugs are as fanciful as the “Reefer Madness” images of murder, rape and suicide.

There are legitimate concerns about marijuana on the development of adolescent brains. For that reason, we advocate the prohibition of sales to people under 21.

Creating systems for regulating manufacture, sale and marketing will be complex. But those problems are solvable, and would have long been dealt with had we as a nation not clung to the decision to make marijuana production and use a federal crime.

The newspaper invites readers to participate in debate. And it's great that big periodicals are getting behind the cause. But--really, NYT? You've only now reached this conclusion "after a great deal of discussion"? Where the heck were you doing journalism in the last forty years, on Mars?

I think Nate Silver is right on the money when he shows why the NYT is getting on the bandwagon only now that it's advantageous to do so:

Some of it is that I get irked when elites get credit for publicly taking “bold” positions that other folks came to much sooner. This is particularly the case when the position is one you’d expect them to have held in their private lives all along.

But there’s a particularly large gap between elite and popular opinion on marijuana policy. Consider that, according to The Huffington Post, none of the 50 U.S. governors or the 100 U.S. senators had endorsed fully legal recreational marijuana as of this April — even though some of them are very liberal on other issues, and even though an increasing number of them represent states where most voters support legalizing pot.

Perhaps some of this is smart politics — older Americans are less likely to support marijuana legalization and more likely to vote. But there’s also a more cynical interpretation: racial minorities, low-income Americans and young people are disproportionately more likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses than senators or newspaper editorial board members (or their sons and daughters). The elites may be setting the policy, but they’re out of touch with its effects.

That reminds me of Obama's sudden change of heart in favor of same-sex marriage, after basically all ight-minded people had moved to the other side.  I expect more trendsetting and leadership from a world-class newspaper than from a politician.

And also, regulation "will be complex"? What about all the hundreds of thousands of good people doing work on this for the last few decades? What about the blueprints easily available, and all the debates already on the record?

Don't get me wrong; of course this is better than supporting the war on drugs. But I'm dismayed to see such cowardice and Johnny-come-lately behavior from the New York Times. Next time, guys, wake up sooner. Perhaps that would save more lives and futures.

Death Penalty Update

In the last few days, we've made a huge effort to circulate a petition to Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris, asking them not to appeal District Court Judge Carney's decision that the death penalty in California is unconstitutional. We've just hit 500 signatures, and I've sent the petition to the Governor and the AG. Thank you for your support, signing, and sharing!

What happens next?

Our elected officials decide whether they want to pursue an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

What if California appeals the decision?

Then, we'll have to take our chances with the Ninth Circuit. The hope is that we'll draw a favorable panel, who will affirm Judge Carney's decision. It's possible, albeit not very probable. Regardless of the result, a further appeal to the Supreme Court is unlikely to yield a good result for abolitionists.

The best of all worlds would be a decision from the Ninth Circuit affirming the death penalty's unconstitutionality, and THEN a commitment from the Attorney General that she would not appeal the decision. If that is the case, the decision will apply to all of CA, and would basically mean that the death penalty has been abolished. But for that to happen we have to be lucky twice: the Ninth Circuit has to go our way and the AG has to decide not to appeal that decision. That's quite a gamble.

What if our elected officials hear our plea and do not appeal the decision?

In that case, we're left with a great, favorable decision, but by a District Court, which means it doesn't create immediate effect in all of California. But we also gain an important political advantage: we have a great decision, that became final, AND the political gravitas of the AG's support for the result. That, then, allows us to consider political pressure on the Governor's office to commute current capital sentences, which do not conform to constitutional standards, as well as a valuable weapon against various proposals to "fix" the death penalty.

What are the odds that there will be an appeal?

Hard to tell. As you may recall, last time the State did not defend its laws in federal court was in the context of Prop 8, and the initiators of the proposition were ruled by the Supreme Court not to have standing. What this means is that if the AG does not want to defend CA's death penalty, no one else can do so in her stead.

There is, however, a difference: Prop 8 was a voter initiative, and so the AG could more easily disengage from it by not appealing. Even though the AG is, personally, an opponent of the death penalty, she may think that solid administrative principles require seeing this thing to its end. And maybe she, too, is hoping that if she appeals the decision, the Ninth Circuit will rise to the occasion and decide the case for abolition.

In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

What can we do now?

Keep talking about this with friends of all political persuasions. Talk about the botched execution in Arizona; talk about the immense toll that incarcerating these folks and tending to their litigation effort is taking on the CA budget (to the tune of $150 million annually.) Talk about how we can see abolition in our lifetime, if we run with this ruling and make the most of this opportunity to drag our penal system to the 21st century.

A Bit of Good News: Inmate Reductions Do Not Increase Crime

Yesterday's Chron reported on a new Sentencing Project report, examining crime rates in California, New York, and New Jersey. Here are the bits about CA:

From 2006 to 2012, the new report said, California reduced its prison population by 23 percent, from nearly 174,000 to 134,000, while the nationwide inmate count dropped by just 1 percent.

The decline accelerated in October 2011 under a state law implementing Gov. Jerry Brown's "realignment" program, which sentenced lower-level nonviolent felons to county jail instead of state prison and increased the number of convicts who spent part of their sentences on probation.

The state says it will also comply with court orders stepping up parole of elderly, disabled and low-risk prisoners. A 2012 ballot measure sparing some nonviolent felons from life terms under California's three-strikes law is further reducing the imprisonment rate.

During the same six-year period, the report said, the rate of violent crime - murder, forcible rape, robbery and assault - fell 21 percent in California, compared with 19 percent nationwide.

. . . 

Despite the improvements, the study said, California's violent crime rate remains above the national average. The state's property crime rate is slightly below the national average, although the rate of decline from 2006 to 2012 was 13 percent in the state and 15 percent nationwide, the study said.

Another finding was that auto thefts in California have increased since realignment took effect in 2011, bringing the rates for that crime back up to 2009 levels. Overall, however, the study said the prisons-to-jails program does not appear to have increased serious crime in the state.

The original report can be found here.

There Is No Right Way to Kill People

Yesterday, the web was ablaze with gruesome news. The execution of Joseph Rudolph Wood took much longer than expected and has created a huge controversy about lethal injection. CBS reports:

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne's office said Joseph Rudolph Wood was pronounced dead at 3:49 p.m., one hour and 57 minutes after the execution started.

Wood's lawyers had filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court while the execution was underway, demanding that it be stopped. The appeal said Wood was "gasping and snorting for more than an hour."

Word that Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the appeal came about a half hour after Wood's death.

Wood, 55, gasped more than 600 times before he died.

You can go and read more about the execution, but I can already tell you what you'll find: the defense attorney and abolition advocates arguing that the execution was botched, cruel, and horrific; the family and district attorney reminding everyone of the death of the victims; this or that doctor saying that, actually, he wasn't suffering, just "snoring" - interpretations of pain, interpretations of suffering, moral equations, this, that.

But the bottom line--as argued by Austin Sarat as well as by Forbes Magazine's David Kroll, is this: There is no right way to kill people. For all the effort we've made to make the procedure "appear swift and medical" as Kroll said, it still serves no purpose beyond killing people.

Death is suffering. The idea that we can surgically separate death--which is, according to the Supreme Court, constitutional, fine and dandy--from suffering, which is a violation of the 8th Amendment, is ludicrous. There have been botched hangings, electrocutions, gas chamber killings, lethal injections--every year, 3 percent of executions are botched. That everything is sterile and medical, and people were white robes and not executioners' capes and hoods, means it's more difficult to see the difference, but in a way it reveals a deeper truth: that the idea that there's a "clean" execution, done "right", is absurd.

In 1980, Justice Blackmun wrote this in a slightly different context:

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored...to develop...rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor...Rather than continue to coddle the court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved...I feel...obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies.

He was so wise. If he could only see the futile tinkering. This chemical, that chemical, one shot, three shots. There is no right way to kill people. Of course many of these people committed horrendous crimes and merciless killings of innocent victims. But do we really want to license the state to achieve symmetry in that department?

If, like me, you're sick of tinkering with the machinery of death, sign my petition to the CA Attorney General not to appeal the recent decision that declared capital punishment in CA unconstitutional. We need 50 more signatures to make it to 500 before tomorrow. Let's make it happen.

Ms. Harris, Do Not Appeal Judge Carney's Decision!

Usually I'm fairly lukewarm about online petitions. They are often targeted at the wrong person, asking them to do something that they should do free of public influence.

Not so with this one.

I started a petition addressing the CA Attorney General, Kamala Harris, and Governor Brown, asking Ms. Harris not to appeal Judge Carney's decision from a few days ago, which found the death penalty unconstitutional because of the delays involved in its application.

You can find the petition here.

I am asking YOU, gentle reader, to sign the petition, and to share it far and wide with your friends. Ms. Harris is an elected public official, and her decisions regarding charging and appealing should take into account the will and priorities of her constituents. Those constituents are you.

Ask yourself:

• What can California do for YOU with $150 million in annual savings?
• How much more retribution, deterrence, justice, and fairness are YOU getting from a dysfunctional death row?
• If you are for the death penalty, how do you feel about the rarity of its administration?
• If you oppose the death penalty, how do you feel about joining hundreds of signees that stand behind an argument that seems to make headway where human rights arguments have failed?
• How comfortable are YOU with the prospect of the state making mistakes in death penalty application? Would YOU be okay with the elimination of the post-conviction quality control mechanisms we have in place?
• Finally, are YOU comfortable with the criminal justice energy spent in this state--in time, dollars, public activity--on 724 people, when our correctional system encompasses 170,000 people statewide and locally in whose rehabilitation we could invest?

This is YOUR money, YOUR business, YOUR government. Please ask your government to usher us into the 20th century (not to mention the 21st) and leave Judge Carney's just, fair, and prudent decision alone.

All you have to do is click a bit online and email a few friends, or share on Facebook.

All our Attorney General needs to do is--nothing.

Let's do this.

BREAKING NEWS!!! Federal judge declares California death penalty unconstitutional

Astounding news: half an hour ago, US district court judge Cor­mac J. Car­ney issued a decision in Jones vs. Chappell declaring the death penalty in California unconstitutional.

The full text of the decision can be found here.

Judge Carney's decision rests primarily on administrative grounds, namely, on the delay and uncertainty on California's death row. Judge Carney points out that, since the reinstatement of the death penalty in California in 1978, only 13 people have been executed. Meanwhile, scores of inmates have died of suicide or natural causes, and 748 inmates are still on death row, litigating their case in pursuit of post-conviction remedies. These delays, writes Judge Carney, short-change the meaning of the death penalty and break its promise to the victims' families, the citizens and tax payers of California, and the inmates themselves, who spend years, and frequently decades, in a state of uncertainty. Under these circumstances, California's death penalty is no more than life without parole, with or without an execution at the end.

A cynical perspective on the decision would be that all the state needs to do is to streamline the death penalty and execute death row inmates faster. Indeed, that is what the California District Attorney's Association has advocated recently. However, Judge Carney spends a considerable amount of time discussing the existing appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, and finds them constitutionally adequate. He comes to the conclusion that the only solution to California's death penalty's unconstitutionality is to abolish capital punishment in California altogether.

The big question is what happens next. Presumably, the warden is represented by the California Attorney General. However, Kamala Harris is personally opposed to the death penalty, and never sought it while she was the San Francisco County District Attorney. If the state does not appeal this decision, it has huge consequences not only in California, but nation wide. California's death row is the largest in the nation. State-wide abolition, judicial or legislative, creates a critical mass of abolitionist states and might mean the end of capital punishment in America. But even if the state appeals to the Ninth Circuit, the decision is a prime example of the anti-punitive thinking that has become the mark of recession-era politics. Note that the decision does not go into death row conditions, humane execution methods, or any other dignity-based argument. Even though money is not explicitly mentioned, this is classic humonetarionism. Judge Carney is not arguing that the death penalty is inhumane; he is arguing that it is badly managed. As I point out in Cheap on Crime, these types of arguments have become far more persuasive in policy making and frequently succeed where classic human rights reasoning failed. It is of enormous importance that this logic has permeated not only the policy making arena, but judicial reasoning as well.

More updates in the next few days.

Film Review: Short Term 12

The wonderful 2013 film Short Term 12 tells the story of a care facility for juveniles in the San Francisco Bay Area, in which twenty-something year old Grace, her partner Mason, and a few other dedicated young staff members take care of kids from difficult backgrounds and abusive homes. Tough and capable, Grace hides a difficult personal history not much different than that of the kids she cares for, and arguably understands them better than the professional therapists she works with. The discovery that she is pregnant, and some bad news regarding her father, undo her just as a new teenager comes to the home, stirring rage and frustration.

While the story discusses institutionalization and incarceration very, very gently, and focuses on the feelings and relationships of the participants, it is a good reminder that crime is real and has real victims. Changing young people's paths and fates takes a lot of courage and love, and the line between infantilizing someone and believing him or her is very thin.

I was incredibly moved, and that was before I heard about the lovely and important art project inspired by the movie:

 

This highly recommended movie streams live on Netflix.