I want to fight crime by doing it the right way. We must end the damaging cycle of incarcerating people, inadequately addressing underlying mental health and substance abuse issues, and returning them to society with the misguided hope that they will not return to crime. They are set up for failure.
That’s why yesterday, I released my plan to be Smart on Crime in the Commonwealth. With thoughtful reform, we can make our streets safe and make our communities stronger. Last week, I sent testimony to the Judiciary Committee on why I believe we need Smart on Crime approach to mandatory minimums. Below is the testimony I submitted, and I hope, that as your next Attorney General, we can continue to move forward on reform.
Judiciary Committee Testimony
I am deeply concerned with the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the devastating effect that such laws have on individuals sentenced under them and their families, and the disproportionate effect such laws have on racial and ethnic minorities as well as those with substance abuse disorders and mental health issues. That is why I support reform that ensures non-violent drug offenders can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than by prescribing mandatory minimum sentences which can cost taxpayers up to $47,000 per year. We need to unbind the hands of our judges and give them the tools to ensure that they can provide real, individualized justice.
If we are serious about reducing drug abuse and addiction we need to focus on what works. We cannot incarcerate our way out of crime. We have tried, and it does not work. It is time to work toward policies that are smart on crime rather than tough on crime.
More than any other crimes, drug crimes have been covered by inflexible mandatory minimum sentences. As a result, there are more people in jails and prisons for drug related crimes in Massachusetts than for any other offense. It has been estimated that approximately 85% of people arrested have some drug or alcohol abuse problem. We have a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities and people with mental health issues in our prisons and jails.
According to research from The Sentencing Project, African-Americans in Massachusetts are incarcerated at eight times the rate of Caucasians and Hispanics are incarcerated at six times the rate of Caucasians. It is currently estimated that 24 percent of all male inmates in Massachusetts and 59 percent of all female inmates have open mental health cases.
The evidence does not support the use of mandatory minimum sentences as a cost-effective way to reduce drug consumption. This is particularly true given that in many drug operations, if a low-level offender is incapacitated, another may quickly take his place through what is known as the “replacement effect.” In drug cases, mandatory minimum sentences are also often inflexible to factors that could make incapacitation more effective, such as parole, addiction treatment, and mental health programs. There is a better way to attack the drug problem in the Commonwealth, one which relies on a mix of treatment and education rather than mandatory drug sentences. Treating addiction and using education would cause our incarceration rates to decrease along with the overall crime and substance abuse rates.
I strongly believe that the law is best respected when punishments are inherently fair. When the mandatory minimum sentence for inducing a child into prostitution is three years but a non-violent drug offense can result in a mandatory minimum as high as 12 years, I know we’re doing something wrong and I know that we can do better. I am also concerned about the so-called “cliff effect” created by mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which require large increases in the minimum punishment at arbitrary cut-off points. In some cases, the differences between two very similar offenses can be as much as four years added on to a sentence.
I support the repeal of minimum sentencing requirements for non-violent drug related crimes, and the implementation of alternative sentencing options and good behavior incentives. Allowing judges the flexibility to consider good conduct and rehabilitation and treatment programs will help us be smart on crime by attacking the root causes of addiction and drug abuse. I encourage the legislature to expand the use of mental health and drug counseling programs as well as problem-solving courts such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts which seek to address the underlying problems that often contribute to criminal behavior.
It’s nice to see a candidate for AG actually focusing on legal issues. For the highest law enforcement position in the state, there’s barely been any coverage of the actual issues of criminal justice in this race. I want to see a lot more of this discussion in the coming months, so we can actually find out which candidate is the more concerned with prison reform and important progressive issues that the office will have a huge impact on.
I generally try to stay germane to the diary, but since this is your post I wanted to ask when I thought you might be reading. There have been concerns expressed here lately relative to your involvement with a firm promoting gambling. Would you be able to provide some information about that and let us know how that informs your perspective or might affect how you would enforce relevant laws. Thank you.
Surely we all pretty much agree on the points suggested in the above post by AG candidate Warren Tolman. I suspect his opponent Maura Healey would have similar views.
What concerns me is that the above accurate description of our current ineffective, enormously expensive and unsustainable system is that it is essentially the status-quo. Some of the data points may be slightly higher or lower but in reality these are issues that have been entrenched despite a generation (probably closer to two) of awareness and action by pockets of activists.
I am more interested in the skills set that an AG candidate will have to bring change – not the talking points.
What action steps will you take?
How is your strategic plan to reform (society) going to be implemented in the same system that perpetuates the cycle?
What resources will you bring to the fore to accomplish reform?
How will you reduce the burgeoning corrections industry when well-paid workers – protected by strong unions would need to be eliminated if we institutionally “housed” less people?
Jobs skills and training are not mentioned in your position piece above as a needed plank in reform. Casinos – which you hardily support personally, politically and policy wise – will not be a hiring option for individuals with “records.” In fact, there are tomes of documented co-morbidity factors associated with expanded gambling that increase risk, illegal activities, burdens on law enforcement, courts and incarceration. Your positions simply conflict.
I invite both candidates to reply to these questions. Do tell!
nt