Seventeen Years Later, The Problem Is Far Worse...Why Does History Repeat Itself?: Part II

 

So what did our symposium accomplish? It shed light on the fact that all futile attempts have not worked. Disbanding the sentencing commission and repealing mandatory minimum sentencing stand as the two logical solutions to slaying the monster, but legislators are afraid to vote for this reform. In other words, their “buck passing” efforts to find another approach at reform have put taxpayers and citizens in a worse position today than 17 years ago!

            What is keeping legislators from embracing real change?

Last week, when I wrote and published Part I in the blog, it was exactly 17 years after the Reading Eagle published my op-ed piece in March 1997. The subject of the viewpoint was prison overcrowding caused by removing sentencing discretion from the judiciary. In 1982, when the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was created in Pennsylvania, the legislator’s own study from the previous year concluded that the length of sentences in the state would double as a result of the commission’s implementation! Guess what? That’s what happened.  In fact, Pennsylvania’s state penitentiary population tripled in just 15 years between 1982 and 1997 when it had not even increased in the 40 years before 1980.

The state’s department of corrections prison population showed no increase whatsoever in state prison population between 1940 and 1980. Each year it averaged 7,000 inmates. Today it is seven times greater than it was in 1980. What caused these distressing results?

Only two years after the 1982 effective date for the commission to begin its work, Pennsylvania began the greatest new prison construction epidemic in its history, opening 16 new prisons in the 14 years beginning, ironically, in 1984. The keystone state had only a total of 11 prisons in its history prior to 1984!

            The April 5, 1997 symposium was held at Albright College. It was attended by Senator Stewart Greenleaf, chairman of the very same Senate Judiciary Committee which just finished its study of prison overcrowding and alternative sentencing. Sen. Greenleaf, a republican from Montgomery County, is the longest serving Pennsylvania senator to date. Tom Caltigerone, a Berks County democrat, was present as well, as was Berks County state senator, the late  Michael A. O’Pake. Today, Tom is the longest serving Pennsylvania representative in the house. He, along with Sen. Greenleaf speak often to voters and colleagues about this problem and the need for alternative punishments, which are the same solutions I endorse. But the opposite of alternative punishment is 1) mandatory minimum sentencing, where judges have no discretion and 2) the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, which, because of direct and indirect pressure,  motivates judges to follow the guidelines. Pennsylvania judges sentence consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing in 90 percent of all sentences. The commission’s guidelines have become gospel.

            Until we eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, this problem will continue to get worse.

Seventeen Years Later, The Problem Is Far Worse…Why Does History Repeat Itself?: Part I

            Editor’s note: The following was written in conjunction with preparations for a communitywide symposium on criminal justice to be held at Albright College on April 5, 1997. The symposium garnered 25 different community sponsors supporting the study and intelligent discussion of mandatory sentencing, overcrowded prisons and the increased costs of housing the inmates.

Prioritizing prison outcomes requires wisdom of Solomon (published 3-20-97, Reading Eagle)

By Jeffrey K. Sprecher

Justice has always been rich in symbolism. We see the scales of justice and know that facts are weighed carefully, one against the other, until the right course emerges. We read the biblical account of King Solomon and learn the importance of seeing beyond superficial motivations.

            In fairness, it takes the wisdom of Solomon to understand some of the logic of our current criminal justice system. Consider the contradictions inherent in these statistics: Despite the addition of 10,000 beds in recent years, our state prisons currently are operating at 154 percent capacity.

            Two out of three state inmates are classified as nonviolent, yet they are housed, at great cost to the taxpayers who have already been victimized by their criminal conduct, behind thick concrete walls and steel bars.

            Sentencing policies aimed at punishing drug kingpins have resulted in a torrent of users and low-level operatives filling limited state prison cells while drug sales continue to flourish in both urban and rural areas.

            Last summer, the state Senate Judiciary Committee completed a study on prison overcrowding and alternative sentencing. In reporting its recommendations, the committee noted that prison overcrowding rarely evokes a sympathetic public response, but with state spending nearing the $1 billion-a-year mark, the issue needs to be addressed.

            Criminal justice issues are especially difficult for elected officials. By taking the sensible approach to policies that enhance public safety – instead of vengeance – these lawmakers run the risk of being branded soft on crime. So, it was a bold and courageous move for the committee to recommend items such as expanded use of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, drug treatment as a sanctioning tool for abusers, and restoration of judicial discretion in sentencing offenders who currently warrant mandatory minimum terms.

            These are all steps in the right direction. Overwhelmingly, it seems past policies were shrouded in myths: Put more people in prison and the crime rate will come down; make sentences longer and criminals will be deterred; build more prisons and the public will feel safer. Taxpayers have paid dearly to implement these policies and have seen none of the promised results.

            The violent crime rate in Pennsylvania has been relatively constant for the past 50 years, virtually unaffected by the tripling of the prison population over the last 15 years. And, still, opinion research tells us that the public feels unsafe – a perception that seems to stand apart from the statistics.

            We, as citizens, need to take the time to examine the trade-offs in this issue. We probably all want the system to punish, deter, rehabilitate, incapacitate, restore both victims and communities, save money and more. We need to prioritize those outcomes because every one of them comes at the expense of another.

            Then we can be in a position to appreciate the wisdom of committee chairman Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, who concluded, “If we take the initiative to set up a systematic program of review and supervision through alternative sentencing programs for nonviolent state-level offenders, we will have the assurance of control and, ultimately, public safety.

            “Expensive prison space must be held for those who are truly violent and career criminals. This problem has transcended party lines and social ideologies; it is a matter of practicality and fiscal responsibility.”

            The weight of this logic clearly tips the scales toward Solomonesque reforms that are at once tough and smart. I implore the careful study of this timely issue.

            Jeffrey K. Sprecher is a Judge of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. (3-20-97)

Dr. David McFarland, president of Kutztown University, put it simply when he asked: why are we spending more money on prisons than college education? It is apparent that the issues of the past 17 years have not disappeared, but have actually become worse today. For instance, state spending of $1 million for the annual prison budget that I referenced in the article has climbed to a staggering $2 billion being spent per year today. 

 ……

 

            What a dilemma. The symposium was held because even elected officials acknowledge that the justice system was in need of repair. After all, the United States incarcerates more people at a higher rate than any other country on earth! We must continue to identify the causes of the problem and offer solutions; however, law makers must no longer be afraid to implement the needed changes – disbanding the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and repealing the mandatory minimum sentencing laws – because their opponents will accuse them of being soft on crime. The problem has been identified and its solution suggested, but they refuse to implement the reforms that will truly make a difference. The monster continues to grow uncontrollably; new prisons are built to house the influx of inmates who have increasingly longer sentences to serve. Ten thousand new beds were added and the system still operated at 154% capacity, noted the state senate judiciary committee’s study. Which was published less than a year before our symposium in 1997. The monster remains on the loose.

            So what did our symposium accomplish? It shed light on the fact that all futile attempts have not worked. Disbanding the sentencing commission and repealing mandatory minimum sentencing stand as the two logical solutions to slaying the monster, but legislators are afraid to vote for this reform. In other words, their “buck passing” efforts to find another approach at reform have put taxpayers and citizens in a worse position today than 17 years ago!

            What is keeping legislators from embracing real change?

            Next week in Part II, a reminder of the effectiveness of the symposium.

Have We Won The War On Drugs?

With a 43 year long war on drugs, one would think the United States has exceeded its goal in decreasing illegal narcotic activity in the country. The answer is no, despite a trillion dollars spent and the arrest of a hundred million citizens. In fact, the drug problem is worse today. One example that succinctly proves this fact is heroin.

Officials right to crack down on prescription painkillers

(published in The Washington Post on 3-15-14)

“…At the same time, there is a key difference between this heroin epidemic and previous ones, as [U.S. Attorney General] Holder noted: It is related to the abuse of chemically similar legal drugs, prescription opioids, whose use, both legitimate and illicit, has exploded in recent years. Properly administered, these painkilling drugs can bring patients necessary relief. Diverted to unintended and unauthorized use, as they too often are, these highly addictive drugs function, in many cases, as a gateway drug to heroin.”

“…The reason, experts on addiction note, is that heroin already was cheaper and more accessible than prescription medicines.

The government’s crackdown, such as it has been, did not prevent doctors from writing an estimated 241 million prescriptions for opioids in 2012, which was down 2 million from 2011 but still 97 million more than in 2002, according to data from IMS Health that first were reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.”

…..

Painkillers and Heroin: Which drug is more prevalent and affordable?

            In mid-March 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his weekly video, warned of an urgent and growing public health crisis. The abuse of legal painkillers, categorized as prescription opiates, can lead to the use and addiction to heroin. How? States and the federal government have recently prioritized the war on opioid abuse. This has led to the reduced supply of pain killers, forcing addicts to seek other medication; and as I’ve written previously, heroin is a poor man’s pain killer. The rising death rate for heroin abuse, both locally and throughout the country, sadly has been rising. Thats not very good evidence of us winning any war on drugs.

Does The Punishment Fit The Crime?

In the March 2014 edition of the American Bar Association Journal, these disturbing statistics appeared. As of 2012, in the United States of America:

1)     3,278 people were serving life sentences without parole.

2)     79% (2,586) were sentenced for non-violent, drug-related crimes.

3)     20% (656) were convicted of non-violent property offenses

Ethnicities of 3,278 non-violent lifers

·       65% (2,131) are African American

·       18% (584) are Caucasian

·       16% (524) are Latino or Hispanic

From: A Living Death: Life Without Parole For Non-violent Offenses, American Civil Liberties Union, 2013 (November).

            Does it make the numbers far worse when you ponder the following question? How many of the 3,278 human beings sentenced to life without parole were sentenced by a judge whose hands were tied by a mandatory minimum sentence or sentencing guidelines from which he/she did not think he could or should deviate?

Guns: Chicago 2012 - 3,066 shootings, 503 murders

In 2012, the city of Chicago led the nation in recorded homicides. Please pause for a moment and ponder these numbers – 3,066 shootings and 503 murders in 365 days. These stifling figures constitute an average of nearly 10 shootings and 1.5 murders per day. It is also worth noting that these are the incidents reported to the police.

With that many documented shootings, the number of murders could easily have doubled since every shooting is potentially fatal – even those intended only to deliver a message or warning. Of the two or three dozen murder trials I have handled in 22 years, a gun was used as the murder weapon in almost every case. Sadly, many people carry a gun today, especially in the city. I have repeatedly heard the people arrested for gun possession explain to me in court that because of the abundance of firearms on the street, they need it for their own protection. My on the job experience bears this out. Everybody has a gun.

            Please ponder a second question: How many times have you lost your temper in life? Anger has probably enabled you on one or more occasions to have the requisite intent necessary to exhibit the motive, ill will or intense passion that has revealed itself many times in homicide cases. At this point, there is only one contributing circumstance needed to move from intent to completion. How do alcohol, drugs and mental health issues increase the risk of violent action? How about intense and continuous stress, friends or acquaintances with a hair trigger temper or a propensity for violence – what affect do they have on the final result. Simply the wrong people, places and circumstances – these are the factors that spur violence.

            I am not addressing the person who plans and “lies in wait” to take a life. Premeditation[1] or intent can arise in an instant; it doesn’t have to be intended, at least for a specific period of time. [2]

            My aim is to bring attention to the great number of murders committed under unplanned circumstances - an argument with a spouse, relative or even a stranger that gets out of hand. In regards to intimate relationships, how close does a person who is going through a divorce or separation get to have the requisite intent to kill? I learned long ago that love and hate are deeply rooted emotions, but that they are often not found on opposite ends of the continuum. They are not polar opposites, but exist next to one another. There are times when they join forces, making it difficult to tell the two apart. “Was that one love? Was this one hate?”

In the annals of mankind, you don’t hate a stranger who you don’t at least know by personal experience or by reputation, stereotype, perception or fear. The worst crimes in history have taken place during civil wars, acts of genocide, religious differences, racial prejudice, ethnic cleansing and wars with neighbors who hate each other. People with knowledge of these things teach us directly, as well as indirectly, who to fear. The media in all its forms contributes greatly to our perception of those people – those who are different from us. We quickly learn who to be careful around and who to avoid.

 My point can be concluded with the fact that the criminal homicide laws in Pennsylvania have five different levels or degrees of murder, and only first degree includes the premeditated intent to kill. Second degree murder encompasses killings that happen during a felony, like a burglary, robbery or rape. There is no premeditated intent to kill; but the crime went terribly awry and resulted in murder. The third category includes all other forms of killing, where there were no other crimes committed and there is no evidence of pre-meditation. Voluntary homicide is the fourth category. It also excludes the intent of malice, and is not felony murder. In fact, it is not even considered murder. It is defined by acting under intense provocation or being blinded by rage. Involuntary manslaughter, which is the fifth category, is also not considered a felony murder under law. It is distinguished from manslaughter because it is not committed by blind rage or intense provocation. It is a crime of criminal negligence such as dumping a load of stones at a construction site without looking to see if anyone is in the path of danger.

There are also many examples where shootings have occurred over trivial things - fighting over a parking space, being cut off in traffic or other forms of road rage. In addition to the wrong people, places and circumstances one is confronted with, timing is also a factor in this issue. [3]

It seems logical that if there were not so many hand guns available, these conflicts might not be so quickly resolved with finality. These resolutions with a gun involved are usually final. We can’t turn back the clock, but we can as a society cut the finality of the tragedy by striving to prevent the availability of the deadly weapon. Then perhaps a cooling off time will be in place in which case the potential killing might be avoided and the whole incident be a warning to take positive action as an alternative to violence.

---

[1] Two young friends went to a night club. One cheated in line ahead of the rest. The guy in line, for some bizarre reason, got “goosed” by the man behind him. He told his friend, who immediately walked back to his car, got his gun, returned and shot the “gooser.” Fortunately the victim lived. This was an actual case before me.

[2] I recently read this on the internet: “I don’t like making plans for the day because then the word “premeditated” gets thrown around the courtroom. (from someecards.com)

[3] Consider the man walking down the street in the middle of the night when he is approached by another man. The first person became a defendant because he used a knife to fight off the aggressor. He countered the momentum of the intruder with deadly force, however he could have greatly reduced or eliminated the likelihood of such a confrontation even happening by walking on the same street at 3 p.m. instead of 3 a.m.  Was he looking for trouble by walking around that time of day with a knife? He claimed he wasn’t looking for trouble, but wanted to be protected if needed. It is a matter of freedom versus responsibility to avoid dangerous and risky people, places, things and times of day or night.  

Humor That Makes Us Laugh and Cry: Part II

Losing it in court

Many of the truths I have witnessed have not only crossed the border into the realm of strangeness, but sadly are, in no small part, caused by the human foibles of mental health problems and alcohol and/or drug abuse. Humor has been a part of my experiences on the bench. But humor can be sweet and sour. After all, humor cannot exist without roots to the tragic truth below its surface.

Several years ago, I happened to be in court where I met another young man. He was charged with walking into a mom and pop grocery store, proceeding to the freezer in the back of the store, grabbing three half gallons of ice cream and simply walking out the front door – completely ignoring the cashier. He was quickly apprehended while walking down the sidewalk carrying the ice cream.

Having been in criminal court (at that time 20 years ago) for two years, I soon learned some cases languish in the magisterial court for too long. These were defendants held in jail for minor offenses who could not post bail. For instance, during this assignment, I met at least three different men who had taken shopping carts home from the super market without returning them. At least that was the theory, perhaps someone else committed the theft of the cart and abandoned it until a homeless person found it. That detail is unknown, but the cart was used by each of the defendants to hold every personal item they owned.

Around this time, the legislature, after apparently receiving “heat” from the Pennsylvania Mercantile Association, cracked down on the “criminals” who absconded with these carts by, of course, increasing the punishment for cart theft. This made it a more serious offense – one that the district justice (as they were known at that time but are now known as magisterial district judge) could no longer handle as a lesser offense with a summary criminal grading. These homeless people were charged with misdemeanor offenses and thus had to have a preliminary arraignment, followed by a preliminary hearing before a district justice could send the case to us for trial or other disposition. Perhaps the defendant should be released on bail during this time…except for one thing. The defendant, being homeless, could not even provide a legitimate address. The district justice concluded that he had to set secured bail. Of course we cannot expect a homeless person to even post the minimum secured bail, so each defendant sat in Berks County Prison during the delay.

Our ice cream thief was not in possession of a cart, but he did steal one and a half gallons of cold refreshment. Secured bail was also set in this case. The defendant didn’t have a prayer of posting any money for bail. Due to jailed defendants like this I had to monitor the inmate list as soon as possible, when they first appeared in court for arraignment. Until this time the court master conducted arraignment. I changed the procedure from that day forward, handling all criminal cases before me rather than the master. The sooner I could monitor these cases the better.

Indubitably

It happens to be Ash Wednesday and I’m arraigning the newest group of defendants, including the ice cream guy. The public defender requested that we immediately dispose of the charges against this young man. Apparently, the commonwealth attorney agreed to a guilty plea, with both sides requesting that I sentence him to time served so he could be released from jail that day.

He entered his guilty plea and it was my job to determine a sentence. Not surprisingly, I agreed to the time served sentence request. He had already spent approximately 50 days in Berks County Prison. Everything went smoothly and it was now my turn to advise him of his appeal rights, which went as follows:

Judge: You understand that you may file a post sentence motion before this court and that you have only 10 days to do so?

Defendant: Yes.

Judge: And you understand you have the right to file an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and that you must do so within 30 days and that you have the right to legal counsel to aid you.

He stood tall, as if on his toes, looked me right in the eye and answered, “Indubitably.”

I don’t know how long he waited to use that word or if he had ever uttered it before. I do know however that he had observed while sitting in court that day that I drink a lot of water. He was also fully aware that he was not free to leave until I was finished with him. I noticed my chair moving back and forth as I looked down at my papers while trying to continue to advise him (while not looking him in the eye) that if he can’t afford a lawyer one would be appointed for him free of charge. I was never able to continue. Again the court room had been filled with representatives from every type of group mentioned in Part I and they had heard the exchange. It started with strong attempts to refrain from openly laughing, but his spirit had spread and now I’m no longer successful in displaying the proper judicial demeanor. To make matters worse, the defendant attempted to be helpful by saying: Do you want to take a break? (more laughter) Do you need a glass of water? (even more laughter) Take as much time as you need – I’m not going anywhere.

We all lost it!

That night while enjoying Charlie and Mary Ann’s homemade soup in the church’s social room, I told this story to a table of parishioners before attending church. The next Monday at the regularly scheduled church council meeting I was surprised to see the gift of a t-shirt at my seat, along with the plethora of church business before us. The gift was signed by Anony Mouse, “The Church Mouse” and in bold letters across the front of my shirt was the word: INDUBITABLY.

I never saw the young man again. I don’t know if he has been naughty or nice. Unfortunately, the lady known as “The Church Mouse” moved from Fleetwood. She and her husband enrolled in a local church. As for the shirt, I wore it regularly until my wife allowed it to pass onto the hereafter life. It eventually joined our supply of domestic cleaning rags.

Humor That Makes Us Laugh and Cry: Part I

Part I

It has been said that TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION. I always attributed this quote to well-known American author Mark Twain, along with the answer to the question, “why?:” That’s because fiction is limited by plausible explanations, whereas truth is not.
             Many of the truths I have witnessed have not only crossed the border into the realm of strangeness, but sadly are, in no small part, caused by the human foibles attached to mental health problems and alcohol and/or drug abuse. As 2014 begins, I intend to share the humor enclosed in my experiences on the bench, though it will be both sweet and sour. After all, humor cannot exist without roots to truth and sadness below its surface.

Picture this: A courtroom filled with defendants, defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, sheriff’s deputies, interpreters, witnesses and families of the defendant[1]. Of course there is a court reporter who “writes” down everything said during the proceedings, my staff, usually news reporters, police officers and myself. I’m moving right along with the list when the district attorney called the next case. A young man in handcuffs and ankle shackles walks in from the lock-up. He is visibly talking to himself. I read that the defendant was facing a drug charge and am also fully aware that street drugs are often used as a poor man’s prescription plan to treat mental health issues. When this occurs, the problems of anti-social behavior grow much worse because now a mentally disabled person is exhibiting deviant behavior with added complications from perhaps a low I.Q. and a drug addiction.

I felt confident in asking this young man if he was taking drugs to combat his mental health issues. In other words, let’s get to the point. Before any attorney spoke, he turned toward me and proudly responded to my question by saying “I don’t have a mental health issue you mother fucker!”

Needless to say, people can be their own worst enemy. After his proclamation, I didn’t do anything further with him and his contemptuous behavior. What’s the point? However, consider a child custody case where the father represented himself in the proceedings. He was requesting that I grant him primary physical custody of his child. Before we could even address the merits of his petition or the case itself, the clerk raised the court by announcing that court was in session and everyone was to please rise. The father didn’t and refused to do so. I do not take these things personally. Of course he is showing no respect for the court as an institution, but, imagine, he will soon stand before the same court asking that I right the wrong of his custody case because he clearly has the best intentions in his heart and mind regarding his children. To ensure his success, he introduces himself on his day in court, in essence, by proclaiming he will not follow the laws and will disregard authority. Despite a sheriff deputy’s suggestion to cooperate, he continued to refuse to stand. This is very telling.

Alcohol Abuse

It is not surprising that in my 22 years on the bench that I have seen my share of alcohol abuse cases.

·         People coming directly to court after being influenced to various degrees by alcohol consumption. (In other words, being drunk or under the influence of alcohol in court.)

·         A woman who appeared drunk for her guilty plea anticipated her immediate sentence of three days in jail. What is a judge to do? She was too drunk to knowingly enter a guilty plea. Should I have revoked her bail and put her in prison for the weekend so that when she was sober the court could properly dispose of the case? Draw your own conclusions.

·         People who cause or attempt to cause a variety of alterations regarding their court-ordered urine analysis. How? 1) Trying to substitute someone else’s urine 2) Giving a sample that revealed no alcohol in the system, but also showed the sample was not the appropriate temperature of approximately 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. It was in fact room temperature, almost like it was filled by dipping the cup into toilet water and submitting it as a legitimate sample. 3) People who look me in the eye and swear that they have not been drinking and immediately register a 2.2 on the portable breath test. 4) With a blood alcohol content of 4.0 registering on the adult probation’s portable breath test, a man came to court under the influence of alcohol, and except for the odor of alcohol, he didn’t talk or act as if he was.

Sadly, too many people have experienced the tragedy of alcohol abuse. From a D.U.I. arrest to a domestic violence issue, there is no one who can negatively influence the life of a child like his own mother or father. Of the wide spectrum of cases handled in court, the worst tragedies are homicide by vehicle while under the influence. Over the years, I have sentenced about 20 different defendants who found themselves in this situation. It’s sorrowful for many reasons. In some cases the defendant sits and cries hysterically as witness after witness comes forth and tells him or her about the victim who was shockingly taken from their lives in an instant. Spouse, father, mother, daughter, brother, son – the victim was a healthy, loving, and supportive rock of the family, but in a second was removed forever by a drunk driver for no reason at all.

These sentences for D.U.I. homicide by vehicle carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 to 6 years in prison. Once again, a judge has no option but to follow the prosecutor’s mandated sentence, when he, the district attorney chooses to invoke the mandatory, even if the judge believes that two wrongs (the tragic death of the victim and now the mandated sentence for the defendant perhaps being too long) don’t make a right.

Next week Part II: More humor that makes us both laugh and cry

---

[1] These are important days for family members because they can see their loved one without having to travel 100 miles for a visit in a state prison.

Questions to Ponder Part II: Discriminatory Enforcement of our Criminal Lives

We have mostly enforced the tough on crime laws in the cities where politically, the people’s clout is minimal. Last week, I opened Part I by posing seven questions for the reader to ponder. The answer to each is found by sorting through the devastation that our criminal justice system has caused our cities to suffer in the last 40+ years, particularly the mounting casualties suffered by city residents as a result of the war on drugs. It’s much easier to pass tough laws and institute programs that impact minorities in our cities than if the legislative or executive branches did so in our suburbs. And it’s an endless cycle. The more we incarcerate the more the crime rate increases so that the general public clamors for tougher laws in the cities to deal with the burgeoning crime problem which is caused, at least to some degree by this tough on crime philosophy.

Of what do I speak? Examples range from mandatory minimum sentences for any drug transaction within 1,000 feet of a school to increasing violence by telling defendants who are arrested that the best way to have the mandatory minimum sentence dropped is by being a police informant to rat out others who use or possess drugs - friends, family, neighbors-anyone will do.

Snitches get stitches

He’s told that if his cooperation leads to many more arrests, that “accomplishment” will be taken into consideration by the prosecutor to get his sentence reduced. Sadly the criminal justice system is increasingly familiar with this threat (and promise). There is so much retaliation for cooperation with the police that there are plenty of eyewitnesses that fail to testify because of the harm that could be inflicted on them and their families.

The use of school zone mandatory minimum sentences has no definitive effect on crime[1]

The problem with mandatory minimum sentences for defendants within a thousand feet of a school zone is that city school zones are nearly always within 1,000 feet of the drug arrest, resulting in almost every city resident being subject to this tougher sentence. Whereas, almost the opposite is the case in the suburbs and in the country where of course a much higher rate of white people reside and where nearly every drug transaction is not within 1,000 feet of a school. So where is drug enforcement the greatest? Are “tough” drug laws effective? Is it logical? Has it worked?

Now, this “tough on drugs” law might at least appear to be a reasonable response to the drug problem if the facts were to tell us that. But they don’t. First of all we have arrested more people, seized more illegal drugs, destroyed the family structure and at the same time created a greater chance of violent retaliation for all the many drug informants. There should be no drug problem today. We should have won the war on drugs, but despite increasing law enforcement  in the cities, the drug problem hasn’t gotten better; it’s gotten worse. Furthermore, I’ve never had one school zone mandatory minimum sentence that actually involved a student, teacher or staff that was conducted on school property including school kids going to and from school.

I’m not saying drug deals don’t happen in school, however, we in Berks County have never once had a drug case within 1,000 feet of a school that had anything at all to even remotely do with a school property or school activities. In fact, most of the cases that get to court involve transactions that occur when school is not in session. Most are in the evening and middle of the night during the summer and on weekends in locations that may be as far as four blocks from a school, but still within 1,000 feet.

Crack cocaine v. powder

Crack cocaine is a drug of preference for minorities while powdered cocaine is mostly used by white people in the suburbs. For 25 years federal mandatory minimum sentences punished crack cocaine sales 100 times more than powder! In other words, possession with intent to deliver five grams of crack received the same mandatory minimum sentence as powder but only if the weight of the powder is 100 times greater, 500 grams. That discrepancy was criticized for many years because it discriminated against minorities – so they changed it. However, Congress did not make them equal in punishment for the same weight. It was reduced to 10 to 1. It’s still discriminatory but not as unfair an inequity as before – but still an inequity.

Stop and Frisk

In addition, some of the “enforcement” of drug laws come from police officers stopping minorities, asking for identification and ultimately permission to search them. These are not cases where the officer has any probable cause to believe any crime has or will occur or to reasonably suspect the citizen even possesses contraband or the fruits of any crime. There are hundreds of thousands of stop and frisk practices that occur in every major city in the United States every year! Philadelphia and New York, among others have faced civil litigation because 85-90% of all stops are of minorities. They don’t conduct stop and frisk in the suburbs or in the countryside, where more than 85-90% of people are white.

Conclusion

The war on drugs has failed. The drug problem’s worse than ever and also includes increased violence in our country and in other countries that fight this war. In the last decade, Mexico has cracked down on their drug problem. What is the result? The drug problem has grown worse and the murder rate has gone through the roof. There have been more than 50,000 violent deaths in Mexico in the last 10 years,  most in retaliation and range from victims who are a member of a different drug cartel, to elected officials who enforce the laws to those who provide evidence to the government in an attempt to help their own case.

Locally our prisons are bursting at the seams with drug offenders, most of which are small fish in the drug enterprise. If they were big fish, we would have greater results from the war on drugs. That’s logical. A few examples of the extremely large seizures throughout history in the U.S. and in other countries, and one must ask is the drug problem corrected? Is it even better today?: France 2013 – 1.4 tons of cocaine in 31 unclaimed suitcases in luggage on a flight from Caracus. During 1984 in Columbia, $1.2 billion worth of cocaine, which is 14 tons, was seized after a raid on a jungle lab controlled by Pablo Escobar. In 1989, a Los Angeles warehouse stored 21.4 tons or the equivalent of 1.38 billion powder doses of the drug. If not seized, it had a street value in Los Angeles of more than $6 billion. Drug agents also seized 13.8 tons of cocaine in Columbia in 2005 and the U.S. Coast Guard found 20 tons of powder on a Panamanian ship.

The annual budget for the PA Department of Corrections alone has increased 1900% from 1980 ($94 million) to today, as it is about to exceed $2 billion annually. And this does not include 50 prisons, and numerous halfway houses and federal prisons throughout Pennsylvania. What have they accomplished?

The family structure in our cities has deteriorated from the over incarceration of parents. We know that a higher percentage of minorities are living in our cities and that an inordinately higher percentage of the minority population is put in prison so far from home that family contact is impossible. (See footnote 2)

What can we do? Contact your legislator and request that we attack this problem from all aspects, not just by putting tougher crimes on the books and beefing up the city law enforcement presence as we’ve done over and over again in the past four decades.

---

[1] This is the conclusion of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing from its study conducted about four years ago, yet school zone mandatories continue in full force and effect in Pennsylvania.

[2]My wife recently retired as an elementary school counselor in the Reading School District. She and our grown daughter still make school visits to the kids as they progress through the grades. They decided to invite them to a lunch at our home over the holidays. One child couldn’t join them. Her mother was incarcerated, so the “separated” father seized the opportunity to stop paying child support by bringing her to live with him, thus cutting all contact the child had with her grandmother, who had raised the family, since mom went away. The grandmother told my wife she can’t invite the child to lunch because the father won’t answer her phone calls. She does know that dad is living with a 20-year-old mother of two. The young mother treats the child as an outcast, giving all her love and attention to her own children. The grandmother has hired an attorney to obtain custody of the child again. The mother? She is incarcerated at the opposite end of the state, an 8-hour drive to the state prison in Erie, Pennsylvania.