I have thought about the absurdities of our criminal justice system for quite some time, and have come up with a series of reforms that I believe would cure many of the problems that exist with our police, courts, and prisons. As always, I have kept a strong eye on the Constitution, for I (unlike many others) refuse to subvert the principles that are America even to achieve a desirable end. Most of the reforms and changes that I will suggest can and must be carried out at the state level, because in fact most criminal and penal matters fall under state, not federal, jurisdiction. I will go into detail on these reforms in separate sections. This first section will focus on the federal reforms I propose.
The very first element of my reforms is essentially a "Criminal Bill of Rights", a complete definition of inmates' civil rights regarding living conditions, access to educational and entertainment materials, required and non-required medical and other treatments, disciplinary practices, and essentially every other aspect of incarceration, as well an inmate's means to legally protest any claimed infringments on those rights. I bring this matter up first for many reasons. One is the number of trivial but expensive lawsuits that are filed by inmates against the prison systems, usually in federal courts making constitutional claims. A defined federal standard that passes Supreme Court scrutiny would help to stop ridiculous and purely punitive lawsuits by inmates. Further, if the means by which inmates can file legal actions can be limited, legally and constitutionally, the cost of such actions can be dramatically lessened. Secondly, federal interference in state prison systems needs to be curtailed, and a better definition of standards will help the states avoid the heavy-handedness of federal courts. Lastly, this reform is critical in that it effects many of the other reforms that I will propose.
(It has been suggested that, in a legal sense, it makes more sense to decide which civil rights a convicted felon loses than to define which ones he retains. This may be true. The idea is laid out above, whatever the means necessary to attain it.)
The second federal reform that I propose is to have the federal courts recognize and accept that the prior criminal history of a defendant may be introduced in court as "related circumstantial evidence". It is certainly relevant, when trying to determine if a person is guilty of a particular crime, if that person has committed that or similar crimes in the past. With recidivism rates being so extrordinarily high, it is unconscionable to me that prior acts cannot be considered in court. Prior acts by themselves certainly don't totally prove guilt or innocence, but have definate value in showing that a defendant has a propensity towards crime or a specific criminal act (like rape). Likewise, the lack of a criminal history could be seen as "related circumstantial evidence" of a person's innocence. This evidence would be allowed into all federal criminal proceedings, and each state could adopt this same reform without the worry that the federal courts will overturn convictions in cases where this evidence is used.
The third federal reform is to remove all federal restrictions on the handling of juvenile offenders by the states, including any age guidelines on trying juveniles in adult courts, continuing juvenile sentences beyond age 18 or 21, application of the death penalty, and confidentiality of juvenile criminal records. The main purpose is to relieve the states from the spectre of federal court interference. Also, I propose that juvenile criminal records be kept on a nationwide database (just as adult criminal records are now) to help police deal with these offenders more effectively.
The fourth federal reform is to implement some means to remove federal judges from the bench, even (especially) those with lifetime appointments. It is virtually impossible right now to get rid of a federal judge, unless the judge is caught committing a serious crime. Also, there needs to be some means to remove a judge from a specific case where it can be shown that the judge has abandoned the rule of law, or is pursuing some agenda beyond the normal boundaries of jurisprudence. There are supposedly measures in place now to do these things, but it is for all practical purposes impossible to successfully remove a federal judge from either a specific case or the bench.
(I do not mean to make it easy or commonplace to remove judges. My point with this reform is to make it POSSIBLE.)
The second installment of criminal justice reforms - The State Courts.
The first reform to the state courts is the same as an earlier reform recommended for federal courts - allowing prior criminal history to be introduced as evidence in criminal proceedings.
The second reform is to allow the judge or jury to set absolute minimum and maximum sentences in criminal proceedings. Currently in most states, juries are not allowed to consider the possibility (or probability) that the convicted defendant will be released after serving a small portion of the sentence given (as little as ten percent, sometimes even less) due to parole or "good time" served. This situation is disgraceful, as it basically denies the judge or jury the power to set sentences as prescribed by the laws and constitutions of those states. The sentencing power instead is effectively given to parole officials and other prison administration personel. This runs counter to the most basic tenents of American justice, and must be stopped. Under this reform, the convicted defendant could not be released until he had served out the minimum sentence IN REAL TIME, and only then if he had accumulated enough "good time" (I will address "good time" as a part of prison reforms). Otherwise, the sentence would continue proportionally with the percentage of "good time" earned, or until the maximum time was served (NOTE - crimes committed in prison could add time to the sentence - this will be covered under prison reforms).
The third reform is to completely eliminate any set age limits for trying juvenile defendants as adults. Certain crimes, such as murder, rape, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and attempted murder, would automatically bring a defendant to adult court, regardless of age. The jury would be allowed to consider age as a mitigating factor, if they so choose.
The fourth reform is to continue the incarceration of juvenile criminals for the duration of the sentence given, doing away with automatic release at some specified age. The judge or jury would have the ability to hand down any sentence they feel is appropriate, and have it carried out.
The fifth reform is to eliminate any confidentiality requirements for violent juvenile offenders. The records of violent juveniles should be available to law enforcement and the community no differently than those of adult offenders.
(After more consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this fifth reform should apply to non-violent repeat juvenile offenders as well.)
The sixth reform is to allow (not mandate) "life and a day" sentencing for any capital crime or third time violent offender.
(FYI - "life and a day" means in prison until death.)
The seventh reform is to put more viable means in place to remove a judge from either the bench or a specific case. As with federal judges, it is nearly impossible to remove a judge under current statutes.
The eighth reform is to change the sentencing and incarceration requirements for defendents found "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but insane". Just because a person is deemed "insane" does not mean that they are not a threat to society, or that they don't deserve to be punished for their crimes. Separate high security facilities could be used to house insane criminals, keeping them out of the main prison population but safely out of society as well. Further, insane criminals would not be considered "cured" and freed because their condition could be treated with chemicals or any other "ongoing" remedy. Another ludicrous element of our justice system - in some states "insane" criminals must be freed when they are diagnosed as "cured", even if the "cure" is a medicine which must be taken on a regular basis. But the state cannot require that the criminal actually take the medicine, leaving society at great risk. This should not be allowed to continue.
The ninth reform is to dramatically increase the penalties for any adult who uses, instructs, encourages, or otherwise involves a minor in a crime or criminal operation. Use "conspiracy" and "organized crime" type statutes to make using minors in criminal activities prohibitively costly to adult criminals.
The next installment of Criminal Justice Reforms - DRUG REHAB.
All drug rehabilitation programs should be ended - defunded, abolished, stopped dead in their tracks - IMMEDIATELY.
Call any drug rehabilitation center that treats addictions for heroin, crack, etc. What you'll find out is that the success rates for the harder drugs are down in the single digits - and that's for the "voluntary" patients, the ones who come in by themselves, who really want to get off of drugs. The success rates for those who are forced into drug rehab as an alternative to jail or prison is in the very low single digits - just 1 or 2 percent. Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself. Now consider the cost of such treatments, typically in the $5,000 - $10,000 per week price range. Multiply that over a 4 or 6 week stay, and you come up with $20,000 to $60,000 per patient. Figure in the success rate (use 2%), and you come up with a cost of $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 per successful treatment. That's a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.
My alternative - cold turkey. No methodone, no painkillers, no chemical treatments of any kind. Let these drug fiends go through the unpleasantries of withdrawal, then see if they care to get hooked again. I understand that in extreme cases, withdrawal can cause death. Too bad. It's their choice to fill their bodies with that crap in the first place, so let them suffer the consequences.
Last Installment of Criminal Justice Reforms - Prison Reforms.
The very first reform is to eliminate any rules or guidelines that assign inmates to prisons based upon proximity. The states should be able to put inmates in whichever prison suits the needs of the state.
(In fact, states should be able to enter into agreements with each other to incarcerate criminals across state lines. Especially with smaller states, this would be more cost-efficient than having to maintain completely independant prison systems within each state. This would also help in my upcoming (tier) system reforms.
The second reform regards "good time". Currently, "good time" means simply not getting into trouble. Under this reform, "good time" would be a combination of: satisfactory performance of assigned prison work details, successful completion of defined educational programs (where prescribed), willing and active participation in defined rehabilitive efforts (church based activities, community service, etc), AND behavioral record. An inmate could accumulate only ONE "good time day" per calender day. These "good time days" would be used in accordance with the "minimum/maximum" sentencing. Further - an inmate could LOSE "good time days" for breaking prison rules or committing crimes in prison.
The third reform is essentially creating a "tier" system with the state's prisons. There would be different types of prisons for different types of criminals, and different kinds of inmates. The purpose of this reform is to divide the violent offenders from the non-violent, the troublemakers from the ones who behave, and the stubborn from the repentant. Also, this system gives inmates a reason to behave and attempt to reform. Inmates would originally be assigned to a specific prison based upon their crime. As they are serving their sentences, inmates would be eligible to move from one prison to another based upon behavior and rehabilitive efforts. The actual differences in the "tiers" would be as follows.
Level 1 Tier - Only non-violent first-time inmates would be start their sentences here. This tier would have the highest level of educational, rehabilitive, and job-training opportunities, as well as the best general living conditions. These prisons should require a lower level of security than other prisons.
Level 2 Tier - Non-violent repeat offenders would start their sentences here. These prisons would have fewer and less desirable opportunities, as well as slightly worse living conditions.
Level 3 Tier - Moderately violent offenders would start their sentences here. Opportunities and living conditions would be similar to Level 2.
Level 4 Tier - Extremely violent and repeat violent offenders would start their sentences here. The worst living conditions and fewest opportunities. Very high security.
Level 5 Tier - The worst violent offenders, those with violent behavior within prison, and death row inmates are here. Maximum security, the absolute minimum living standards allowable by law - essentially a warehouse for the scum of the earth.
Once assigned to a prison, a prisoner's behavior and rehabilitive efforts could move him to either a better or worse prison. Those who engage in violence, slack off at work, or refuse rehabilitation would be moved to a prison in a worse level. Those who behave, work hard, and participate in rehabilitive efforts would move to a better prison. Inmates would have reason to act appropriately, because not only are living conditions better at the better tiers, but there are more opportunities for "good time" accumulation. If they want to make that minimum sentence, they had better work themselves into a prison with ample opportunities for that precious "good time".
(In addition, inmates very close to release and thereby having maximum incentive to behave and not attempt escape would be moved to very low security prisons or prison wings. Millions of dollars per year could be saved this way, with minimal risk.)
Also, as a part of living conditions at ALL levels, ALL recreational time and materials must be worked for. Further, there would be a different menu for those with the best behavioral records. Basically, my plan is to install a "Work and Earn" system, or if you will - CAPITALISM. Get the inmates used to working for what they want, and keep penalties for improper behavior within prison walls.
The fourth reform is Prison Court. Crimes committed within prison walls would fall under Prison Court jurisdiction if: 1) A conviction would not affect the inmate as a "third strike" of "three strikes and you're out" type laws; and 2) The inmate has had no more than 2 previous convictions in Prison Court during this incarceration. An inmate could receive a sentence of no more than 2 years for a crime tried in Prison Court, and could not be sentenced to more than 5 years total by Prison Court during one incarceration period. There would be no "minimum/maximum" sentencing, all sentences would have to served out in real time.
That about covers it. There are, of course, a million little details that need to be fit in, but I think this is a good start.
Get your own Free Home Page