Changes in attitudes, technology and finances have eroded the stance that a prison cell is the best home for every convicted criminal. Alternative sentencing is finding creative ways to deal with low-level, nonviolent offenders.
Five years ago, when R. Seth Williams first ran for Philadelphia district attorney under the slogan “Smart On Crime, Not Just Tough,” more than 50 percent of the city’s felony cases were being thrown out because the DA’s office simply wasn’t prepared to prosecute them. Because of this, Philadelphia had the lowest conviction rate among the top 40 urban areas.
“I was looking for ways to help us reduce recidivism and use our limited resources better,” Williams says, “and that doesn’t mean being soft on criminals.”
Williams lost that election, but last year he won on his second try, and upon assuming office in January, began to use alternative sentencing procedures for marijuana possession cases. He did this to boost the conviction rate but also to put low-level drug offenders into community service and treatment programs.
“About 95 percent of this is philosophical, and the philosophical can help us save money,” Williams says. “We have 75,000 arrests annually here in Philadelphia, and 10 percent of the most serious charges are for marijuana possession, and in about 3,000 of those cases the amount is less than three grams. We’re spending thousands of dollars per case to make sure they have an attorney, that they get discovery, we analyze the drug, the lights are on in the courthouse … all this for people who have about $10 worth of weed.
“So I said charge them as summary offenders [a judgment is made without a full trial], and use that time to more adequately prep the violent crime cases.” Williams’ office estimates this policy could eliminate 4,000 costly jury trials a year.
Williams is not the only public prosecutor going down this road. Plagued by over-crowded prisons, shrinking financial resources and indeterminate sentences for some crimes, district attorneys and federal prosecutors nationwide are looking for innovative ways in which to deal with nonviolent offenses like drug possession, crimes against property and certain white-collar crimes.
“District attorneys have always tried to divert low-level offenses,” says Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association. “That policy is not new, but what is new is creative ways to do it. These new programs identify the low level offenders right out of the gate, and they go into fast-track programs.”
As the 2008 report “One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008″ from the Pew Center for the States puts it, “… policymakers are becoming increasingly aware of research-backed strategies for community corrections — better ways to identify which offenders need a prison cell and which can be safely handled in the community, new technologies to monitor their whereabouts and behavior, and more effective supervision and treatment programs to help them stay on the straight and narrow. Taken together, these trends are encouraging policymakers to diversify their states’ array of criminal sanctions with options for low-risk offenders that save tax dollars but still hold offenders accountable for their actions.”
“Nonviolent drug and property crimes comprise a significant part of our prison population,” adds Nicole Porter, state advocacy coordinator of The Sentencing Project. “The financial issues involved have broadened the conversation out, and introduced people to alternative means of crime control if they hadn’t been looking at fiscal issues before.”
Many of these programs run along similar lines. A defendant pleads guilty to a particular crime, then is instantly diverted into some sort of alternative arrangement, which could involve everything from drug treatment to job training. If the guilty party completes the program without incident, the conviction is often wiped from the books. But if they screw up, they are immediately sent to jail.
“These are intensive 18-month- to two-year programs,” says Wayne McKenzie, director of the Prosecution and Racial Justice Program of the Vera Institute of Justice. “They don’t just treat the addiction, but try to give these individuals social skills they might have been lacking. And when they complete the program, the felony is dismissed. If they don’t complete it, there is a pre-determined sanction.”
Hawaii’s Project HOPE (Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement), for example, mandates that defendants call a hotline every morning to see if they are to be drug tested that day. Random drug testing occurs at least once a week for two months, and if the defendant fails the test, fails to show up or misses an appointment with a probation officer, he or she is immediately jailed. Studies show the threat of instant incarceration has been successful in reducing drug use and crime.
Back on Track, a San Francisco program for first-time young adult drug offenders, involves job training, apprenticeships in the building trades, G.E.D. preparation, money-management skills, child care and other features. Because failure to complete the program means the defendant goes right to jail, the recidivism rate has been less than 10 percent. Back on Track costs $5,000 per year per participant, a significant reduction from the average cost to incarcerate someone, which can run anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 or more.
At the federal level in the past decade, alternative sentencing has been used for between 15 and 25 percent of offenders, in particular those convicted for larceny, fraud and white-collar offenses. Whether these programs are popping up more in big cities, where there is more crime and more resources, or smaller venues, where there might be less of an economic incentive to make changes, is a matter of some debate.
Seth Williams feels smaller DA offices might be more receptive to innovation “because there are fewer moving parts; they are more readily addressing things on a local level. I have 600 employees and a very entrenched court system. It’s easier to change the direction of a PT boat than an aircraft carrier.”
But, Wayne McKenzie adds, even though small districts are adopting these programs, it’s at “a much smaller rate. The numbers maybe smaller, there is less economic incentive to do so, and you might have a community still wedded to a traditional definition of prosecution. You also have to look at what are the available resources for these alternative programs, and the jurisdiction might not have the resources.”
No matter. There’s little doubt alternative sentencing is here to stay, and is being widely used — in the past 10 years, for example, as many as 25 percent of federal offenders have opted for incarceration alternatives. On the state and local level, Burns says, “financial concerns and budget cuts have required district attorneys and judges to think smarter — to find ways they can do it better, without the delay and the bureaucracy.”
Porter adds: “Even before the recession, there was a lot of work done at the state level to try to control prison populations. There are some states that are farther along than others, and there are prosecutors looking at alternative ways to control crime and looking for new frames of thought through their offices.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.