The Ten Best Black Books of 2014, by Kam Williams: The Justice Imperative Makes “Honorable Mention.”

We are pleased to announce that The Justice Imperative has received an Honorable Mention on Kam Williams’ Top Ten Black Books of 2014 List. Kam’s column is syndicated to over 100 newspapers & blogs around the country. Thank you Kam & Thank you Babz! Babz Rawls Ivy & I serve as Online Editors (blog & social media) for this important new book, The Justice Imperative. Click image above for link to: thejusticeinitiative.org/blogs and to amazon.com to purchase your copy. – Babz & Jeff

1. Justice While Black: Helping African-American Families Navigate
and Survive the Criminal Justice System
by Robbin Shipp, Esq. and Nick Chiles

2. An Obama’s Journey: My Odyssey of Self-Discovery across Three Cultures
by Mark Obama Ndesandjo

3. Who We Be: The Colorization of America
by Jeff Chang

4. Blessed Experiences: Genuinely Southern, Proudly Black
by Congressman James E. Clyburn (D-SC)
Foreword by Alfre Woodard

5. Life in Motion: An Unlikely Ballerina
by Misty Copeland

6. One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future
by Dr. Ben Carson and Candy Carson

7. Finding Your Roots
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

8. What the Word Be: Why Black English Is the King’s (James) English
by Diane Proctor Reeder

9. Death of a King: The Real Story of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Final Year
by Tavis Smiley
with David Ritz

10. Culture Worrier: Reflections on Race, Politics and Social Change
by Clarence Page

Honorable Mention

The Justice Imperative: How Hyper-Incarceration Has Hijacked the American Dream
by Brian E. Moran, Esq.

Why Vegan is the New Black
by Deborrah Cooper

The Lawyer as Leader: How to Plant People and Grow Justice
by Dr. Artika R. Tyner

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption
by Bryan Stevenson

Stokely: A Life
by Peniel E. Joseph

Brown Girl Dreaming
by Jacqueline Woodson

The Light of Truth: Writings of an Anti-Lynching Crusader
by Ida B. Wells
Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Mia Bay
General Editor: Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

The Rise
Creativity, the Gift of Failure, and the Search for Mastery
by Sarah Lewis

Success through Stillness: Meditation Made Simple
by Russell Simmons

The Imperfect Marriage
Help for Those Who Think It’s Over
by Darryl and Tracy Strawberry

Inside the Hotel Rwanda: The Surprising True Story… and Why It Matters Today
by Edouard Kayihura and Kerry Zukus

Handbook for an Unpredictable Life: How I Survived Sister Renata and My Crazy
Mother, and Still Came out Smiling (with Great Hair)
by Rosie Perez

The Global Obama: Crossroads of Leadership in the 21st Century
Edited by Dinesh Sharma and Uwe P. Gielen

Black and White: The Way I See It
by Richard Williams

Transforming Pain to Power: Unlock Your Unlimited Potential
by Daniel Beaty

Story/Time: The Life of an Idea
by Bill T. Jones

Place, Not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America
by Sheryll Cashin

Old School Adventures from Englewood–South Side of Chicago
by Elaine Hegwood Bowen

The Man from Essence
by Edward Lewis with Audrey Edwards
Foreword by Camille O. Cosby

Nine Lives of a Black Panther: A Story of Survival
by Wayne Pharr

Rainbow in the Cloud: The Wisdom and Spirit of Maya Angelou
by Maya Angelou

Cosby: His Life and Times
by Mark Whitaker

A Black Gambler’s World of Liquor, Vice and Presidential Politics: William
Thomas Scott of Illinois, 1839-1917
by Bruce L. Mouser
Foreword by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

The Myth of Race, The Reality of Racism
by Mahmoud El-Kati

Our Ancestors, Our Stories
by Harris Bailey, Jr., Bernice Alexander Bennett, Ellen LeVonne Butler, Ethel Dailey, Vincent Sheppard and Dr. Orville Vernon Burton

Things I Should Have Told My Daughter: Lies, Lessons and Love Affairs
by Pearl Cleage

Yoga, Meditation and Spiritual Growth for the African-American Community
by Daya Devi-Doolin

How the Poor Can Save Capitalism: Rebuilding the Path to the Middle Class
by John Hope Bryant
Foreword by Ambassador Andrew Young

Not for Everyday Use: A Memoir
by Elizabeth Nunez

This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible
by Charles E. Cobb, Jr.

America’s Music: Jazz in Newark
by Barbara Kukla

240 Ways to Close the Achievement Gap: Teachers Only Workbook (Vol. 2)
by M. Donnell Tenner, Joy Gay and Dr. Marti Dryk

Misdiagnosed: The Search for Dr. House
by Nika C. Beamon

Racial Innocence: Performing American Childhood from Slavery to Civil Rights
by Robin Bernstein

Guiou: The Other Blacks – The Afro-Jamaican Presence in Guatemala
by Gloria J. Arnold

Dollar Democracy: With Liberty and Justice for Some
by Peter Mathews

Pageants, Parlors & Pretty Women: Race and Beauty in the 20th Century South
by Blain Roberts

Unbreak My Heart: A Memoir
by Toni Braxton

Thirty-Three Days of Praise: Seeing the Good in Cancer
by Karrie Marchbanks

 

Several days ago, two prominent convictions for insider trading (Chiasson and Newman) were overturned by the appellate court. While I don’t have access to all of the intricacies of the case, my understanding is that the convictions were overturned based on where Chiasson and Newman were in the insider trading information chain. The court found that the onus was not on them to know that the information they were trading on had been illegally disseminated. Said another way, the two portfolio managers assumed they were merely trading on stock tips, not private, material, inside information. Whether they “really” knew or not, we’ll likely never know but the burden of proof should be on the government so I applaud the convictions being overturned.

Here I sit in prison for one count of insider trading (securities fraud). Does this appeal have any impact whatsoever on my current situation? Unfortunately, no. And that’s because in my case, the chain had only two links in it – the tipper and the tippee. I was the tipper meaning that I provided the information to someone else to profit, so these convictions being overturned will not affect my case in the slightest. It was my personal responsibility to not provide the information, just like it was the personal responsibility of my co-defendant to not trade on the information. Both of us were in the wrong and as a result, both of us are currently incarcerated.

I want to reflect on how my incarceration has been. Today marks exactly three months (~15 to go). Through it, I’ve met so many guys who have taken wrong turns in life. They (and I include myself in this group) tried to take shortcuts in order to get more money, power or control in their lives. Some are remorseful and ready to move on. Others continually beat themselves up over their past mistakes. Others remain indignant and counting the days until they can resume their illegal activities. Yet, they are currently all prisoners, alongside me. And all too aware of the uphill battles they face upon re-entering society:
-Trying to figure out how to stay clear of the people and situations that got them incarcerated
-Attempting to get a job from an employer that hires felons
-Mending the broken and violated relationships that their incarceration has caused
-Dealing with society and the lifelong stigma of being an ex-convict
-Ultimately, trying not to be part of the sad recidivism statisic: over 60% of inmates, re-offend and end back in prison

Before coming to prison, I will admit that I wasn’t filled with empathy. But that has changed after being in here. The recidivism rate is daunting for so many of these guys. And it seems so overwhelming to try to get back on track. The government doesn’t do much to help felons’ re-entry efforts as members of society. The stigma is very real and so many doors will be closed for us for the rest of our lives due simply to checking a box on a form labeling us as felons. While I acknowledge that I will face my fair share of obstacles, I’m not overly concerned or anxious about it. I know that God has a plan for me. I know that my relationship with my wife and kids is on firm ground. I know that I have other family, friends, business associates, and a church family that loves me and supports me. I consider myself very fortunate and know that I won’t be part of the recidivism statistic.

But I’m still angry.

This anger doesn’t deal with me. It deals with the guys in here and the countless others who don’t have the things that I’ve been blessed with. They will leave prison without a game plan and society has already branded them (us) as bad apples. I find this incredibly judgmental and hypocritical. I read an article in The Week earlier today where legal experts cited that “more than 70% of Americans have committed a felony that would carry a prison term if they were caught.” Maybe it was mishandling a gun, maybe it was driving while being “buzzed”, maybe it was gambling online, or maybe it was cheating on your taxes.

Nevertheless, the experts posit that more than 7 out of 10 people could have been imprisoned and labeled a felon IF they would have been caught and prosecuted. So here’s the hypocrisy: those 70%+ know that they’ve done something that could’ve landed them in prison. The only thing separating them between the felons/ex-convicts that they are so quick to villify is pure luck. They weren’t caught but the felons were. Yet, society turns its collective nose up and brands felons for life as being untrustworthy and not deserving of a 2nd chance.

It shouldn’t be this way. Now, I’m not condoning any illegal activity but when you have a felon who is trying to turn his life around and he’s unable to get loans to start a business or unable to get hired anywhere or not allowed to travel outside of the state to visit his family, then the system is stacked against him. This is partly why we have such a high recidivism rate. Even the “reformed” felons can’t become good standing members in society because society doesn’t ALLOW them to. They keep them at arm’s length, at a safe distance away. In turn, the felons resort back to the only life they knew — a life of crime which lands them in prison.

This is not a coherent post. I’m going off on a tangent here from where I started but it’s where my stream of conscious thoughts have led me so I’ll end on that note.

Mail for Brian can be sent to:

Brian Jorgenson, 44044-086
FCI Herlong – Satellite Camp
PO Box 800
Herlong, CA 96113

Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).  The Grassley-Whitehouse bill would modernize America’s justice system with evidence-based practices for handling troubled youth and provide the federal leadership to promote effective juvenile justice systems. The JJDPA was last reauthorized in 2007 but has not been substantively revised since 2002.

“Under this bill, states and local jurisdictions will make measurable, positive differences in the lives of youth who encounter the juvenile justice system, regardless of race or ethnicity,” said Ashley Nellis, a senior research analyst at The Sentencing Project. “Recent events remind us that efforts toward racial justice are not nearly finished, but this bill moves us closer.”

In 2011, almost 1.5 million American youth were arrested, 95 percent of them for non-violent offenses.

One of the core requirements of the JJDPA is to address the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. While the current law requires states to address the racial disparities in the justice system, it provides little guidance on this mandate. Since the law was enacted in 1974, disproportionate minority contact has remained a constant feature of the juvenile justice system.

Under the new bill, states must take steps to reduce, rather than simply address, racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. States would now be required to:

1. Form committees exclusively dedicated to overseeing and monitoring state efforts to lower racial and ethnic disparities.
2. Analyze each decision point in the system so that appropriate policy, administrative, and programmatic changes are made.
3. Implement accurate systems for identifying and recording youth race and ethnicity.
4. Engage in routine data collection and analysis to guide the implementation of interventions to reduce racial disparities.
5. Design and implement changes to address identified sources of racial and ethnic disparities.
6. Report annual progress publicly.

While involvement in the juvenile justice system has decreased 30 percent nationally since 2002 for black youth as well as white youth, racial disparities have actually increased. Today, black youth are 4.6 times more likely to be incarcerated than white youth.

Research shows that youth of color are subject to more punitive sanctions than white youth charged for the same offense, while evidence supports that youth of all races commit many offenses at similar rates. Similar racial disparities persist at every level of the juvenile justice system. This bill would provide necessary improvements to the law by requiring states to take practical steps to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system.

By Emily Badger Washingtom Post Wonkblog

A couple of years ago, the city of Chicago started a summer jobs program for teenagers attending high schools in some of the city’s high-crime, low-income neighborhoods. The program was meant, of course, to connect students to work. But officials also hoped that it might curb the kinds of problems — like higher crime — that arise when there’s no work to be found.

Research on the program conducted by the University of Chicago Crime Lab and just published in the journal Science suggests that these summer jobs have actually had such an effect: Students who were randomly assigned to participate in the program had 43 percent fewer violent-crime arrests over 16 months, compared to students in a control group.

That number is striking for a couple of reasons: It implies that a relatively short (and inexpensive) intervention like an eight-week summer jobs program can have a lasting effect on teenage behavior. And it lends empirical support to a popular refrain by advocates: “Nothing stops a bullet like a job.”

Researcher Sara Heller conducted a randomized control trial with the program, in partnership with the city. The study included 1,634 teens at 13 high schools. They were, on average, C students, almost all of them eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Twenty percent of the group had already been arrested, and 20 percent had already been victims of crime.

Some of the students were given part-time jobs through the program, working 25 hours a week at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois) with government or non-profit employers. They worked as camp counselors, office assistants, or in community gardens, among other places. Other students in the treatment group worked 15 hours a week at similar jobs, but also received 10 hours a week of “social-emotional learning” time, where they learned skills to manage their emotions or behavior that might get in the way of employment. All of the students in the program received mentors as well. The teenagers in the control group participated in neither part of the program.

Heller used Chicago Police Department data to follow what happened to all of the students in the 16 months after the program began. In the crime data, there was no difference between the students who got the counseling and those who did not, suggesting that the group working 25 hours a week may have acquired some of the same social-emotional skills on the job. There was a big difference, though, in the violent crime arrest data between the teenagers who got jobs and those who did not:

“Summer jobs reduce violence among disadvantaged youth” by S. Heller in Science

A lot of things could be going on here. Teenagers who might have committed crime to get money would no longer need to when they have a job. If their added income allowed parents to work less, they may also have gotten more adult supervision. It’s also possible that students who were busy working simply didn’t have idle time over the summer to commit crime — but that theory doesn’t explain the long-term declines in violent arrests that occurred well after the summer program was over.

Heller, in fact, found that most of the decline came a few months later:

Heller

That long-term benefit suggests that students who had access to jobs may have then found crime a less attractive alternative to work. Or perhaps their time on the job taught them how the labor market values education. Or maybe the work experience may have given them skills that enabled them to be more successful — and less prone to getting in trouble — back in school.

This one study can’t identify exactly why a summer jobs program might change the trajectory of teens at risk of becoming violent. It also raises the possibility that teenagers with summer jobs might have more money to spend on drugs (drug arrests for the treatment group were slightly higher than for the control). These results do suggest that cities could get a lot of payoff for the minimal cost of a summer-jobs program — particularly if it targets teens before they drop out of school. As Heller writes:

The results echo a common conclusion in education and health research: that public programs might do more with less by shifting from remediation to prevention. The findings make clear that such programs need not be hugely costly to improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth; well-targeted, low-cost employment policies can make a substantial difference, even for a problem as destructive and complex as youth violence.

Emily Badger is a reporter for Wonkblog covering urban policy. She was previously a staff writer at The Atlantic Cities.

Appears in Bridging the Opportunity Divide by Lorraine Chow on December 8, 2014

Cafe Momentum Executive Director, Chad Houser, with alumni Malik Runnels.

Courtesy Cafe Momentum

This innovative program aims to take formerly incarcerated youth out of the cycle of crime.

It also may have killed Eric Garner. By Justin Peters

In the ’90s, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton presided over a surge in petty-crime law enforcement on the theory that vigorously enforcing the small laws in some way dissuades or prevents people from breaking the big ones. There’s little evidence that theory is correct.

On July 17, 2014, an unarmed 43-year-old black man named Eric Garner was standing near the Staten Island Ferry dock when he was approached by several police officers. The cops suspected that Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes. A struggle ensued, and an officer named Daniel Pantaleo put Garner in a chokehold. Garner died, and the New York City medical examiner eventually ruled it a homicide. But on Wednesday afternoon, a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict Pantaleo.

In the wake of the grand jury failure to indict for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, we are called to consider the highly questionable relationship between prosecutors and the police.  But the oft-repeated, “a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich,” mantra exists for a reason – that a prosecutor, should it be his or her sincere objective, can convince a grand jury to indict anyone or anything.  Even a ham sandwich.

Perhaps the grand juries did not indict the police officers in both cases not because of the evidence or lack thereof, but because the prosecutor manipulated the grand jury to not indict.  Given the generally codependent relationship between prosecutors and police, should the larger question and debate not be just over police violence, but prosecutorial misconduct?  Willful manipulation and negligence by prosecutors?

I am a felon.  Never had a single word carried so much meaning for me – the judgment of others, the passive presumption of a fair and objective justice system, guilt, shame, remorse, anger, and perhaps most importantly, release. The hope that I can fully unshackle myself from the notions that civil society would have me hobble in self-pity, encumbered by a scarlet ‘F’ for the rest of my life.

When the FBI first came knocking on my door, I picked the defense attorneys that most belittled my damaged ego and psyche.  Perhaps I felt secure in their arrogance.  I was scared.  I didn’t think I was guilty of what I was being accused of, but I also feared a trial.  Society does not look kindly upon white collar criminals, and I had seen a few cases where I felt guilty convictions had been won on a surge of populist anger towards Wall Street vs. the facts.  I feared prison.

Little did I understand my lawyers had already made the decision for me.  I was to plead guilty with the implicit promise that I would never see the inside of a prison.  I protested, argued that I had lacked sufficient criminal intent to have known I was committing a white collar felony.  But my protests were met with resolute conviction from my lawyers that my case would be a surefire loser at trial, and that I would undoubtedly, unquestionably face up to 15 years’ incarceration.  They had already made the choice for me by presenting outlandish scenarios appealing to my worst fears.

And so my life irrevocably transformed overnight.  The prosecutor was impressively clever, she had run circles around my counsel outthinking them at each step of the process.  At distinct moments through my proffer sessions, I noticed smirks of self-satisfaction from her – the kind one feels when they’ve bluffed their way to a win in poker.

In the later years of my business career, I had become callous and negligent in my job – a reflection of my own growing cynicism in Wall Street and dissatisfaction with myself.  Yet I somehow had faith that the ‘Justice System’ would be a different realm, one of fairness and truth, where prosecutors huddled in teams to debate the facts of potential prosecution giving in all cases, the benefit of the doubt.  After all, prosecutors are being dealt the hefty responsibility of playing God with others’ lives.

I concluded this process allocuting a plea to a Federal Judge, professing guilt in cases where I knew I was innocent.  I remain stupefied at how I arrived there.  I equate it to slowly boiling a frog – that a frog would immediately jump out of boiling water but if the heat is increased ever so gradually the frog willfully neglects his own safety to his own demise.

I refuse to be bitter.  And ironically, I am remorseful and I do accept responsibility.  Not for the false pleas, but for my failed judgments leading up to and through the criminal justice process.  I chose, of course, to always interpret right and wrong as close to the line as possible.  To interpret right and wrong in the way that best suited my interests.  In some cases, I know that I crossed the line.  I chose to continue in an industry filled with narcissistic, quasi-psychopathic individuals, each year loathing myself a little more.  And I chose to pick defense counsel that appealed to my most ignoble insecurities and instincts for self-preservation.

The isolation in the aftermath of a criminal conviction is indescribable.  It’s unclear who amongst family and friends knows, and it is hard to know how to behave – withdrawn and remorseful, or to put on airs of normalcy.  So many doors close – of course, the word ‘felony’ encompasses a wide range of delits – from stock option backdating & market manipulation on one end, to violent rape & pre-meditated murder on the other.  For an educated person, the closed doors of employment & any career requiring a professional license, including driving a taxi, is a crushing implosion of conventional hope.  I often went to bed praying for mercy from God that I would not awake the next day.  The sun arose, it seemed, to mock me, to provide hopes and opportunities only to snatch it away.  I prayed to melt away into the ether.  Frankly, sometimes I still do.

We have focused much on the remorse, acceptance of responsibility and re-entry of felons into society.  Let’s not forget the sins of the prosecutors.  It is far more common that people are incarcerated for crimes they may have not actually committed as a result of plea bargaining because the unchecked power of the prosecutor allows no other option for the average individual.  So often it is the ordinary career ambitions of an underpaid prosecutor that compels him to focus solely on the notches on his belt, to apply the same relative morality against the individuals he prosecutes.

It is an abuse of power.  The prosecutors are the watchmen in our society, but there is no agency watching over them.  So whether it is the willful intent of a prosecutor to manipulate a ‘fail to indict’ in Ferguson or a prosecutor willfully holding exculpatory evidence from a defendant – let us question our blind faith in the integrity of prosecutors.

Because if we don’t watch the watchmen, no one else will.

– Anonymous, A White-Collar Felon

U. S . Senator Cory Booker shared this on his Facebook page. I read it this morning and was profoundly moved. We gotta rethink mass incarceration people. The New Jersey Star-Ledger Editorial Board penned this thought provoking piece. I thought it was well worth sharing as we work to raise awareness, change hearts and minds and craft legislation to end these practices. ~ Babz Rawls Ivy.

By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
on December 07, 2014 at 8:03 AM, updated December 07, 2014 at 8:11 AM

Nothing good can come of throwing a prisoner into a cell the size of a bathroom, feeding him through a slot in the door and leaving him there until the walls start to talk.

Inmates shriek in the night, beat their foreheads bloody and kneel in puddles of their own urine. They begin to go mad. But the real damage doesn’t become apparent until they’re released. When you treat a man like an animal, don’t be surprised when he acts like one: Research shows solitary only makes people more violent and more likely to reoffend when they get out.

Yet we still have tens of thousands of prisoners in isolation, more than any other democratic nation. Prison officials claim that no one is subject to “solitary” in New Jersey, because inmates in so-called “administrative segregation” units are not single-bunked, they are celled in pairs. But as far as the psychological effects go, experts say there’s little difference.

Solitary, as defined by leading medical organizations and the United Nations, is being confined to a room for at least 22 hours a day alone or with one other person. The real harm comes from being locked away for so long. Not allowing prisoners out even for meals, counseling or a game of chess in a communal area can cause irreparable damage to their psyches, including bouts of paranoia and rage. They hallucinate, become chronically depressed and anxious, symptoms that last long past their time “in the box.”

Many had mental illnesses to begin with. Guards don’t just put the inmates they’re scared of in solitary — often, they throw in the ones they’re angry at, too. Some may be isolated for offenses as petty as scribbling on the wall or lying.

Instead, we should be banning solitary for juveniles except in the most extreme cases, as several other states have done, and greatly limiting its use for adults. Look at Mississippi: Because of escalating violence in its isolation units, prison officials took the unusual strategy of loosening their restrictions on solitary. The result? Almost no incidents of violence.

Legislators are pushing similar reforms here. Sen. Ray Lesniak (D-Union) introduced a bill that would virtually eliminate isolation for those who would suffer the most from it, including children, the elderly, inmates with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. It would require an initial hearing within 72 hours of being placed in isolation, and a 15-day cap on time in the box, except in special circumstances. An inmate would also get a medical and mental health evaluation before being isolated, and be assessed by a clinician on a daily basis. Another pending bill, sponsored by Sen. Nellie Pou (D-Passaic), would also greatly restrict solitary for juveniles.

As the ACLU argues, we need to make solitary our punishment of last resort — used only to eliminate an immediate, serious threat. An inmate who has just shanked somebody and vowed to finish the job shouldn’t be sent right back to the general population. But as soon as he’s calmed and under control, remove him from solitary.

Because it’s not just cruel and unusual — it’s ineffective, and undermines public safety. Most prisoners will ultimately return to our streets. The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we want them to come back more damaged than when they went in?

Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @StarLedger and find us on Facebook.

By Jeremy Haile is federal advocacy counsel at The Sentencing Project.

On issues of crime and punishment, California voters are demanding a rewrite.

After a four-decade incarceration binge, the state is taking steps to reduce prison populations, which have come at ruinous costs for state coffers and for the disproportionately black and Latino individuals and families who are affected.

The latest step came last month, as California voters approved a ballot measure to reclassify a number of low level offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.  Under Prop 47, offenses such as shoplifting, writing hot checks, and drug possession would be punished less harshly.  This would potentially allow 10,000 individuals currently imprisoned to petition to have their sentences reduced and to return to their families sooner.

In recent years, California has served as an intriguing case study for reducing prison populations without harming public safety.  After the state was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 to address its prison overcrowding crisis, lawmakers responded with a policy of “realignment,” which shifted supervision of non-violent offenders and parole violators to local communities.  In 2012, California voters approved a ballot proposal to ensure that the state’s notorious Three Strikes Law would not send people to prison for life for non-serious offenses.

The effect of these and other changes has been dramatic.  Between 2006 and 2012, California’s prison population decreased by nearly a quarter and while doing so, its drop in violent crime exceeded the national average.  These developments, along with similar developments in New York and New Jersey, show increased support among both policymakers and the public for a public safety strategy that is less reliant on incarceration.

But the largely untold story of criminal justice reform in California is what could happen with the savings.

Under Prop 47—of the hundreds of millions of dollars of projected state prison savings each year—a significant portion will be allocated to preventing crime from happening in the first place.  This will include investments in mental health and substance abuse treatment, programs to reduce school truancy and prevent dropouts, and support for victim services.

Research—as well as common sense—suggest that such interventions can be more effective in reducing crime than incarceration.  But that is not the way our nation has been operating.

Like other states, California has for decades used the criminal justice system to respond to social problems.  Following the failure of other institutions to provide opportunity and education—and yes, to deal with behavioral problems—police, prosecutors, and prisons have taken on roles that used to be left to schools, parents, social workers, and others in local communities.

This is particularly true with the war on drugs, which is a primary driver of mass incarceration and racial disparities.  Today, about 75 percent of incarcerated individuals have a history of substance abuse.  One of every six has a history of mental illness.  Many were abused.   About two-thirds of individuals imprisoned on a drug charge are black or Latino, even though people of all races use and sell drugs atroughly the same rates.

Though we have initiatives aimed at early childhood education, therapeutic interventions for at-risk youth, and treatment for substance abuse and mental illness, they are painfully underfunded compared to the scope of the problem.  Instead of investing in such interventions, we have turned to the criminal justice system, which is an extremely expensive way to address these problems.  Few would dispute that incarceration is sometimes necessary, but the question we should be asking is whether incarceration is the most effective way to ensure safe and healthy communities.

In a definitive report earlier this year, the National Research Council concluded that the rise of mass imprisonment in the United States has “transformed not only the criminal justice system, but also U.S. race relations and the institutional landscape of urban poverty.”

To truly address America’s mass incarceration epidemic, we will need to divert people to substance abuse and mental health treatments rather than sending them to prisons and jails.  We’ll need to remove barriers that keep people with criminal recordsfrom starting a new life.  And above all, we’ll need to shift resources away from prisons and invest them in communities.

Prop 47 is only a start, but it may mark a new day for criminal justice reform.

How To Overcome A Dept. of Justice Press Release: A Video, By Justin Paperny

We were introduced to our guest blogger, prison consultant Justin Paperny, by our friend Walt Pavlo, the Forbes white-collar correspondent, and by Brian Jorgenson, our ministee who is currently serving a two-year sentence for a white-collar crime at FCI Herlong in California.  I’ve spent some time talking with Justin and have found him to be insightful and dedicated to helping our community. We do not have experience in referring ministees to Justin and thus cannot yet endorse him or his consultancy. The video he has submitted offers important information to our readers.  Thank you, Justin. – Jeff

Reprinted from Prisonist.org, Dec. 5, 2014

Video: How To Overcome a Department of Justice Press Release  

_________________

I’d like to thank Jeff Grant for this opportunity to introduce myself to the readers of prisonist.org.

Quickly, for some background, my name is Justin Paperny. I am a graduate of the University of Southern California and a former stockbroker who built my career at Bear Stearns, and  then at UBS.

I am also a convicted felon.  Several years into my career, I began making bad decisions on behalf of a hedge fund client who was a running a Ponzi Scheme.  I surrendered to prison in 2008, and was released to three years of supervised release in 2009.

As a result of my shortsightedness and poor judgment, I created victims, embarrassed my family, ruined my career, endured the indignities of prison, and like many of the white-collar offenders I coach, was forced to endure the reality of having the government plaster my misdeeds all over the Internet for my friends and family to read.

To my last point, and for purposes of this guest blog, I wanted to share a video I made addressing the realities of having the Government issue that dreaded press release. Perhaps readers of prisonist.org will find value in the strategies I offer to deal with the government’s narrative of events.

While the initial reaction might be to want to run and hide from our conviction or press release, experience convinces me that embracing the reality of the situation and owning it are two essential steps to overcoming the obstacles any offender faces. And contrary to what others might tell you (including many of the prisoners with whom I served time), speaking openly about our culpability, along with the steps we are taking to make amends, can go along way towards restoring our name and growing our network.

Again, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this forum. I hope you find value in this video I title: How To Overcome A Department Of Justice Press Release

Respectfully,

Justin Paperny

Justin Paperny can be reached at:

JustinPaperny@etikallc.com. 818-424-2220 www.etikallc.com