The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

"I am concerned that the Legislature is using the wrong tool to solve the problem of drugs and the problem of community safety," said state Rep. William N. Brownsberger, D-Belmont. He has proposed amending the law to reduce the zone to 100 feet. It is part of a criminal justice reform package approved by the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday and due to be considered by the House before it ends its current session on July 31.

"The result of this law and some of the mandatory sentencing laws that we have is that we are putting too many people in jail for too long for these offenses," said Brownsberger, a Harvard-educated attorney. "Some of them need to go to jail, but the penalties are excessive and we are wasting money as a result."

A new study by the Easthampton-based Prison Policy Initiative concludes the law places poor, black and Hispanic populations at risk of harsher penalties simply because of where they live. The initiative is a national organization which mapped the impact of so-called "sentencing enhancement zones" in Hampden County in a study of the law.

Executive Director Peter J. Wagner, co-author of the report with Aleks W. Kajstura, said the law is used more frequently - 2½ times the state average - in Hampden County than any other county in the state. The patterns of conviction show the law "has more effectively created a two-tiered system of drug sentencing," the report concluded.

In the report, Kajstura said, "We found that the heavy zone coverage in urban areas made many more black, Latino, urban and poor people eligible for enhanced penalties even though rural white populations commit the same drug offenses at similar rates."

"Because schools are more numerous in dense urban areas, most urban residents - including most of the state's black and Latino residents - face longer mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses than the state's rural residents, who are predominantly white," they wrote.

Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett supports changing the existing law to give law enforcement more flexibility in dealing with first-time offenders who have no history of violence.

"The law is effective," he added. "We don't have drug dealers hanging out in school yards, which was the whole idea to protect children. In practice, there have been incidents you would not want to impose the two years because of a variety of reasons."

Hampden Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney, who emphasized that her role is to enforce laws not write them, said she sees the benefit of having more discretion for sentencing than the existing school zone law allows.

As an example, she said, an 18-year-old with no record who is pulled over for a traffic violation off an interstate ramp and drugs are found in the car, would face an automatic two-year prison sentence and, possibly, up to a minimum mandatory of 10 years "without any discretion to look at the circumstances," she said. A convicted felon involved in an armed robbery could, in contrast, secure a plea agreement with less prison time, she said.

"A drug offense, as toxic as it is to society, does not pose the immediate threat of death," she said, as in the case of an armed crime.

Sweeney said she supports proposed "truth-in-sentencing reforms" authored by state Trial Court Chief Administrative Judge Robert A. Mulligan because they set up guidelines to consider many factors and allow district attorneys the right to appeal sentences.

State Rep. Cheryl A. Coakley Rivera, D-Springfield, who is also a attorney, doesn't see where the existing law has reduced drug violations in the city. She is concerned for first-time offenders, age 22 and younger who are involved in non-violent drug charges and face two years in prison.

"We are immediately crippling them for the rest of their lives," Rivera said. "I think we did a disservice to the taxpayers when we did this. For less money, we could have changed the lives of these children and young adults and work with them."

The study found that residents of Hampden County's urban communities are five times as likely to live in a "sentencing enhancement zone" as its rural residents.

So, for example, while half of the population in Springfield, and nearly 60 percent of Holyoke, live in school zones, in suburban Wilbraham or rural Russell or Blandford, only 12 percent of residents live in school zones. In little Montgomery, where there is no school, no one lives in a school zone.

The result, according to the study, is that while 29 percent of white county residents live in an enhancement zone, 52 percent of black and Latino residents are similarly situated. Much of this has to do with the fact that cities like Holyoke and Springfield are less white than the county's more rural and suburban stretches. But even within Holyoke, the study found, the disparity is apparent with 76 percent of Holyoke Latinos living in a zone compared to 45 percent of whites.

What the report refers to as the "geography of punishment" helps explain, according to its authors, why blacks and Latinos make up nearly eight of 10 of those convicted of school zone offenses in Massachusetts.

State Rep. Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield, told The Republican that while the original law "was well-meaning," it also resulted in "some critical unintended consequences."

"In the city of Springfield, within the district I serve, it would be difficult. if not impossible. to locate a place which would be beyond 1,000 feet of a school," Swan said. "Many elected officials will admit that the mandatory sentencing has been a disaster, yet it is difficult to correct - few are willing to take the first step to make necessary corrections for fear of being labeled soft on crime."

Almost every state has some version of a law providing stiffer penalties for drug offenses near a school.

"It is often about 1,000 feet," Wagner said. "In Alabama, it is 3 miles. But Vermont's statute is smart. It is 500 feet and applies only to properties adjacent to the school."

The problem is that in most cases the zone extends 1,000 feet in every direction, and for practical purposes, it is not at all obvious to potential offenders that they are in a school zone or, as in the case of Holyoke, what patch of land they would have to repair to in order to not be in some school zone.

Holyoke Police Chief Anthony R. Scott, who has zero tolerance for drug dealing in his impoverished city, values the mandatory sentencing as a "deterrent to drug dealing." He wants to see the law stand as it is.

Most of Holyoke is within a school zone, and Scott said perhaps these individuals should wake up and say, 'I shouldn't sell drugs at all (and) then I don't have to worry about the minimum mandatory.'"

http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1217056612248600.xml&coll=1

SCHOOL ZONE LEGISLATION MAY DIE BEFORE IT GETS VOTED ON....PLEASE READ THIS AND CALL YOU SENATOR.
Please contact (Senator) Stan Rosenberg or your Senator and Senate President Murry. The Bill is stalled and may not be voted on before the session ends on Thursday which means the reforms are dead (again). Please call and forward this email and encourage others to call.
Thank you.
Lois

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:04:13 +0000

CORI Campaign Update

Voting on House Bill #5004 "An act to improve certain criminal justice matters" was postponed until next formal session on Tuesday (7/29).

All available supporters should join us on Tuesday:

Tuesday, July 29th
12:30pm (and onward)
State House, outside House Chamber (3rd Floor)

While we have made major headway by securing "Ban the Box" in the Judiciary Committee's proposal, there are three issues that may derail our efforts in the next 7 days.

1) Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM), has started an active lobbying campaign against our CORI reforms. AIM has donated large sums of money for re-election campaigns. Legislators must be held accountable to the people - not big businesses.

2) The State Senate appears to be undecided whether it will take up the bill after it is passed in the House. Rapid outreach to Senators and Senate President Murray is critical.

3) The Bill #5004 includes positive provisions around sealing, ban the box, and a reduction of school zones from 1000ft to a 100ft. However, a central part of HB #5004 is a mandatory parole period for all prisoners who serve over 1 year in jail. BWA strongly opposes the blanket expansion of parole supervision.

The Message to Elected Officials:

"Dear _________, please help pass CORI reform this session. The sealing periods should be 3 and 7 years, and the criminal record question should be removed from job applications. However, I do not support mandatory parole as it will cost the state too much money, and leads to the unnecessary re-incarceration of ex-prisoners. Thank you"

Key Call-In Target:

Senate President Therese Murray
Tel: (617) 722-1500

Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi
Tel: 617-722-2500

Thank you to the hundreds of people who have already called-in and attended rallies and lobby days. Please support the movement and our final call-in efforts to target the Senate and House leadership, today and Monday.

Find your own legislator at www.wheredoivotema.
com - call the State House operator at 617 722 2000.

Download a summary and text of HB #5004 at www.BostonWorkersAlliance.org

------

MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT CORI REFORM
Response to Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)

Facts about CORI Reform

CORI reform is about fairness. We all recognize that criminal record checks are an important part of the hiring process for many jobs. But criminal record checks should not create an insurmountable barrier to employment.

CORI reform is about public safety. As Governor Patrick has stated, "gainful employment for rehabilitated offenders reduces recidivism and increases the likelihood of successful re-integration into society."

CORI reform is about second chances. Many people with CORIs have never been convicted of any crime. Those who have been convicted, and then rehabilitated, should be able to both repay their debt to society and to have a second chance to become productive citizens.

Myths about CORI Reform
An organization of employers has recently issued a statement in opposition to CORI reform, but its positions are based on misinformation and misconceptions:

MYTH: "AIM opposes the measure because it provides no balance of risk and liability for the employer. While the laws of the Commonwealth hold employers liable for the wrongful hiring of an employee with a past criminal offense who becomes a repeat offender, this and similar bills would limit access to the very information that makes an informed hiring decision possible."

FACT: CORI reform does not increase the risk of liability for employers. Under the laws of the Commonwealth, Massachusetts employers must use reasonable care when making hiring decisions. It is up to the Commonwealth to decide what information should be shared with employers, and it is up to employers to use that information to make a reasonable hiring decision.

MYTH: "In addition, AIM opposes the bill since it would result in: Employers not being able to ask candidates about their past and therefore unable to properly conduct a full reference check"

FACT: Under CORI reform, employers can ask about a candidate's criminal record, as long as it is not the very first question a candidate is asked. CORI reform would let all candidates get in the door and have their work experience and skills evaluated, allowing employers to perform criminal background checks on otherwise qualified candidates.

FACT: Reference checks, or other questions about a candidate's "past," would not be affected by CORI reform.

MYTH: ". . . Prohibiting employers from researching a candidate's criminal background and therefore be unable to properly screen candidates who would work independently"

FACT: CORI reform would merely change the timing of criminal background checks. An employer could still research the applicant's criminal background, after first determining that the applicant is qualified for the job.

MYTH: "Not being able to conduct due diligence in the hiring process to protect the financial and public relation's (sic) interest of the firm"

FACT: Again, nothing in the Governor's bill (H. 4476), or in any variation of the bill or proposed amendments would keep employers from performing CORI checks or other criminal background checks.

MYTH: "Placing some employers in a situation where they could become deficient in their compliance of national industry hiring practices."

FACT: Criminal background checks could still be performed. Changes to the waiting periods for sealing criminal records would not put Massachusetts out of the mainstream of hiring practices. Other states including Oregon, Michigan, and New Jersey allow criminal records to be sealed sooner than Massachusetts.

MYTH: "In recent years, there have been several instances where the current CORI mechanism has been deficient in the vetting of candidates for employment. H. 4476 would only further deteriorate this existing safety tool used by employers to ensure that their current employees and clientele are not put at further risk."

FACT: CORI is not a perfect tool for employers because it was never intended to be used for hiring. The system was created for law enforcement, to keep criminal records organized and private. H. 4476 and related CORI reform proposals would actually help to create a tool that is more useful and comprehensible to employers.