Criminal Justice Reform Is on the Docket In Florida
Conservative groups and businesses are pushing for better drug laws in the Sunshine State.
When national drug-law reformers draw up their election-day game plans, they seldom give second thought to Florida, a state so conservative that co-habitating with someone to whom you are not married is punishable by up to 60 days in jail.
"We get a lot of interest in running bills in that state," Marijuana Policy Project Spokesman Morgan Fox told me recently in a phone interview. "The problem is that the legislature is largely against us in terms of their voting patterns, so it doesn't really make much sense for us to spend our extremely limited resources."
Despite the fact that Florida's drug laws are some of the most draconian in the nation—possession of 20 grams of marijuana, by no means enough for dealing, can mean a five-year sentence; and possession of eight prescription painkillers can mean 10 or 15 years for a first-time offender—Republicans in the state legislature have shown zero interest in locking up fewer minorities or first-time offenders simply for the sake of fairness. That's why national drug reform groups have all but written the state off.
But conservative grassroots groups might just be able to do what the ACLU and the NAACP have been unable to achieve.
"The business community has taken note of how unbelievably expensive the prison system is in Florida," says Greg Newburn, Florida Project Director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "They've seen the prison population double, and the prison budget balloon, and the government project that we'll need to build 10-15 prisons over the next 10 years. And because Florida doesn't have a personal income tax, businesses know the burden will fall on them."
Mandatory minimum laws adopted in the late 1990s have helped double Florida's prison population from 50,000 inmates in 1993 to more than 100,000 today. The state's prescription pill "epidemic" threatens to swell that number even more in coming years. But with Tallahassee facing a $2 billion budget shortfall, the almost $2.5 billion the state spends each year on its prisons and jails now seems downright excessive, even if stiff drug sentences don't, and Republican Gov. Rick Scott has proposed shutting down a handful of corrections facilities and privatizing the remaining ones as much as possible. But privatization efforts, which have faced judicial roadblocks in Florida, will only save so much—less than $50 million by some estimates.
Earlier this month Newburn reported that Right on Crime, an initiative started by the Texas Public Policy Foundation in order to push conservative state legislators to consider alternatives to incarceration, had a lot of Florida heavyweights sign its statement of principles. Among them were former Republican governor Jeb Bush and his former attorney general Richard Doran, and former Republican Party of Florida chairs Allison DeFoor and Tom Slade. While Florida would need more currents than formers to overhaul its drug policies, current Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolis offered a glimmer of hope when he wrote in the Gainesville Sun, "I think I speak for the majority of Floridians when I say that I would much rather spend taxpayer money on our state's education system, road projects, health care or economic development than I would on our state's prison system."
While Newburn isn't holding his breath that these reforms will happen in the near future (the redistricting battle and 2012 election "will take up most of the oxygen in the legislative agenda," he says), conservative groups have been meeting with legislatures and making the conservative case for a major criminal justice overhaul.
"Florida TaxWatch, the James Madison Institute, and other right-of-center groups have taken a look at the cost of criminal justice and what we're getting for it in return," Newburn says. "They're asking, 'Is it efficient to put nonviolent drug offenders in prison for 10 years?' We've seen Right on Crime launch in Florida, and we've seen Grover Norquist come down and talk about criminal reform in the fiscal context."
The most active of these groups has been Florida TaxWatch, which released a report last week with some striking figures about the cost Floridians are paying for the state's draconian criminal justice practices:
• In FY2010-11 Florida taxpayers spent $2.4 billion to incarcerate over 102,000 people.
• Growth has more than doubled since 1990 and nearly quadrupled since 1984.
• In FY2010-11, 70% of admissions to prison were for non-violent offenses.
• Over the past decade more than 40,000 people were admitted to prison for technical
violations of the terms of community supervision (probation), costing the state over one
billion dollars.
• In FY2010-11, Florida spent over $300 million to incarcerate people for drug offenses.
• The cost of mandatory minimum offenses was nearly $100 million.
• Nearly half of prison admissions will serve terms of two years or fewer, and 83% of these admissions are for non-violent offenses.
• Youth admissions from FY2009-10 will cost the state more than $200 million.
• Nearly a third of released prisoners return to prison and almost two-thirds are re-arrested within three years.
The impetus for reform has also come from the bench. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has written, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that "Florida's Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention & Control Act violates the constitutional right to due process because it allows conviction without proof of mens rea, the 'guilty mind' that is normally considered a crucial element of a criminal offense." Sullum also noted that "the decision (PDF) could have a sweeping impact, casting doubt on convictions under the law since 2002, when the statute was enacted in its current form." The necessity of rewriting the law could give reformers like Newburn and TaxWatch significant room to operate.
While Gov. Scott has yet to indicate if criminal justice reform will be a priority beyond prison privatization, the stars are as aligned as they've ever been. "For a long time it's been, 'What can we do to build more prisons and put people away for longer?'" Newburn said. "But now the chair of the criminal justice in the senate is open to serious reform, and what you're seeing is the groundwork for a fundamental shift in the way we approach criminal justice reform in Florida."
Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Won't somebody please think of the screws?
Republican Gov. Rick Scott has proposed shutting down a handful of corrections facilities and privatizing the remaining ones as much as possible. But privatization efforts, which have faced judicial roadblocks in Florida, will only save so much?less than $50 million by some estimates
The privatization movement has nothing to do with saving taxpayer money but the new cash cow for politicians
... or for judges who jail juveniles so they are sent to privately run prisons while the judges get kickbacks from the owners of the private prison facilities.
what does "can mean" MEAN in regards to sentencing?
for example, in my state, arrest for DUI for first time offenders with no aggravating factors CAN mean imprisonment of a year
however, it DOES NOT mean that, since that's not what actually happens, despite the RCW stating that is the maximum penalty
i see this stuff with NORML too... implying that these are actual sentences with various laws we all oppose.
what the statute technically says is irrelevant to what ACTUALLY happens, when in every jurisdiction i am aware of prosecutors have filing standards and sentencing grids.
so my question is - DO people actually get sentences like this (which would be absurdly draconian) or not?
i can tell you that possession of misdemeanor MJ is a misdemeanor and thus punishable by a year in jail in WA state
however, a first time offender not on parole, etc. will get IF the case is even forwarded by the cop (iow he doesn't give a verbal warning and dumps the mj), and IF the prosecutor even bothers to file - usually a $50 to $200 FINE
with no jail time
it would imo be better journalism to report facts about what actually happens, not what is technically possible
based on the way the article is written, what actually happens is not explained.
"however, a first time offender not on parole, etc. will get IF the case is even forwarded by the cop (iow he doesn't give a verbal warning and dumps the mj), and IF the prosecutor even bothers to file - usually a $50 to $200 FINE"
But you've said repeatedly that cops shouldn't use independent moral judgment because the world would be a horrible scary place without the certain application of law!
+10 me
It's just as important to report and in fact, to focus on what is possible, the severity of law, than what merely is done at the discretion of prosecutors most of the time (although I believe in a state like Florida, given its conservative nature, from prior cases, more severe penalties are likely).
I don't like that utilitarian standpoint of "Hey, it's OK because most people aren't given harsh penalties, so no big deal" It doesn't make it ok even if 1% are severely but unjustly convicted.
Even jury nullification is merely a band-aid that doesn't work most of the time.
Actually it's more than 1% that get prosecuted to the full extent. More like 80%...of non-white creatures.
utter rubbish
except that the statistics show you're full of shit dunphy
cry more about reality
by the way "utter rubbish"? could you possibly prove anymore clearly that you have no refutation?
How about a "NU UH!"
Jesus Christ, you're a fucking retard...
+10 me!
so, no stats then, because you know they show you're full of shit
funny how you're all about stats until they prove you're scum and a lair.
+10 me!
(note that i have posted NCVS stats before and will again. but not for trolls)
+20 me!
it's not merely the discretion of the prosecutor. it's filing standards and sentencing grids, which become de facto law
again, WA state says you can get a year in jail for a DUI
show me one ... ONE ... person who has gotten a year for a DUI with no priors (i am not talking about DUI vehicular homicide... i am talking about plain DUI)
these facts matter. because they are facts.
propagandists will say "possessing pot in WA state can get you a year in jail"
except it can't and won't.
you know darn well that if tomorrow, a cop caught you with 20 grams, you would NOT get a year in jail
it isn't merely unlikely.
it will NOT happen
advocates for a cause should still be honest with facts.
this is an example where many MJ decrim/legalization advocates are not honest... as an advocate myself, i still don't like it
the truth has dignity all its own, even if its not as useful for rallying around a cause sometimes
"you know darn well that if tomorrow, a cop caught you with 20 grams, you would NOT get a year in jail"
I was PERSONALLY stopped with less than 20 grams, and got 18 months in jail. I was a victim of moronic "within x feet of school/church" stupidity.
Shut your lying fucking mouth.
i was talking about WA state, as i made clear
again, read my post
i don't KNOW what the actual sentencing reality is based on Rigg's article, because he doesn't clarify
he talks about alleged sentences but doesn't clarify if these are statutory or if these are de facto reality
the two are not the same in most jurisdictions
hth
in your case, that sucks. was it a first offense, or was it some kind of parole violation (which i already explained changes everything because parolees can get jail time for merely violating parole, in which the violation would not even BE a crime if they weren't on parole)
"i was talking about WA state, as i made clear"
you know darn well that if tomorrow, a cop caught you with 20 grams, you would NOT get a year in jail"
No asshole, you didn't. You referenced it in your intro, then used "you" in response to SOMEONE who presumably, isn't in WA. YOU were unclear. YOU. YOU.
"was it a first offense"
Again, from being around other cops all day you assume that everyone you interact with is stupid and uninformed.
JUST AS I READ THE PART OF YOUR POST THAT IN NO WAY REFERENCED WA, I ALSO READ THE PART ABOUT "first offense".
No asshole, it was the first offense, and as I CLEARLY STATED YOU STUPID FUCK, it was "x feet of school/church" which in my case, was 880 feet away and closed at 11:30 at night.
So AGAIN, Shut your lying fucking mouth.
Dunphy: This deserves its own blog post. I'll do some research and see if I can't find a better statistical breakdown of what happens to first-time busts.
thanks. i think it's highly relevant.
like i said, in my state, offenders don't get anything NEAR what the RCW says is the max sentencing.
of course in a perfect world, we wouldn't criminalize victimless 'crimes' in the first place
Dunphy,
When it comes to mandatory minimum sentences, "can" means "must." Of course, one has to be convicted of the charge that carries the minimum sentence for it to be imposed, and since prosecutors have the discretion to knock, say, a trafficking charge (which carries a MM) to possession (which doesn't), Mike's description is accurate. That said, it would be error to think that people aren't being sentenced to very long prison terms for possessing a handful of pills. You can see a number of those cases (and I assure you there are many, many more) at FAMM's "profiles of injustice" page.
i was referring to THIS (not the mandatory minimum stuff), that why i referenced the word "means" and tried to make it clear to what I was referencing
"Despite the fact that Florida's drug laws are some of the most draconian in the nation?possession of 20 grams of marijuana, by no means enough for dealing, can mean a five-year sentence; and possession of eight prescription painkillers can mean 10 or 15 years for a first-time offender?Republicans in the state legislature have shown zero interest in locking up fewer minorities or first-time offenders simply for the sake of fairness. That's why national drug reform groups have all but written the state off."
I would hypothesize that the significance of these draconian maximum terms is that it gives prosecutors leverage in plea-bargaining. "Yeah, you could rely on your right to a trial and end up convicted with five years, or you could go for door number two, cop a plea and get only one year."
your hypothesis is correct analysis imsho
How does the average person get access to these sentencing filing standards and sentencing grids? If it is not a simple task, then are you saying that only people with access to such insider info be allowed to speak on the severity of drug laws?
Also, I don't see how it really matters. While comparing the amount of time the law states for an offense may not give the actual time served,it does allow insight into the intent of of legislators in that state, and thus allows a state by state comparison, or trend analysis of the same state over time.
And that is exactly what this article is about. One of the points is that Florida has some of the most draconian drug laws, and there is an attempt to change that. That remains true despite your protest that the author didn't know the prosecutor's guidelines.
It would be interesting to know why prosecutors have filing standards and sentencing grids to begin with. What's the purpose of laws if they aren't followed after they are written?
it's not insider info.
conviction / arrest records are public info and EASILY obtainable via this wild new technology called the internets
also, i would assume most journalists would have sources in prosecutor's/defense attorney's etc. offices.
but again, this is PUBLIC record stuff.
oh, btw sentencing grids are not an eample of not following the law
laws, as written generally only define the maximum penalty
for example, in most jurisdictions, the maximum penalty for a garden variety gross misdemanor is a year.
e.g. DUI
however, the reality, as per sentencing guidelines etc. is that a first offender (i am speaking of my state) will get probation, and if they complete the probation w/o any more DUI's etc. they get the DUI wiped from their record (iow they can honestly say they have no convictions). iow, they get probation, a fine, and usually mandated alcohol abuse classes or some such rubbish
second and third offenses are dealt with more harshly, but even a third offender would not see a year in jail
SO....
if i was to say that "WA state's draconian DUI laws mean that somebody arrested for DUI ** COULD SPEND A YEAR IN JAIL ** " that would be inaccurate
grok my point?
I believe I do understand your point. You are saying that the sentence written in the law is never the actual sentence. That is common knowledge, and a common complaint among victims of real crimes. That is actually a good thing when it comes to drug crimes.
However, Mike Rigg's point was the that the laws in Florida are worse than the laws elsewhere. That can be known just by looking at the way the law is written without knowing one bit about sentencing guidelines. For example, Florida law says 5 years for more than 20 grams (felony), while california law says 6 months for more than 28.5 grams (misdemeanor). Does it really require knowing the sentencing guidelines to say that Florida is more draconian? No, I doubt it.
It's a fair way to analyze across states, and Riggs argument remains true.
It definitely would be nice to know what sentences are actually given, but not necessary. Also the sentence in the law shows the intent of the politicians who wrote the law as they may not have taken in the sentencing guidelines into consideration when passing it (or do they?)
a fair way to analyze amongst states is what people GET for committing crimes, not what the theoretical max penalty is.
a draconian penalty that nobody actually gets, is a draconian penalty in theory only
it doesn't mean it's not a bad thing, but it needs to be QUALIFIED in that light
if one state says you CAN get 5 yrs for a rock of crack, but people only ACTUALLY GET 3 months
another state says you can get 2 yrs, but people ACTUALLY GET 2 yrs...
which is more draconian?
sure, there is a PRESUMPTION that given two radically different max penalties, that the actual penalties may be similarly disproportionate
except that is not necessarily true, and regardless, the point is - what do people ACTUALLY GET
i am a fierce advocate for MJ legalization but NORML idiots play games all the time with sentencing and it's horseshit . they will say "johnny got a year in jail for 2 joints" while failing to mention that johnny is a 4 time convicted felon, who was then caught selling 2 joints"
or some such rubbish like that.
frankly,i have no idea what the MAX penalty for cocaine is in my state
i do know that in my county (county pros handle felony cases), possession of cocaine is AUTOMATICALLY diverted to MISDEMEANOR COURT (iow it is not prosecuted as a felony despite the law) , and gets probation and a fine for first offense
so, even if our RCW may sound draconian, the de facto reality is something else
i readily agree those penalties SOUND draconian, but the operative question is - what penalties do people GET?
"sure, there is a PRESUMPTION that given two radically different max penalties, that the actual penalties may be similarly disproportionate"
Yes, that was my presumption. If that presumption is incorrect, then I do see your point.
Dunphy, you must be well aware by now that most Reason articles are written as very thinly disguised propaganda. It's either very effective, or its intended readers are uncritical, malleable puppets who are inclined to agree with whatever is placed before them (or both). Regardless, the standard practice here (concerning justice system cases) is not to address actual penalties and sentencing but potential, worst-case penalties. This tactic is akin to the old standby of dredging up dusty old arcane state and municipal laws that are never enforced but are used by the propagandists to "prove" how stupid certain governments (and by implication, their residents) are. Have you heard the one about how a certain town in Tennessee punishes blasphemers with 30 days in the stocks and a tongue-boring?
Again, it's so obviously transparent a device that only the most susceptible of undiscerning followers (not independent thinkers) are taken in by it. What does that say about Reason's opinion of its own readership?
I was happily reading along until I came this turd, which smelled an awful lot like something I'd expect to encounter in an article in Mother Jones:
"Nor have Republicans in the state legislature shown any interest in locking up fewer minorities or first-time offenders simply for the sake of fairness."
Is Reason advocating affirmative action in sentencing?
plenty of people here are just as prone to use disparate impact "logic" as liberals are, when it suits their needs
last i checked, males were arrested for robbery about 10 times as often as women
OH NOES!!! SEXIST LAWZ !!! DISPARATE IMPACT!!!!
Robbery is an actual crime, as opposed to drug possession.
Disparate impact is a real problem when looking at, "Why do we outlaw victimless crimes?", and look at the history of drug prohibition laws, which are heavily racist, as you well know.
totally tangential.
i don't think drug use should be a crime either
but given that it is, the fact that some demographics (race, gender, etc.) are more likely to be caught it its web (disparate IMPACT) does not imply racism.
just like robbery laws, which is why i gave the example
the intent of drug prohibition laws WERE racist. so were gun control laws.
neither, as currently applied are racist
heck, when meth came out the drug warriors went at it full bore, and it's about as lillywhite a drug as you can get
oh, fwiw, blacks are more likely to commit (according to NCVS studies - NOT according to cops ) robbery than whites
THEREFORE robbery laws have a DISPARATE IMPACT
does this mean they are racist?
"(according to NCVS studies"
post them.
+10 me
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/conte.....cv0840.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/c02.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/conte.....cv0842.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
"totally tangential."
no, actually, it isn't, it's just another uncomfortable truth you can't refute
+10 me!
Example of how this is not affirmative action pandering, and when disparate impact is a real issue:
"Well we tried outlawing booze, but too many mainstream whites are down with it, so that doesn't stick. But whites don't use the wacky tobaccy nearly as much as the darkies do, so fuck it, we'll keep that illegal. Who gives a shit what happens to the negroes."
And you know damn well logic like that was employed just from reading the speeches given in congress and the editorials put out by that bastion of progressivism, the NYT.
that's indisputable.
so is the fact that gun control laws were enacted based on similar fears. and abortion liberalization occurred also due to racism, you could argue
the fact that SOME races may be more likely to be committing and./or caught by drug laws doesn't make them racist
ditto for gun laws.
both have disparate racial impact.
and of course disparate impact is a "real issue"
the point is - should it be?
imo, no.
also, when one factors in for (for example) income levels, alleged disparate racial impact dissapears in some cases, or is substantially reduced
iow, people who make less money, ceteris paribus, are more likely to get arrested/convicted and to get longer sentences than those who don't
that's true in many crimes, not just drugs
and it thus has a disparate racial impact
japanese americans are less likely to get caught for drugs than whites. less likely to get caught for all sorts of victimless crimes
thus, there's a pro-japanese american, anti-white bias to these laws...
disparate impact!!
must be racist japanese people passing these laws all because of dolphin and whale!
Is Reason advocating affirmative action in sentencing?
The TEAM BLUE mentality runs deep.
ALSO, those darn SAT's have a disparate racial impact!
asians score better than whites, and whites better than blacks
must be some sort of racial conspiracy by those who HATE DOLPHIN AND WHALE!!
racial disparitiez!! oh noes!
Yawn. Why are you so stupid? Minimum sentencing for crack anyone? Who brought Marijuana to the US? How can it be that Native Americans are being incarcerated for smoking peyote, which they have done for hundreds of years before the first racist assholes like you came to this continent? How can you not know about something so blatantly obvious? What the fuck is wrong with you?
excessive sentencings for METH are quite similar to the ridiculous sentencings for CRACK
here's a hint. METH is almost exclusively a "white person's " drug
yet, draconian sentencing guidelines were promulgated and laws were passed based on them, DESPITE the fact that these laws targeted whites almost exclusively
again, it's NOT a race thang, as this (and other shit proves)
it's largely a CLASS thing
crack and meth are "lower class" drugs
powder cocaine and most pills, etc. are middle and upper class drugs
the latter get looser sentences based on CLASS not race
Smoking peyote?
When we met Gloria we knew right away that she is made for the world of nude modelling.
She is moving on from her successes with beauty contests in her native Ukraine. She has the superb legs and a firm petite ass. And she knows exactly how to show them off.
Those long, long legs will take her far. We're sure you'll want to follow behind her.
Gloria loves the finer finer things in life. Fast cars, jewellery and high-end fashion. She is aiming for the Monte Carlo lifestyle. She is all-out to please - and to win the rewards for her terrific assets.
Nothing is off-limits for Gloria whether she is on-camera or relaxing.
When we met Gloria we knew right away that she is made for the world of nude modelling.
She is moving on from her successes with beauty contests in her native Ukraine. She has the superb legs and a firm petite ass. And she knows exactly how to show them off.
Those long, long legs will take her far. We're sure you'll want to follow behind her.
Gloria loves the finer finer things in life. Fast cars, jewellery and high-end fashion. She is aiming for the Monte Carlo lifestyle. She is all-out to please - and to win the rewards for her terrific assets.
Nothing is off-limits for Gloria whether she is on-camera or relaxing.
When national drug-law reformers draw up their election-day game plans, they seldom give second thought to Florida, a state so conservative that co-habitating with someone to whom you are not married is punishable by up to 60 days in jail.
"We get a lot of interest in running bills in that state," Marijuana Policy Project Spokesman Morgan Fox told me recently in a phone interview. "The problem is that the legislature is largely against us in terms of their voting patterns, so it doesn't really make much sense for us to spend our extremely limited resources."
Despite the fact that Florida's drug laws are some of the most draconian in the nation?possession of 20 grams of marijuana, by no means enough for dealing, can mean a five-year sentence; and possession of eight prescription painkillers can mean 10 or 15 years for a first-time offender?Republicans in the state legislature have shown zero interest in locking up fewer minorities or first-time offenders simply for the sake of fairness. That's why national drug reform groups have all but written the state off.
But conservative grassroots groups might just be able to do what the ACLU and the NAACP have been unable to achieve.
"The business community has taken note of how unbelievably expensive the prison system is in Florida," says Greg Newburn, Florida Project Director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "They've seen the prison population double, and the prison budget balloon, and the government project that we'll need to build 10-15 prisons over the next 10 years. And because Florida doesn't have a personal income tax, businesses know the burden will fall on them."
Mandatory minimum laws adopted in the late 1990s have helped double Florida's prison population from 50,000 inmates in 1993 to more than 100,000 today. The state's prescription pill "epidemic" threatens to swell that number even more in coming years. But with Tallahassee facing a $2 billion budget shortfall, the almost $2.5 billion the state spends each year on its prisons and jails now seems downright excessive, even if stiff drug sentences don't, and Republican Gov. Rick Scott has proposed shutting down a handful of corrections facilities and privatizing the remaining ones as much as possible. But privatization efforts, which have faced judicial roadblocks in Florida, will only save so much?less than $50 million by some estimates.
Earlier this month Newburn reported that Right on Crime, an initiative started by the Texas Public Policy Foundation in order to push conservative state legislators to consider alternatives to incarceration, had a lot of Florida heavyweights sign its statement of principles. Among them were former Republican governor Jeb Bush and his former attorney general Richard Doran, and former Republican Party of Florida chairs Allison DeFoor and Tom Slade. While Florida would need more currents than formers to overhaul its drug policies, current Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolis offered a glimmer of hope when he wrote in the Gainesville Sun, "I think I speak for the majority of Floridians when I say that I would much rather spend taxpayer money on our state's education system, road projects, health care or economic development than I would on our state's prison system."
While Newburn isn't holding his breath that these reforms will happen in the near future (the redistricting battle and 2012 election "will take up most of the oxygen in the legislative agenda," he says), conservative groups have been meeting with legislatures and making the conservative case for a major criminal justice overhaul.
"Florida TaxWatch, the James Madison Institute, and other right-of-center groups have taken a look at the cost of criminal justice and what we're getting for it in return," Newburn says. "They're asking, 'Is it efficient to put nonviolent drug offenders in prison for 10 years?' We've seen Right on Crime launch in Florida, and we've seen Grover Norquist come down and talk about criminal reform in the fiscal context."
The most active of these groups has been Florida TaxWatch, which released a report last week with some striking figures about the cost Floridians are paying for the state's draconian criminal justice practices:
? In FY2010-11 Florida taxpayers spent $2.4 billion to incarcerate over 102,000 people.
? Growth has more than doubled since 1990 and nearly quadrupled since 1984.
? In FY2010-11, 70% of admissions to prison were for non-violent offenses.
? Over the past decade more than 40,000 people were admitted to prison for technical violations of the terms of community supervision (probation), costing the state over one billion dollars.
? In FY2010-11, Florida spent over $300 million to incarcerate people for drug offenses.
? The cost of mandatory minimum offenses was nearly $100 million.
? Nearly half of prison admissions will serve terms of two years or fewer, and 83% of these admissions are for non-violent offenses.
? Youth admissions from FY2009-10 will cost the state more than $200 million.
? Nearly a third of released prisoners return to prison and almost two-thirds are re-arrested within three years.
The impetus for reform has also come from the bench. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has written, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that "Florida's Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention & Control Act violates the constitutional right to due process because it allows conviction without proof of mens rea, the 'guilty mind' that is normally considered a crucial element of a criminal offense." Sullum also noted that "the decision (PDF) could have a sweeping impact, casting doubt on convictions under the law since 2002, when the statute was enacted in its current form." The necessity of rewriting the law could give reformers like Newburn and TaxWatch significant room to operate.
While Gov. Scott has yet to indicate if criminal justice reform will be a priority beyond prison privatization, the stars are as aligned as they've ever been. "For a long time it's been, 'What can we do to build more prisons and put people away for longer?'" Newburn said. "But now the chair of the criminal justice in the senate is open to serious reform, and what you're seeing is the groundwork for a fundamental shift in the way we approach criminal justice reform in Florida."
What the fuck, Reason, stop being such Nazis, I am not a spambot.
I support affirmative action for sentencing, in a perfect world nobody would get sent to jail for drug possession. But a black guy getting 4 years for DP and a white guy getting 8 years is better then a both of them getting 8 years. Also the war on drugs is racist, statistics show if a lower class black kid is caught with drugs, judges tend to impose "tough love" sentences on the presumption the kid will grow up to be a criminal, while if a white kid from the suburbs is charged with the same crime, judges tend treat it as a "stupid decision" and give extremely light sentences.
which again ignores CLASS
you would have to compare lower class blacks to lower class whites NOT lower class blacks to suburban whites
the difference is based on CLASS not race
I did the auditing when FLDOC went to digital intake info. I would get random batches of 100 intakes and check them for general accuracy (name information in name fields, etc). Seventy percent non-violent seems low. About eighty percent were going in for drugs or felony DUI (3rd or greater DUI). I guess some of the drug cases had resisting arrest, so maybe that's a disparity.
Florida also has a severe penalty for what the state calls armed trafficking - concurrent possession of drugs and weapons; the maximum sentence is life in prison. Many of the panhandle counties are zero-tolerance meaning a roach in the ashtray and a shotgun in the window rack of one's truck (a common occurrence in North Florida) can put one at the mercy of an overzealous prosecutor. This was always a fear when stopping to gather mushrooms on the way home from Tallahassee's excellent public shooting range.
Few drug users are ever sent to prison in FL, they have been giver several opportunities to get their lives together, prior to sentencing guideline I was involved in a study that look at ALL the inmates in FL sent to prison for possession , I remember to this day we found only six (6)?.most everyone of the cases that were in prison were Sales cases that were allowed by the State Attorney to plead guilty to Possession rather than Sales charges which carried a longer sentence. Just don't believe all this Crapola about who goes to prison for possession of a small amount of drugs..I would like to see our Prison population decline, a beefed up Probation agency would help. Today there are 50% of the Probation Officers that they 8 yrs ago?if they can't watch them the system fails. FL had a great Probation system ?.it doesn't today.
"Few drug users are ever sent to prison in FL, they have been giver several opportunities to get their lives together . . ."
This is simply false. Because "trafficking" is defined as possession (above a certain weight), and because the relevant weight for prescription drugs is only 4 grams, and because Florida weighs the entire pill, it takes possessing only eight pills to trigger a "trafficking" charge, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence. DOC wouldn't classify these prisoners as having violated the possession statute - 893.13 - but would classify them as having violated the trafficking statute - 893.135 - even though their behavior (to wit, possession and use of drugs) is the same.
See page 18 of the Florida TaxWatch criminal justice report for a full breakdown of FY 2010-2011 DOC admissions for drug crimes: http://www.floridataxwatch.org.....ndings.pdf (24% of drug admissions (3,719 total) over that period were for possession only.
Let us remember there are few First Offenders in the Justice System and Many first Arrestees, Law Enforcement doesn't arrest people arrested the first time they did drugs----Think about it
Shorter JucticePro - "Everybody is guilty of something."
This is also incorrect. While there's no way to tell, obviously, whether someone gets arrested "the first time they did drugs" (sic), Florida TaxWatch data indicate that 75% of prisoners serving mandatory minimum drug sentences have no prior prison record. (They could, of course, have served time in county jails, but the larger point is that we're locking up nonviolent offenders with no felony history for 3, 15 and sometimes 25 years at a time (see Scott Earle) at tremendous cost to Florida taxpayers with virtually no public safety benefit in return.