Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice Reform Is Having a (Long Overdue) Moment

Slowly but surely, some of the most glaring problems of our criminal justice system are being addressed.

|

Last May, reality TV mega-celebrity Kim Kardashian arrived at the White House and successfully lobbied President Donald Trump to grant clemency to Alice Marie Johnson, a grandmother then serving life in federal prison for a nonviolent drug crime.

It would be easy to read that sentence as an encapsulation of the deeply absurd times we're living through, but 2018 was full of similarly unexpected and encouraging turns in the fight to reform the criminal justice system. Along with Kardashian getting lifers out of prison, Republicans and Democrats hugged on the Senate floor to celebrate the passage of a bill rolling back some mandatory minimum sentences, and former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones stood in the White House with conservative and evangelical Christian leaders to applaud the signing of that bill. Johnson, who served 21 years in federal prison before Kardashian got her released, was an honored guest at Trump's State of the Union speech this January and published a book about her experiences.

The U.S. criminal justice system railroads innocent people and petty offenders every day. People die in jails and prisons due to neglect or plain malice by public officials. Even if the U.S. released every single nonviolent drug offender currently behind bars, it would still have the highest prison population in the world by a wide margin. These are problems that won't be completely resolved any time soon. Yet ever so slowly, thanks to a combination of criminal justice advocates, budget-conscious legislators, and voter demand—not to mention the devastating testimony of people like Johnson—some of the system's most glaring problems are being addressed. Solutions may still be a long way off, but real progress is being made.

Cross-partisan efforts are happening around the country—at the federal, state, and local levels—to change the way people interact with every facet of the criminal justice system, from initial police encounters to sentencing to prisoner re-entry back into society. Some of those efforts will fail. Others will be misguided or ineffectual. But the fact that policy makers are considering alternatives to the lock-'em-up mentality that dominated much of the latter half of the 20th century, and are working with their usual political opponents to make it happen, is a cause for optimism.

Congress Took a Baby Step

In December, federal lawmakers passed the first major criminal justice bill in nearly a decade: the FIRST STEP Act. Although a small cadre of Republicans tried to scuttle the bill, it passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate. Some of the GOP senators who shepherded it through Congress, such as Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), had previously been among the staunchest supporters of harsh drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences.

The legislation was almost painfully modest in scope. It reduced, but didn't eliminate, several mandatory minimum sentences, and it provided retroactive sentencing reductions to about 3,000 federal inmates serving time under draconian crack cocaine laws. It was riddled with exceptions to appease law enforcement groups, but considering how long it had been since Congress had done, well, anything worth celebrating, it was a notable success.

The biggest lift for those backing the bill was securing the support of Donald Trump, who had made fearmongering about crime one of the highlights of his stump speeches as a 2016 candidate. A bipartisan group of lawmakers and advocates, including White House adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, worked for months to convince the president that unjust laws were putting nonviolent offenders in prison for far too long and giving inmates far too few opportunities to succeed when they re-entered society.

For his part, Trump seems to enjoy the positive press he's received on the issue. The White House bragged in an April press release that the FIRST STEP Act had already resulted in 573 federal inmates being released early from prison. That list included people who were serving life sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, who had expected to die behind bars.

There are many more people languishing in prison under indefensible mandatory minimum sentences who deserve to be freed. But for the former inmates and their families who have been reunited, the benefit has been unquantifiable.

Many civil liberties groups worried that the first step would turn out to be the only step—that the Trump administration and Congress would pat themselves on the back and declare the criminal justice system fixed. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, both of which had opposed earlier, weaker versions of the FIRST STEP Act, wrote in a joint statement that the bill was "an important but modest step forward for justice and human dignity. But it is not the end of our fight." The same advocates who got the law passed are now keeping pressure on the Trump administration to fully implement its provisions.

States Are Pushing Ahead With Reforms

Over the last decade, the bulk of criminal justice reforms have happened at the state level. That trend shows no sign of slowing down. Responding to the promising bipartisan developments in Congress, the Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina legislatures all considered state-level versions of the FIRST STEP Act this year.

One reason many states are looking for ways to reform their criminal justice systems is that their prisons are overcrowded, understaffed, wildly expensive, and dangerous. In Florida, legislators are grappling with how to draw down the third-largest incarcerated population in the country. That population is growing older and more expensive to care for, due to the mandatory minimum sentences many inmates are serving.

"The truth is the state can't afford 96,000 inmates, not without spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year and pulling that money from education or health care, which it doesn't want to do," says Florida state Sen. Jeff Brandes, a Republican.

Meanwhile, California is using algorithms to automatically expunge the criminal records of tens of thousands of marijuana offenders, freeing them from the lifelong stigma that a rap sheet carries. If this pilot program spreads, it could go a long way toward rolling back some of the damage wrought by the drug war.

In April, the New York state legislature eliminated cash bail for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, which had been needlessly trapping poor people behind bars. The Marshall Project reported that 33,000 criminal defendants in the state spent time in jail in 2017 because they couldn't afford to post bail. New York legislators also reformed the state's discovery rules, which previously allowed prosecutors to withhold evidence from defense attorneys until the very eve of trial. (Public defenders called it "trial by ambush.") Together, these reforms help level the playing field for defendants in what has traditionally been one of the most backward states in the U.S. when it comes to criminal justice policies.

Meanwhile, capital punishment continued its slow decline last year. The Death Penalty Information Center reported that executions remained near historic lows in 2018, while the number of death penalty sentences imposed dropped for the 18th straight year. Only eight states now perform executions. Last year, Washington's supreme court ruled the state's death penalty law unconstitutional, and earlier this year California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a moratorium on executions.

Voters Are Holding Prosecutors Accountable

In major cities across the country, district attorney (D.A.) elections have gone from sleepy, often-uncontested affairs to high-profile races that have drawn attention to the powerful role the prosecutor plays in mass incarceration.

In many of these races, candidates running on explicit reform platforms have unseated incumbents and launched ambitious programs to change the way prosecutors' offices operate.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a former civil rights lawyer who was elected to be the city's top prosecutor in 2017, ordered his line prosecutors to stop bringing charges for minor marijuana violations, to request more lenient sentences for a number of crimes, and to not seek bail for 25 minor offenses. A February study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and George Mason University found that the bail policy led to an immediate 22 percent decline in defendants who spent at least one night in jail. And according to a presentation Krasner gave to the Philadelphia City Council in April, the estimated total time to which defendants were sentenced during the last three months of 2018 dropped by 46 percent compared to the first three months of 2014.

In Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes Boston, District Attorney Rachael Rollins was elected in 2018 on promises to stop prosecuting 15 different minor crimes and to largely end cash bail. And in Birmingham, Alabama, District Attorney Danny Carr is proposing a "cite-and-release" plan for simple marijuana possession.

These reform-minded D.A.s face pushback from law enforcement as well as, in some cases, from judges, who are often former prosecutors. For example, judges rejected Krasner's recommendations in the resentencing of defendants who had been given life without parole as juveniles, a practice the Supreme Court later ruled was unconstitutional.

Yet the trends are positive. In Queens, New York, seven candidates are running for district attorney—all of them on reform platforms. And in Philadelphia, activists have turned their attention to the next public office they want to target: judges.

Violent Crime and the Prison Population Are Declining

Despite a two-year increase in violent crime in 2015 and 2016, with murders spiking dramatically in several major cities, overall crime rates in the U.S. remain at historic lows and now appear to be holding steady or continuing their decadeslong decline.

Nationally, the violent crime rate in 2017 fell by 0.9 percent from the previous year, while the murder rate fell by 1.4 percent, according to the FBI's annual crime report. Property crime continued a more-than-20-year slowdown. Aggravated assault and rape rates both increased, by 2.2 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively—but for context, the total number of crimes per 100,000 people in major American cities has fallen precipitously from just under 10,000 in 1990 to fewer than 4,000 in 2018, according to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice.

As the crime rate has fallen, the U.S. prison population has also continued to decline, albeit slowly. A report released in April by the Vera Institute of Justice found that there were just under 1.5 million people incarcerated in federal and state prisons across the country in 2018—a nine-year low and a drop of 1.3 percent from 2017.

"Since 2008, the incarceration rate in the country has dropped 15 percent," says Jacob Kang-Brown, a senior research associate at the pro-reform Vera Institute. "And underneath that number you see quite a few states have dropped over 30 percent during that time. I think that those states that are really leading the way can be an example to the states that are still putting more and more people in their prison systems."

There are several troubling trends lurking beneath that topline number, Kang-Brown says. While the prison population decreased in 31 states, including California, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania, it rose in 19 others—many of them places that have traditionally had low incarceration rates, such as Iowa, Indiana, and Wyoming. In Indiana, the legislature several years ago passed reforms meant to reduce the state's prison population. Instead, they diverted low-level inmates to county jails, which are now severely overcrowded. In Wyoming, officials say tough sentences for drug and sex crimes are driving the increase.

The overall number of incarcerated women has climbed as well. And in some states where prison populations are falling, those reductions haven't reached minorities.

"We may want to celebrate reform efforts that have led to the drop in the prison rate in Minnesota," Kang-Brown says. "However, a closer look at the data shows that this downward trend only affected white people and does not adequately address the racial disparities that we know exist in our justice system. Better data will help us interrogate not just the effectiveness of reform but who benefits from reform."

A Positive Trajectory

Even though the criminal justice system remains problem-plagued, we can take some heart from the trajectory toward shorter sentences and less taxpayer money spent on caging people whose so-called crimes haven't hurt anyone.

Eternal vigilance will be required to ensure that new prison sentences aren't the default answer to every new problem, but it's significant that many conservative groups are now urging Republicans to resist their most punitive instincts.

Even if Congress reneges on its newfound love for bipartisan criminal justice reforms, activists will continue to work around them, as they have for decades. And if all else fails, Kim Kardashian is now reportedly studying for the California bar exam.

Advertisement

NEXT: Judge Rejects Nicholas Sandmann's Claim Against Washington Post

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. […] types of positive reform outcomes that prompted Reason reporter C.J. Ciaramella to declare that “Criminal Justice Is Having a (Long Overdue) Moment” in our special Good News/Bad News issue of Reason, on newsstands right now. Check the issue out […]

    1. Shouldn’t the connection between PTSD and crime get more attention? Specifically – child abuse.

      1. No, at least not pre-conviction. Giving people a pass on crime whether from mental illness, drug abuse, etc. just increases the number of victims.

        Post conviction that can be addressed, especially when “the system” has more leverage to make sure people are conforming to their treatment plans.

  2. […] types of positive reform outcomes that prompted Reason reporter C.J. Ciaramella to declare that “Criminal Justice Is Having a (Long Overdue) Moment” in our special Good News/Bad News issue of Reason, on newsstands right now. Check the issue out […]

  3. […] types of positive reform outcomes that prompted Reason reporter C.J. Ciaramella to declare that “Criminal Justice Is Having a (Long Overdue) Moment” in our special Good News/Bad News issue of Reason, on newsstands right now. Check the issue out […]

  4. […] types of positive reform outcomes that prompted Reason reporter C.J. Ciaramella to declare that “Criminal Justice Is Having a (Long Overdue) Moment” in our special Good News/Bad News issue of Reason, on newsstands right now. Check the issue out […]

  5. I know, baby steps, but addressing the back-end sentencing and incarceration concerns does nothing about the front-end law enforcement and prosecution problem. As long as cops and prosecutors are safe from wrongful arrest and wrongful prosecution charges, nobody is safe from being wrongfully arrested and wrongfully prosecuted. The power prosecutors have to coerce plea bargain agreements out of hapless defendants and the willful disregard of the criminal justice system to what’s really going on are the major problems that need to be addressed – the law operates on a system of trust and respect and I don’t know that there’s still all that much trust and respect left for the law.

    1. +1 for Like button

    2. The single best way to reform the front end is with accountability. When an individual cop or prosecutor does something stupid, hold them, personally, accountable. Take money out of their pay check, charge them with the crimes they committed.

      When authority and accountability do not match, you have corruption. Accountability applies to most people, and most people are pretty darned polite o each other in general terms. Hold cops and prosecutors personally accountable for their transgressions, and they will become a lot more polite a lot more quickly than all this legislation will ever do.

      The worst excesses of government are not fixed by adding more excesses. You can’t fine-tune legislation into a better simulation of free markets. Free markets make society friendly and cooperative; governments ruin that.

      Get the free market back into judicial interactions by holding cops and prosecutors personally accountable, as they are in their own personal daily lives, and the legal system will reform itself.

      1. “When authority and accountability do not match, you have corruption.”

        Everywhere and always. The gov’t schools are a classic example.

    3. My thoughts exactly Jersey. The points made in the article are obviously good news. But the U.S. is by any reasonable standard a police state. As long as cops, prosecutors and judges are immune from any consequences for their actions no one is safe no matter how much legislators tweak the statutes.

      1. Is it only the USA? I thought this was a problem pretty much worldwide.

  6. America has the best criminal justice system in the World but its been manipulated into a weapon and it does require informed public participation. Getting back to constitutional roots of defendant rights would make vast improvements, which would include:

    1. Constitutionally Guaranteed non-excessive bail for every defendant. If they skip, catch them and raise the bail.
    2. Speedy jury trials for all defendants. This would cause prosecutors to be more selective in charging cases since all criminal cases would require trials.
    3. Appellate courts need to acknowledge that many defendants are not getting effective assistance of counsel. This would be more apparent without plea bargains which are easy for crappy lawyers to make a living by screwing defendants over when they need a lawyer to actually defendant them.
    4. The Defendant should get an equal budget amount to spend on defense that the Prosecutor gets.
    5. DNA testing should be paid for by the state when innocent defendants want to have a bad conviction overturned.
    6. ‘Expert Witnesses’ need a more strict standard by which they can be called ‘experts’. Police officers with 1 year on the job are not experts in law enforcement.
    7. Any corruption by testing labs or police department should result in all criminal cases being vacated. This is incentive to run fair testing and plice investigations.
    8. All confessions need to be videoed. All minor interviews need a parent present and they have the right to a lawyer present before questioning.
    9. Stricter enforcement of 4th Amendment search and seizures.
    10. the 5th Amendment right to no self-incrimination is automatic.

    1. #7 needs to be “all forensic testing must be done by independent laboratories in a scientific and truly blinded manner. E.G. forensics technicians should not know which samples are from the ‘perp’ and which are not.”

      1. +100

        I would support that.

    2. Also need some way to address the “plea bargain” problem alluded to. If prosecutors can threaten people with life in prison and offer 5 years for a guilty plea, can we really be sure there is justice?

      Not to drag politics into this, but there are reports that Mueller extracted a plea from Michael Flynn by threatening his family members – which would make sense since the FBI agents he plead guilty to lying to have said that they do not believe he was intentionally lying. You’d think making a “beyond a reasonable doubt” case in court would be difficult under those circumstances.

      If prosecutors can wield that sort of boundless power to destroy anyone they desire, we can’t really clam to have a system of justice.

      1. Too many prosecutors desperately need to be stood in for the coyote in a roadrunner cartoon.

      2. The answer to plea bargaining is don’t allow prosecutors to drop charges. All charges must go to trial, and if the jury wants to, let them boomerang any charges they deem excessive.

        Or have the prosecutor list proposed punishment for each charge, and if the jury results tally up to a net negative fine or time in jail, the defendant is free to go.

        DA throws in 10 charges totaling 120 years and $200,000 fines. Jury upholds 3 charges for 10 years and $20,000. Defendant walks, gets paid $180,000, plus something for the excess 110 years.

        That would stop overcharging real fast.

        It would be even better if the DA had to personally pay the difference, but that’s pure fantasy.

    3. I thought about #4 a lot a while back, and came to the conclusion that it is unworkable. It’s far too easy to game the system. Pay under the table, pro bono pay, not listing hours spent, not listing expenses, unreported outside help, there are too many ways to make the figures incomparable.

      Then there’s the question of how closely figures must match. Do they have to match to the penny? Is within 10% ok? You know if 10% ok, people will push right up against that limit and plead mercy when they exceed it by $10, or $100, and keep pushing that limit.

      I came to the conclusion that loser pays is the only good way. This includes all costs — all court expenses, all the opponent expenses that would not have existed absent the case (lost wages, travel time, vacation time to deal with it; if someone had to take out a second mortgage, pay that off; if they lose their house because they got fired, factor that in).

      Consider a rich party, such as the government, against some poor schlub who has a good case but can’t afford an attorney, so all the shoddy evidence gets into the record. Here, any attorney working for the poor party has a very good chance of beating the rap, and thus recovering all expenses from the government, which is hardly likely to skip town. Thus the poor guy makes a good client and will have no shortage of attorneys actually competing for his case.

      Same thing with some poor single mother whose employer has refused to pay overtime, for instance. Even going to small claims court is a burden for the poor mom, who may have trouble coming up with the filing fees and won’t have much flexibility in taking a day off and finding or paying a baby sitter to show up in court on some arbitrary date. But if she has a good case, any attorney could spare a few hours and pay the babysitter costs upfront, because he knows he’ll get them back.

    4. Regarding DNA testing and expert witnesses, a related change I’d like is that all parties should be fully engaged in the investigation as soon as they are identified. If the police suspect somebody, he immediately gets to sit in on witness interviews, evidence investigation, etc. The idea that everything gets set aside and saved up for a trial six months or two years later, when memories are stale and have been set in stone by repeated rehearsals, is repugnant in any justice system.

      Instead, if someone has been identified as a suspect, they get to sit in on every single interview with witnesses, and those interviews become part of the record that juries see six months or two years later. When suspects are identified, they also get to interview all current witnesses immediately, with all other parties also present, in order to cross-examine that testimony as soon as possible. If new evidence shows up, all parties get to examine it as soon as possible. If any party thinks new evidence makes prior witness testimony look shaky, all parties interview that witness.

      Expert witnesses, same thing.

      Labs, same thing. If any party thinks a particular lab is too partisan or has a poor track record, they can bring in a different lab, or they can have their own lab participate directly in the first lab’s work, or at least watch and take notes.

      In other words, turn investigations into actual investigations, get them out of the prosecution’s arena where all they really do is dig up evidence for the prosecutions premature pet theory.

      This goes along with loser pays. All this duplication adds expense. Guilty parties who pile on expenses will owe a lot more at the end. Government prosecutors who pile up expenses on innocent people are much more likely to have a huge bill to pay off in the end,and no plausible way to avoid payment.

      1. With the labs you would still need a QC program. An independent lab or experts with a government contract are going to be biased. There needs to be random sampling with verification from an additional independent lab.

        1. Yes, by all means. Every party should be able to get any lab they want involved in the investigation.

    5. My two ideas, loser pays and combined investigations, tie together, but increase the risk that a poor guilty party can run up expenses and leave the prosecution with uncollectable “loser pays” restitution.

      The only answer I have to that is a resurrection of sorts of outlaws. Outlaws 1000 years ago were literally outside the law, it even being the duty of regular joes to try to kill them if sighted.

      I propose outlaws defined by how much they owe in verdict restitution. If someone owes $10,000, they can no longer file any charges for less than what they owe. (And if they are foolish enough to claim $20,000 for a $100 loss, that is perjury and boosts their outlaw restitution by $19,900.)

      In practical terms, this means they can be stolen blind: by their restitution creditor, especially, but also by anyone in general. Their restitution creditors show up, announce they are collecting outlaw verdict debt, and any attempt to prevent such collection is another offense.

      It doesn’t stop poor people dragging innocent employers into court for false charges, but it does raise the bar each time they do it. It encourages poor guilty people to confess and get things settled as cheaply and quickly as possible. It encourages people to go ahead and bring charges against poor guilty people, because even if they can’t collect much, they can at least tar the crook with the outlaw stigma and reduce how much harm they can do later.

    6. All this sounds good.

    7. You might run into a problem with #2. Most people dislike receiving a jury summons. Many folks think getting out of jury duty is a game. If every single case has to have a jury, everyone is going to be getting many more summonses and this may prove to be unpopular.

      1. Fewer laws. Less police.

    8. We need to address the ignoring of double jeopardy when people are charged with state and federal crimes for the same case. Or recharging for the same crime using a different law when the first prosecution fails. And, albeit not a fan of more laws, it needs to be a criminal offense when prosecutors, police or judges ignore constitutional protections.

  7. “Even if the U.S. released every single nonviolent drug offender currently behind bars, it would still have the highest prison population in the world by a wide margin.”

    I agree that criminal justice reform is important and overdue, but I get very tired of this little factoid. In the first place, what does it have to do with anything? Do we REALLY believe the incarceration figures coming out of, for example, Iran? And what about North Korea, with 100% of the population imprisoned?

    It’s like the substitution of ‘undocumented immigrants’ for ‘illegal aliens’. It pleases the choir, but strikes a sour note with those you need to persuade.

    1. *Every* includes a lot of countries which aren’t hellholes. It’s still a sign of something wrong.

    2. They also used population, not population rate. It’s an idiots guide to statistics.

    3. Besides, when American incarceration rates get compared to North Korea, isn’t everyone in North Korea a prisoner?

      That would make NK’s incarceration rate at ~100% and America is far below that.

  8. Outside the box question #1: why do we have an adversarial criminal justice system?

    Since at least the 18th century we have recognized and aspired (at least some of us) to think objectively and rationally, perhaps best exemplified by science. While adversaries seem more apropos in civil legal issues, where two private parties seek a solution sanctioned by the impartial (?) state, how does this map onto criminal prosecution?

    If we are truly enlightened (and not just fond of ritual and entrenched guilds) why not clearly define illegal acts, and when someone is suspected of a transgression, then have a system dedicated to determining the objective truth, not two sides staking out extreme positions hoping for a compromise they can live with?

    Criminal prosecution may be one of the few human interactions where markets are not the solution.

    1. Because you would have to have angels operating your system of objective truth. Go find me some angels and I’ll agree we should give it a shot.

      1. Yeah, but it might be worth a shot. We’ve had 3 centuries (at least) of breeding legal sharks, and now we complain about extremism and irrational behavior (from both prosecutors and defenders). Maybe we can breed for rational objectivity instead.

  9. JUSTIN AMASH!! NATIONAL CONSERVATISM (fascists)!! LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ARE SAME SAME!!!

    Wait… what? An balanced article on a libertarian topic like criminal justice reform on all-woke, neo-Reason? Where’s the far left spin?
    What will Chemleft say. He’ll be so mad.

    1. Sheesh, I must live in your head.
      It’s a great article, by the way.

      1. Oh you mad!!!

  10. Outside the box question #2: can we bring back exile?

    I agree that incarceration is not justified for many crimes. But neither is allowing a truly guilty party to escape any meaningful punishment. So how about judgments that just tell people they are not welcome in the offended jurisdiction for some period of time?

    1. can we bring back exile?

      No.

      1. We could send them to wherever that Kirkland guy lives.

    2. Georgia has banishment as punishment.

      Kat Williams got banished from two counties a few years ago.
      Kat Williams banished from two Georgia counties

      However, Williams was banished from Hall and Dawson counties and ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution to the victim and perform 100 hours of community service, District Attorney Ray Mayer told the Gainesville Times. Williams will be on probation for five years as part of the deal. If he complies with the terms of his probation, the probation and the ban could end as soon as two years.

    3. Interesting concept. Did it used to occur? I was watching some old Andy Griffith re-run (while reading Socrates, yeah that’s it) and the episode concerned a pickpocketing con man who was run out of the next county over. Cops escorted him to the county line and told him not to come back. Naturally, he lands in Mayberry, etc. etc. I don’t think something like that would have been written into the script if it wasn’t a common occurrence.

      1. I have watched the reruns. I like old comedy. Don Knotts was great in the show.

        I think they played pretty loose with the law in the scripts with Andy ignoring some things and acting as judge and jury in other cases. It was part of the dynamic between him and Barney and the episodes where outside law enforcement came into town.

        Anyway I have way too many useless facts about these TV shows. Don’t even get me started on Gilligan’s Island.

        1. I know, right?!?!? A country as rich and powerful as ours could send men to the moon but couldn’t rescue seven people stuck on an island. It’s embarrassing.

          1. But the things they could make from bamboo!

            Besides, are you sure they really wanted to be rescued?

            1. Aha

              I have theories about why each of them were happier on the island.

              Gilligan and the Skipper were a couple. In those days you could not live that way.

              Ginger was a failed actress. She could live out her dream of having been successful on the island.

              The professor was not really a professor. He could live out his fantasy there. Plus you know he had something going on with one of the girls, or both of them.

              The Howells had lost their fortune.

              Maryanne (my crush as a kid) is a mystery. Something must have caused her to live a simple life. She was a farm girl originally and maybe the pressures of modern life were too much for her.

              I have given this show way too much thought.

              BTW Dawn Wells, Mary Ann made the most money off the show. She had a contract to get residuals off the reruns. The rest were just paid per episode.

              1. Ginger was a bisexual nympho who liked the island because it was a target rich environment. And the longer they were there the more deprived the sexual exploits got? I could see some great fanfiction from this premise.

                1. Mrs. Howell in latex carrying a whip?

                  Ok this is going too far.

                  1. And a strap on. Mr Howell was into pegging.

  11. O>K, criminal justice reform, but what does it consist mainly of?

    1. A “be nicer to prisoners” sentiment.
    2. Don’t keep them so long
    3. Don’t keep so many
    4. Take away some procedural advantages from prosecutors.

    Not much there to do with fundamentals, and most of it can be attacked on the grounds of, “We need to lock up more, longer, and less nicely.”

  12. […] types of positive reform outcomes that prompted Reason reporter C.J. Ciaramella to declare that “Criminal Justice Is Having a (Long Overdue) Moment” in our special Good News/Bad News issue of Reason, on newsstands right now. Check the issue […]

  13. good post , thanks for sharing , becuase this article is good
    یاسین ترکی

    1. یاسین ترکی ?

  14. Shouldn’t the connection between PTSD and crime get more attention? Specifically – child abuse.

  15. Kim Kardashian is now reportedly studying for the California bar exam

    For a family that only became famous because their father became famous during the OJ trial, it seems a bit surprising that this is the first time I’ve ever heard of any of that clan doing anything remotely studious.

    1. That and getting Black Americans out of prison with Trump’s help.

      Democrats dont like that because Lefties are so down for Prison Industrial Complex slavery.

  16. Get those people out of jail so we can put illegal immigrants in there!

    Ha!

  17. test

  18. […] NEXT: Criminal Justice Reform Is Having a (Long Overdu […]

  19. […] also had harsh words for a new crop of reform-minded district attorneys who have won elections around the U.S. While these folks had to campaign for voter support, Barr […]

  20. Good legal information about criminal justice. Students now easily understand about criminal law with the help of law assignment help.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.