inside sources print logo
Get up-to-date news in your inbox

OPINION: Sanders Is Right About Letting Prisoners Vote

On September 9, 1971, complaining of brutality and unsanitary conditions, the inmates of Attica State Prison in upstate New York revolted, wrested control from the prison guards, and took hostages. After 28 days of negotiations, all inmate demands were agreed to but one–amnesty for those who had revolted. These inmates argued that they were forced to take action because, having exhausted every lawful avenue available to them, there was no effective alternative to seek redress of serious and legitimate grievances.

Among their negotiated agreements was the right to vote.

Then, in a much-criticized move which permanently tarnished the career of one of the great political leaders in modern New York history, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller called in troops to forcibly retake the prison and 43 people, mostly prisoners, were killed. Simply giving these men a voice at the ballot box might well have forced elected officials to pay prompt attention to Attica and avoided this human tragedy. Instead, the events at Attica State fanned the flames of hatred and mistrust in prisons and in communities of color across the country.

As an activist for prison reform attending a nearby university at the time of the standoff, I was one of a group of student activists who met with mothers of Attica inmates who worried about the potential of a deadly outcome. The insurgents were blacks, the guards they’d taken hostage were white. We were privileged white kids from far away suburbs who weren’t even old enough to vote ourselves.  These prisoners’ families were inner-city minorities, but they believed we were the nearest thing they had to a connection with the white political establishment, so they begged us to do whatever we could to urge a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

In the end, however, our political action as non-voters went equally unheeded. We watched the news coverage as the horror of the retaking unfolded. I was deeply affected by what I believed to be one of the greatest racially motivated massacres in modern American history. The attack, replete with helicopters, tear gas, and assault rifles, looked like something from Vietnam.

Many years later, I was a frequent visitor to prisons while representing inmates as a criminal appellate attorney. I also have a family member who works in a prison every day.  From the resulting evidence I have garnered, far too many prison inmates today have little to no sense of loyalty to American society, but rather, an unhealthy allegiance to their respective gangs. The gang culture is all-encompassing and it is dangerous for both inmates and prison staff. Too many inmates, both white and of color, are members of either racist or hate-based gangs.

While their lawyer, I tried to highlight for inmates their equal ownership of the fundamental rights of all Americans–the right to a fair trial, to effective counsel, and against self-incrimination, among others–which few had ever experienced or understood. For more than a few, it instilled a sense of dignity which they heretofore had not known. Win or lose, the process of exercising those fundamental rights before the high courts often helped illuminate for them their lost connection to fellow members of their ultimate gang, the one to which we all belong, that American brotherhood of unalienable rights.

We should, therefore, never underestimate the power of being “woke” to our collective democratic heritage. In fact, so valuable was a similar membership in a democracy to the great philosopher Socrates that he chose death by poison hemlock rather than be banished as a citizen of the world’s first democracy, Athens.

To protect a right to a redress of grievances, to lend dignity to the internal prison culture, and to promote the ultimate rehabilitation of inmates, most of Europe and Canada afford the right to vote to every prisoner. So do the states of Maine and Vermont, with the only stipulation being they cannot vote in the local election where the prison lies so as not to have an inordinate impact on that community. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these two states have the lowest crime rates in the country.

Given that the U.S. incarcerates more people than presently live in the state of Rhode Island, the vast majority of which are coming back out some day, maybe we ought to think a little harder about giving them what might be the single greatest leg up on eventually becoming a civilized citizen, the right to vote.

As the Supreme Court has already affirmed that a prisoner does not give up his citizenship or his First Amendment rights by being incarcerated, voting inmates will have the right to access political information and will undoubtedly attract some attention from those who run for office. The resulting opportunity to learn how their government works, learn their Constitutional rights, and participate in democracy, just may lead some to don that cloak of dignity and pride, in common with their keepers, and every American.  And just perhaps they will sooner shed the brand stamped on their forearm by the gang culture that led them to prison, exchanging it for the deeper one they internalize in common with the rest of us.

Many of us outside the prison walls are fond of boasting about our democracy, its hard-earned heritage, and its unique role in history. Our greatest presidents have even called upon us to carry its torch to light the rest of the world. How incongruous of us, then, to deny the right of participation in that democracy to our own citizens who, although incarcerated, will largely be returning to our midst, and still expect them to become responsible members of American society.

There is much to gain and little to lose in finally joining the rest of the civilized world to give them the vote.

Senators Optimistic FIRST STEP Act Will Pass, but Will It Solve America’s Prison Problem?

In an era of increasing political polarization, sentencing reform is one of the rare issues with bipartisan support. Even though incarceration rates are lower than they have been in years, the U.S. still incarcerates more people than most other countries and long sentences drain government budgets. Clearly something should be done, but existing proposals reveal that the problem is too big for any single piece of legislation to solve.

The FIRST STEP Act has the support of many influential members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), and Mike Lee (Utah), as well as Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) and the White House. The act would allow prisoners to earn “time credits” for participating in “evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities.” These credits would be deducted from the time they were sentenced to serve.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are optimistic that the bill, which arrived in the Senate this week, would pass a floor vote.

“If we get a vote, this thing will pass,” said Lee at an event sponsored by the Washington Post on Tuesday. “This is something I have been working on for the better part of the eight years that I have been in the United States Senate. “We’ve never been closer than we are right now.”

If passed, FIRST STEP would help to reduce incarceration time for prisoners who are already in the federal system. Proponents of the bill can provide numerous examples of minority prisoners who spent decades in jail for non-violent drug offenses.

However, opponents of the bill argue that there are relatively few people in the federal system who meet this classification, and the FIRST STEP act does nothing to help prisoners in state systems.

“The problem with the bill in part is that it conflates the federal system and the state system,” says Larry Leiser, president of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. He explains that incarceration rates often conflate the two systems and that Congress only has the authority to change sentencing for federal crimes, which are of greater severity.

For example, possession charges in the federal system are generally reserved for large amounts of drugs–several kilograms–implying that those charged are working as drug mules. Mandatory minimum sentences apply to some, though not all of these cases. People charged under these statutes have another opportunity to reduce their sentence by cooperating with law enforcement, he explains, adding that only 12 percent of federal inmates were serving mandatory minimums and these generally because significant quantities of drugs were involved and the individuals refused to cooperate.

“The most effective way of avoiding a mandatory minimum is that if you cooperate with us, you will get your sentence reduced,” he added.

While true, that attitude does little to help those who have already been sentenced. The system today skews more towards keeping criminals off the streets than preventing them from reoffending and this is a growing problem. According to one recently-released Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey, some 83 percent of state prisoners reoffended in the first nine years after their release. Supporters of the FIRST STEP act believe that it will encourage prisoners to take classes in both job skills and life skills, such as parenting and conflict resolution.

In fact, sentencing reform is itself a compromise between different attitudes towards drug legalization. When pressed to discuss the possibility of decriminalization, Grassley, one of the key Republican sponsors of the FIRST ACT, declined even to speculate on its prospects. Although there is support for measures to allow prisoners to work to reduce their time served for drug offenses, the current Congress is not looking to legalize marijuana or take other measure to change other drug laws.

In the meantime, the focus is on sentencing reform, which is seen as a much more achievable goal. Senators from both parties agree that the bill currently has the support not just of President Trump, but also of more the than 73 senators. The last remaining question is if it will be brought up for a vote before the end of the session.

“We need to get a vote. There is not reason why we shouldn’t get a vote,” said Lee. But for now, the matter rests in Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s hands.

Follow Erin on Twitter.