Hey party people. This article originally appeared in print for Dig Boston last week, so now I'm sharing it online in case you don't live in Boston and want to read it. What do you think about mandatory maximum sentencing in some states? Read on and let me know.
Back in July of 2012, Governor Deval Patrick begrudgingly showed support for the Massachusetts "three strikes" bill that recently became law. According to the Boston Globe, Patrick buckled under political pressure from law enforcement agencies, victims rights groups, and families of victims. Politically, it was the right thing to do at the time. In general, loaded bills such as "three strikes" are never straight forward and tend to have great arguments from both sides for signage or veto.
However, if you step back and take a look at long term implications of such a bill, things start to become a little hazy.
Bills like "three strikes," and other federal policies for ex offenders either in prison, or being released, create a punitive system of recidivism for some looking for a second chance.
Why are these pieces of legislation sometimes unnecessarily punitive? In the case of "three strikes," it introduces a mandatory maximum sentence for repeat offenders of certain crimes. This means: no parole, no going back to court, and certainly no rehabilitation programs to reintegrate into society. For truly violent offenders, this provides some peace of mind to victims and families of victims, and keeps those individuals off the streets for good. However, for offenders who are getting picked up on felonies not violent in nature, like drug charges, the "three strikes" net picks them up as well.
More money is being funneled into the already bloated prison industry, overcrowded with inmates whom could benefit more greatly from rehabilitation programs to include: education, life skills, or job training, not stringent punitive measures to continue the cycle of violence. This national trend of defunding social welfare programs continues to be thematic in prisons systems as well.
While "three strikes" is a bleak solution to reducing crime, Massachusetts actually just passed a relatively progressive CORI(Criminal Offender Record Information) reform bill in the commonwealth, according to the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and the ACLU. Based on the original
CORI law, questions regarding criminal history on initial job applications were deemed appropriate. With the reform, it's now banned, unless the applicant is subject to identifying themselves based on federal mandate.
Also, ex offenders now have the right to seal unrepresentative cases if they're ten years old for felonies, and five for misdemeanors. This can create a newer, cleaner version of a CORI for job and housing interviews. However, the road is still long and difficult for ex offenders post prison life.
As someone who works with ex offenders daily, I've seen firsthand the struggles of men and women who have wrestled with addiction and committed crimes years ago. However, once they're released from prison, already sparse and underfunded reentry programs are full, and most end up in homeless shelters, or on the streets.
If the Commonwealth's answer to reintegrating ex offenders into the community is to limit their resources, ban them from subsidized housing and gainful employment, and defund treatment programs that could better their lives, then it remains unquestionably clear why the rates of recidivism are sky high, and people continue to commit crimes. The worst position to place a person at high risk of committing another crime, with potentially undiagnosed mental illness and trauma, is an unstable environment: a shelter, the street. What is the expected outcome of such public policy?
While good steps forward have been taken, a few steps backward stand in the way of true reform and rehabilitation of some offenders who deserve a second chance.