Category: Uncategorized

Women account for only 10.4% of the incarcerated population in the United States. Yet they often face issues that are unique to them in jails and prisons. These issues, such as lack of access to essential medical supplies, are often overlooked. Now, a new bill in Mississippi looks to confront some of the issues with women’s incarceration in the state.

Women face specific issues related to incarceration.

Many states have only one women’s facility. That means that, for most women, they only have one option for housing. Men in most states can transfer between facilities to find a better housing fit and avoid dangerous situations. But women in these states don’t have that option. If they encounter problems with staff or other prisoners, they are unlikely to be able to move.

Another major difference has to do with childcare. More than 60% of women housed in state prisons are the primary caretaker of one or more children. That compares to 44% of men. When it comes to jails, that number jumps up to 80% for women.

Issues around pregnancy and menstruation are prevalent in women’s prisons.

Some issues are exclusive to people who can get pregnant or menstruate. Studies estimate that at any given time, between five and ten percent of incarcerated women in the United States are pregnant. Around 2,000 babies are born to incarcerated women each year.

Yet prisons do not appear to be universally equipped to deal with these issues. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 54% of incarcerated pregnant people received some kind of pregnancy care. Fewer than half of prisons have designated policies for pregnant prisoners.

Menstruation needs are frequently overlooked in prisons. Currently, only four states supply women in prison with feminine hygiene products like pads and tampons for free. In other states, women must purchase these supplies if they are available at all. However, given the rate of pay for prison labor, this is cost-prohibitive for many prisoners.

One review of prison conditions in Texas found that 54% of prisoners didn’t have access to menstrual supplies at the time of need. Situations like these can lead to women overusing certain supplies or creating makeshift pads and tampons of their own. This lack of sanitary products can lead to toxic shock syndrome, sepsis and, in some cases, death.

Image courtesy of RODNAE Productions via Pexels.

A new bill in Mississippi looks to improve conditions for incarcerated women.

Lawmakers in Mississippi introduced HB 196, also known as the Dignity For Incarcerated Women Act, at the beginning of 2021. The bill opens by citing a number of troubling statistics around women’s incarceration in Mississippi and the country at large, outlining the need for the legislation. It says that the number of women in prison in Mississippi has risen by a third since 2001. The number of people under the age of 18 with a mother in prison has doubled since 1991. Children who grow up with parents in prison are six to seven times more likely to end up in prison themselves. It also points out that “prenatal care significantly improves outcomes for pregnant women and infants.”

Under HB 196, the Mississippi Department of Corrections would be obligated to ensure that each facility is stocked with “sufficient” menstrual supplies. It says that they will be supplied to low-income prisoners at no cost. In doing so, the bill implies that jails and prisons would charge for these supplies.

The bill makes a number of changes to how staff can interact with and discipline pregnant people. It prohibits the use of restraints such as leg restraints or behind-the-back handcuffs during pregnancy and for 30 days after giving birth. The bill would still allow for someone in those situations to have their hands cuffed in front of them. It also prohibits placing these people in restrictive housing, such as solitary confinement. If staff want to confine a prisoner in this way, they must submit a request 72 hours in advance.

The bill also addresses post-partum needs.

Also included in the Dignity For Incarcerated Women Act are new post-partum guidelines. Under the bill, new mothers would be able to spend 72 hours with their newborns following birth. It also requires that facilities “make available” nutritional and hygeine products such as diapers.

The bill also attempts to make visitation easier. It prohibits the DOC from locating “parents of minor children” more than 250 miles from their permanent address. Interestingly, this language does not differentiate between men and women. It only says “parents.” It also loosens restrictions on visitations, enabling children to visit incarcerated parents twice per week.

Rounding out the bill are a number of educational and training provisions. The DOC would be required to develop and provide training to all staff on how to deal with pregnant prisoners. It also would provide education for pregnant prisoners on birthing and childcare.

Image courtesy of Isaac Taylor via Pexels.

The “Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act” is a start, but that’s about it.

The Diginity for Incarcerated Women Act does address a number of important issues around women’s incarceration in Mississippi. The bill takes important steps to creating a safer environment for women. It also makes some important concessions around issues of parenting.

State Representative Nick Bain (R-2), one of the bill’s sponsors, touted the legislation as a sign of progress. “I thought it was the right thing to do,” he said. “This was a relatively easy lift, in terms of sending a message to the Department of Justice that we’re serious about improving our standards in our prisons.”

But it’s arguable whether an “easy lift” is what people need. Like other red-state justice reforms, HB 196 seeks to improve the quality of life in prison, but it only does so marginally. And it does so by leaving a lot up to the discretion of the same people who helped create the situation at hand.

One example is with menstrual supplies. The bill only requires that the DOC make these products available. It does not require that they be free, unless a prisoner is so impoverished that they have no way of affording them.

These are supplies that people who menstruate require as much as they require food or water. Ignoring these requirements can result in serious medical conditions or even death. Even if women in prison can technically “afford” to purchase these items, they still represent a significant expense for people who make anywhere from $0.20 to $1.50 per hour.

As a state, Mississippi has ridden a message of “pro-life” en route to becoming one of the most restrictive states for abortion rights in the country. Yet, its lawmakers appear to consider only allowing a mother to spend 72 hours with their newborn “the right thing to do” and evidence of progress. If they are serious about securing “dignity” for incarcerated women in Mississippi, HB 196 will serve as a starting block and not the finish line.

The post New Bill In Mississippi Looks To Tackle Women’s Incarceration Issues appeared first on Interrogating Justice.

In February of this year, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds proposed the “Back the Blue Act.” Introduced as Senate Study Bill 1140, the bill would make a number of new protections for police in the state and criminalize some forms of protest. However, the bill also included a ban on racial profiling and a new requirement to document racial data in traffic stops.

The “Back the Blue Act” received opposition from both civil rights groups and police associations. As a result, lawmakers broke the bill down into a trio of bills. These bills mirror similar police protection legislation in Georgia. Most of the legislation from SSB 1140 made it into Senate Files 479, 534 and 476. One key piece, however, did not.

Senate File 479 denies state funds to localities that reduce police budgets.

One component of the “Back the Blue Act” would have denied state funds to Iowa counties and cities that decreased budgets for law enforcement. That became the basis for Senate File 479.

Under the bill, there are only a few specific reasons why a “local entity” would be able to decrease its law enforcement budget. Those include if

the department made large one-time purchases in the previous year, such as for vehicles or equipment,
entry-level salaried officers replaced higher-paid senior officers,
the local entity merges any agencies, communications services or jails that results in decreased costs or
the population of that local entity decreases.

Each of the state’s 31 Republican senators voted in favor of the bill. Ten Democrats voted to approve the bill as well, while seven voted against it.

One of those who opposed was Senator Herman Quirmbach (D-23). “Nobody in this body wants to defund the police, but let’s take a more intelligent and thoughtful approach here,” said Quirmbach. “Don’t hamstring city governments in ways that remove the incentive for innovation.”

Republicans defended the bill on public safety grounds. “We need law enforcement to keep us safe,” said Sen. Chris Cournoyer (R-49). “We need to appreciate them and ensure that they have the resources and support they need.”

Image courtesy of Paul R. Burley via Wikimedia Commons.

Senate File 534 increases the penalties for several forms of protest.

Another component of Reynolds’ “Back the Blue Act” was a section that increased legal penalties for several forms of protest in Iowa. It called for elevating the penalty for obstructing any “street, sidewalk, highway, or other public way” to a Class “C” Felony. Under Iowa state law, a class “C” felony is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

It also would have elevated the charge for “unlawful assembly” to an aggravated misdemeanor. The bill also would have increased “riot crimes” from aggravated misdemeanors to Class “D” felonies, punishable by up to five years in prison.

These provisions all made it into Senate File 534. But Republican lawmakers also made several additions. One of those is a mandatory 24-hour hold for people arrested for any of the aforementioned crimes. “That’s why we’ve got these provisions that we’ve got in this bill … to make the penalties enough that people will think twice about them,” Garrett said. “We need people to obey the law.”

Senate File 534 would also protect drivers who hit protesters with their cars.

The bill would also create a new section of Iowa code to deal with drivers who accidentally hit protesters blocking the road. If a driver is “exercising due care” when they hit and injure a protester, that driver will be immune from civil liability for those injuries. This was not included in the “Back the Blue Act.”

During the debate process, Senate Democrats suggested an amendment to the bill that would have required someone to be arrested twice before the mandatory 24-hour hold kicked in.

Senator Kevin Kinney (D-39) proposed the amendment. “I just think we have to look and use some common sense in how we are forming this piece of legislation so we are fair to these people,” he said.

Kinney’s amendment failed by a 17-31 vote. Then, the Senate voted to pass the bill by that same 31-17 margin. In offering his support for the bill, Senator Julian Garrett (R-13) said the “reasonable penalties” could serve as a useful tool for law enforcement. He said the new laws could “discourage people from the kind of activity that we saw here and all over the country last summer.”

Image courtesy of Jakayla Toney via Unsplash.

Senate File 476 establishes qualified immunity for police officers and more.

One provision in the “Back the Blue Act” would have given police officers in Iowa the right to file a civil suit against any person who filed a false report against an officer. This provision became the foundation for Senate File 476.

However, lawmakers attached several other important provisions to the bill. It establishes qualified immunity under state law. In addition, it would allow police officers to know the names of people who filed complaints against them. It would also allow them to know the contents of those complaints.

Unlike the others, Senate File 476 did not receive a vote in the Senate. It was marked as “unfinished business.” This allows legislators to debate the bill after formal deadlines.

These bills are essentially the “Back the Blue Act” minus any reforms to policing.

These bills are notable for what they do not include from the “Back the Blue Act” as much as what they do. This trio of legislation includes virtually everything from Gov. Reynolds’ proposed bill. What it lacks, however, is the only real policing reform that the governor’s original bill included.

The governor’s proposed ban on racial profiling and data collection of people’s races at traffic stops was never even assigned a meeting. It also didn’t make it into any other bill being considered either.

This trio of bills that came out of the “Back the Blue Act” make the threshold for what is considered a “riot” or “unlawful assembly” dangerously low. Senate File 534 defines a riot as three or more people making a loud noise that disturbs someone. It feels like a teenager’s garage band could count as a riot under this new law. Could the members of that band could be charged with class D felonies? If that’s truly the case, these blatant restrictions on free assembly would seem to be at odds with the First Amendment.

But the Iowa House will vote on Senate Files 479 and 534 in the near future. And there is still a chance Senate File 476 could make it to a vote in this session. Given the 59-to-41 makeup of the House in favor of Republicans, it is likely that the first two will pass. If they do, Gov. Reynolds, who pushed the original “Back the Blue Act,” would almost certainly sign them into law.

After that, a wave of legal challenges from civil rights organizations would be sure to follow.

The post Bills Born From Controversial “Back the Blue Act” Advance In Iowa appeared first on Interrogating Justice.

U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley (MA-7) first introduced “The People’s Justice Guarantee” as House Resolution 702 in 2019. Rep. Pressley worked with several justice-focused nonprofit groups to develop the resolution. It addresses a wide range of issues with the criminal justice system and proposes a framework for reconciling them. The resolution went nowhere after being introduced in the House and referred to two committees.

However, on Mar, 11, Rep. Pressley reintroduced the resolution. With the current wave of justice reform around the country, will the outcome be different this time around? And if it passes, what would that even mean?

Rep. Pressley has pulled no punches in her public comments.

Rep. Pressley has been consistently candid in her speeches, on her Twitter account and with the media. So it should come as no surprise that she did not hold back talking about the bill. “The US criminal legal system is racist, xenophobic and fundamentally flawed,” reads the first sentence of her official summary of the bill. It doesn’t get any less direct from there, either.

In an interview with ESSENCE in 2020, she was no less blunt about the issues. During the interview, she opened up about her experiences growing up with a justice-impacted father. She also described the overall urgency of the situation. “These are not abstract things for me,” she said. “I’m just like one out of four children in my district that I represent—and one out of 28 children in our country—who have an incarcerated parent, loved one or caregiver.”

Image courtesy of ElizabethForMA via Wikimedia Commons

The first section of H. Res. 702 lists a variety of grievances against the criminal justice system.

The language in the text of The People’s Justice Guarantee is no less straightforward. Within its first 11 pages, the resolution recognizes no fewer than 62 separate grievances with the American criminal justice system.

The resolution spares no words when talking about these issues. It confronts the origins of the American system directly. “Whereas the American legal system duplicates and maintains systems of oppression that can be traced back to slavery,”

Similarly, the resolution addresses mass incarceration directly. It offers sobering statistics to support its conclusion that it has “become the most incarcerated country in the world.” For example, it mentions that the United States has four percent of the world’s population, yet 21% of its prisoners.

The resolution also calls out issues with disproportionate incarceration and policing. It discusses the effect this has on Black and Brown communities. The resolution also points out issues with policing and incarceration within the LGBTQ+ population.

In addition, H. Res. 702 points out the toll incarceration takes on an individual’s physical, mental and financial health. It also recognizes the effect incarceration has on a person’s family.

Finally, the resolution singles out the infamous The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (also known as the “94 Crime Bill”). For instance, it points to the bill as one of the leading reasons for the current situation. The resolution goes so far as to suggest that the bill affected the nation’s entire perception of criminal justice. “[T]he 94 Crime Bill put forward the false view that punitive systems of policing and prisons lead to public safety and are necessary to combat ‘‘violent’’ crime.”

In short, if you’ve heard of an issue with the criminal justice system, it is likely included in H. Res. 702.

The People’s Justice Guarantee also lays out an agenda for addressing these issues.

As many pages as H. Res. 702 spends addressing issues with the justice system, it spends twice as many laying out a framework for dealing with them. It does so in the form of commitments to “begin a large-scale decarceration effort to reshape the American legal system.”

The commitments are grouped around four main areas of reform: (1) reducing jail and prison populations, (2) creating better conditions for incarceration, (3) ending wealth-based discrimination and corporate profiteering and (4) investing in justice-impacted communities.

Reducing Jail and Prison Populations

The first idea is simple: reduce the jail and prison populations. Lawmakers can do this in a variety of ways:

expanding access to diversion programs and restorative justice initiatives,
decriminalizing consensual sex work,
decriminalizing low-level offenses such as drug-related crimes and theft. It commits to recognizing these crimes as byproducts of poverty, homelessness, addiction and other social ills,
ending the death penalty and life sentences without the possibility of parole,

legalizing marijuana, and
imposing sentencing limits for all crimes.

Creating Better Conditions for Incarceration

The second one is not complicated either. Lawmakers can create better conditions for incarceration by doing the following:

eliminating solitary confinement,
expanding visitation,
housing trans people in accordance with their stated gender identity,
offering higher-quality mental and physical healthcare,
providing substance use therapy to people in prison,
offering hormone therapy to people in prison,
increasing access to vocational education,
increasing access to scholarly education and Pell Grants, and
ending the use of forced labor.

Image courtesy of C5Media via iStockphoto.com.

Ending Wealth-Based Discrimination and Corporate Profiteering

The third way is more complicated on its face. But the concepts behind ending wealth-based discrimination and corporate profiteering are simple. Lawmakers can

eliminate all contracts with private prison interests, including immigration detention centers,
end the cash bail system,
eliminate fines and fees for supervision such as probation and parole,
prohibit incarcerating people for debt alone, and
create robust transition reforms by removing restrictions on housing and employment and expanding access to voting and public assistance.

Investing in Justice-Impacted Communities

Finally, lawmakers can put their money where their mouths are (so to speak) and invest in justice-impacted communities. They can do this by

stopping the transfer of military equipment to local police departments,
diverting resources away from low-level crimes and move them toward solving more serious crimes, including homicides, shootings and sexual and domestic violence,
placing limits and restrictions on firearm sales and production,
ending qualified immunity,
creating and enforcing policing standards on de-escalation, use of force and crisis intervention, and
Creating a non-911 emergency number for trauma and crisis intervention services.

House Resolution 702 doesn’t make any specific legal changes, but that is beside the point.

Officially, Rep. Pressley’s resolution is just that — a resolution. In other words, it doesn’t officially change anything. Instead, it calls for a complete overhaul of the justice system. But, if it passes, that system will remain fully intact. At first, anyway.

However, that’s not to say that the resolution is meaningless or without consequence. Far from it. Activists and people in social and criminal justice circles have been trying to address these very same issues for decades. Therefore, the possibility that the House might pass a resolution that officially recognizes the injustices of the American criminal justice system is a very big deal.

However, as with any other issue, admitting there is a problem is the first step to solving it. The People’s Justice Guarantee would put the government on record admitting to at least 62 of them. Above all, it creates a well-defined set of guidelines and commitments to enacting change. Time will tell if the House is more ready in 2021 to make those commitments than they were in 2019.

The post What The People’s Justice Guarantee Does (And Doesn’t Do) appeared first on Interrogating Justice.

Oklahoma is among the reddest states in the United States. Incumbent Donald Trump won 65% of the popular vote in the 2020 election. Republicans control 38 of 48 seats in the state Senate and 82 of 101 seats in the House. Oklahoma might not seem like a likely candidate for a hotbed of prison reform, but a new package of bills suggests that even the reddest of the red states may be ready for change. That change, however, looks a little different from justice reforms in bluer states.

HB 1679 – Sarah Stitt Act

In 2019, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed HB 1269 into law. The law retroactively removed prison time for people convicted of low-level offenses such as simple drug posession. As a result, his office commuted the sentences of 674 people over the next eight months.

Before these people were to be released, Gov. Stitt’s wife Sarah Stitt visited a number of women’s prisons around the state. During these visits, she spoke with both incarcerated people and staff about the challenges of re-entry. As a result, she pushed for improved re-entry conditions for soon-to-be-released people.
The result is HB 1679, which legislators named after the first lady. The bill requires Oklahoma’s DOC to issue a series of essential documents to people leaving prison. Under the bill, the DOC would need to identify people who are set to leave incarceration within nine months of their date of release.

After identifying these people, the DOC would have to start gathering documents for the incarcerated person. The DOC would need to collect work records, a resume, a birth certificate, vocational training records, a four-year state ID and a Social Security card.

SB 320 – Medical Parole Reform

Oklahoma’s SB 320 is essentially the state’s version of the BOP’s compassionate release program. It applies to people in three different categories: near death, medically frail and medically vulnerable. The bill lays out the criteria for each of these categories.

People must be within six months of dying to be considered near death. The bill defines medically frail as being unable to perform two or more daily life functions, such as using the bathroom and eating. Medically vulnerable is defined as someone having one or more medical conditions that makes it likelier they could die if they contract an illness in prison. It lists people with cancer, HIV, cardiovascular disease and others among the list of people who fit this description.

If a DOC medical doctor certifies someone as belonging to one of these categories, the department must place them on the first available parole docket. There, they get a fast-tracked parole hearing. The parole board then decides if the person is a risk to society. If three members of the board approve medical parole, the board will grant parole.

Image courtesy of Marcelo Leal via Unsplash.

HB 2567 – Hospice Care Training Program

In 2017, nearly 20% of Oklahoma’s incarcerated population was over the age of 50. The state’s aging prison population means that end-of-life care has naturally become more of a concern for the DOC.

To address this, lawmakers introduced HB 2567, which creates a hospice care training program specifically for currently incarcerated people. The program would train people in prison to serve as a nurse’s aide in hospice situations. It gives the Chief Medical Officer of the department oversight over the program. People who complete the program would be issued a certificate to certify their training.

HB 2320 – Jury Sentencing

One of the reasons Oklahoma was consistently at or near the top of the list of the country’s biggest incarcerators was its harsh sentencing laws. In 2015, there were more than 100 crimes that carried a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 20 years.

One of the bills being considered for this session is HB 2320. Under this bill, juries would have more discretion over sentencing. It would allow juries to recommend suspended or deferred sentences. However, the court would still have the final say over sentencing.

SB 951 – Preventing Jailing for Failure to Pay

Across the country, failing to pay fees and fines is one of the leading causes of incarceration. According to a 2015 Presidential Council of Economic Advisors Issue Brief, “failure to pay” charges accounted for 20% of the entire incarcerated population in some jurisdictions.

SB 951 would allow police to cite someone instead of arresting them for failure to pay or failure to appear. The bill also allows courts to adjust or even waive payments if an individual lacks the ability to pay. It lays out a number of criteria, such as earnings capacity and an individual’s health status, to determine whether or not someone has the ability to pay their fines and fees. The bill prohibits jailing people for non-willful failure to pay.

Image courtesy of Cornellrockey, via Wikimedia Commons.

Oklahoma has a different approach towards prison reform.

The bills in Oklahoma take a different approach to prison reform than those in states like New York and Colorado or cities like Baltimore and Washington, D.C… In those places, efforts focused more on releasing people from jails and prisons or putting fewer people in them.

Three of these bills, SB 320, HB 2320 and SB 951 have the potential to do that. However, both of those bills effectively leave the decision of whether or not to incarcerate or arrest someone up to other people. They do not eliminate or reduce Oklahoma’s extensive mandatory minimums. Nor do they eliminate the possibility of going to jail for not paying a fine. They merely allow an individual or group of individuals to decide whether or not someone should go to jail or prison. It’s not difficult to see where that might lead to disparate results depending on a person’s race or ethnicity.

A Move Towards Empathy?

In the case of HB 2567, the bill seeks to find a way to make the experience of dying in prison better for incarcerated people. While that won’t have the broad impact that, say, expanding home confinement might, it does at least reflect a sense of empathy towards the individuals in jails and prisons.

That same empathy is also reflected in HB 1679. Of the bills in this legislative session, the Sarah Stitt Act is the most systemic. It mandates a process for every prisoner, rather than leaving decisions about who does and does not deserve leniency or favorable treatment up to individuals. The bill looks to solve a major problem—that people get sent out into the world without the means to secure housing and employment that they need. And it does so with a simple, practical solution.

The prison reform efforts in Oklahoma may seem minor in comparison to other efforts around the country. However, they do reflect the growing popularity of prison reform as a bipartisan issue. GOP lawmakers in Oklahoma face no real pressure from progressives in their state. Their massive advantages in both houses of the legislature mean that they only need to be beholden to conservative voters. The fact that the state is moving forward with prison reform at all shows the progress that activists have made on the issue. Or, perhaps, that the collective weight of being the world’s most prolific incarcerator has reached a tipping point.

The post Oklahoma Bills Reveal What Red State Prison Reform Looks Like appeared first on Interrogating Justice.

In the same week that legislators in Virginia approved a measure to fast-track legalization in the state, North Carolina Senators introduced multiple bills that would legalize marijuana in the state to some degree. It is unclear whether either has any chance of becoming law. Previous bills to legalize cannabis in the state have fallen flat. However, some activists say they believe the tide is turning in the country’s leading tobacco-producing state.

Past efforts in NC have been fruitless, but activists think some form of legalization may be coming soon.

Currently, North Carolina is one of only 14 states that does not allow for legal use of marijuana, medical or recreational. But it’s not for lack of trying. Over the last few years, several bills that would have softened the state’s laws were introduced in the General Assembly.

In 2019, 19 different lawmakers sponsored HB 401. The bill would have created a comprehensive plan for medical marijuana use in the state. Although it carried over into the 2020 session, lawmakers never gave the bill a committee hearing, let alone put it to a vote. This, despite the fact that a large majority (73%) of North Carolinians support legalizing cannabis for medical use. A smaller majority of 54%, but still a majority, of people in the state support legalizing the plant for recreational use.

Janis Ramquist is a pro-bono governmental consultant with NC NORML. This group is the North Carolina chapter of a not-for-profit organization that advocates for cannabis legalization and education around the United States. She told Interrogating Justice that views on marijuana are changing in North Carolina.

“There’s a significant shift in public attitude,” she said. “I’m finding that a lot of interest from libertarians and other folks. They’re interested in receiving the information that NC NORML is providing.”

Ramquist also suggested that those changes in public opinion could translate to changes in legislation. “I think we will see a bill pass in the not too distant future,” she said.

SB 669 and SB 711 would legalize marijuana for medical use.

Two of the three bills introduced on Apr. 7 would legalize marijuana only for medical use. Both SB 669, known as the North Carolina Medical Cannabis Act, and SB 711, known as the North Carolina Compassionate Care Act, would allow people to possess and use marijuana under the supervision of a doctor for valid medical reasons.

But each bill takes a different approach to doing so. Of the two, SB 711 is more restrictive. Its text lays out a limited number of conditions for which marijuana doctors could prescribe marijuana. It does not specify whether or not it would allow for patients to cultivate the plant at home.

On the other hand, SB 669 has fewer restrictions. It does not specify which conditions patients could treat with marijuana, leaving that decision up to doctors instead. This bill does appear to allow for home cultivation, but it would require a separate license from a medical use card.

Image courtesy of CRYSTALWEED cannabis via Unsplash.

SB 646 would legalize marijuana for recreational use.

Unlike SB 669 and SB 711, SB 646, titled the “Marijuana Justice and Reinvestment Act,” would legalize marijuana for recreational use in North Carolina. Also introduced on Apr. 7, the bill creates a comprehensive plan for legalizing cannabis in the state.

The bill would allow North Carolinians to possess up to two ounces of cannabis in dried flower form. It would also allow for possession of up to 15 grams of cannabis concentrate. In addition, the bill allows for possession of up to six marijuana plants. Any excess marijuana products produced from those plants beyond the limits would not be allowed to leave the premesis where it was grown.

Similar to New York’s legalization bill, SB 646 would allow for retail sales as well as on-site consumption. It would not, however, allow for smoking marijuana in public places.

SB 646 contains restorative justice measures. SB 669 and SB 711 do not.

Another major difference between SB 646 and the two medical legalization bills in North Carolina is that SB 646 explicitly includes provisions for restorative justice.

For starters, the bill would automatically expunge the records of anyone convicted of a marijuana-related crime that had become legal. This expungement would apply not only to state records, but to all local records as well.

In addition, the bill would create an Office of Social Equity. The state would appoint an Executive Director with “at least five years of experience in civil rights advocacy, civil rights litigation, or social justice” to oversee the agency.

This office would establish three separate funds, financed through marijuana taxes. It also dictates how much tax revenue would go towards each fund:

25% of tax revenues would go to the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund,
10% of tax revenues would be distributed to the Social Equity Fund and
3% of tax revenues would go towards the Cannabis Education and Technical Assistance Fund.

Image courtesy of Farragutful via Wikimedia Commons.

In addition to these funds, the bill dictates that a total of 11% of tax revenues would also go to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department would use these funds for substance abuse treatment programs, youth education and scientific research into cannabis. It also stipulates that this research would immediately go into the public domain.

The path to legalization in North Carolina is unclear, but there is optimism.

The fact that three bills entered the Senate docket on the same day would suggest that legalization may be on the horizon in North Carolina. Furthermore, while SB 711 is the most restrictive of the bills so far, it also has backing from Republican Senator Bill Rabon. Sen. Rabon is one of the highest-ranking Republican members of the state’s legislature. This seems to indicate at least some degree of willingness to move on the issue within the state’s GOP lawmakers.

But just how legalization comes to North Carolina makes a big difference. Without restorative justice measures in place and with police still having the ability to arrest people for possession, medical legalization runs the risk of not improving or even exacerbating enforcement disparities in the state. According to the ACLU, Black people are more than three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than their white counterparts. This remains true despite both groups using the plant at the same rate.

That’s something Janis Ramquist says has a long-lasting effect on people and their communities. “During a 10-year period there were 185,000 North Carolinians were arrested for simply possessing cannabis,” she said. “It’s a victimless crime. When someone is arrested the income goes down. It affects them for their entire life as far as their income and potential jobs are concerned.”

The post There Are Now Multiple Marijuana Legalization Bills in North Carolina appeared first on Interrogating Justice.

Maryland was the first state to have a “Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.” Now it’s the first state to repeal one.
In April, lawmakers in Maryland voted to repeal the state’s Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights, along with enacting several other police reforms. The move comes at a time when many states are moving in opposite directions on police and justice reform. It also follows new initiatives in Baltimore, the state’s largest city, that make significant changes to the role and function of the police.

Maryland was the first state to have a “Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.”

In Mar. 1973, Maryland lawmakers were debating a new bill called the “Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.” As they deliberated, a group of 50 officers in uniform entered the Maryland State Capitol building in Annapolis. There, they regaled lawmakers with tales of unfair treatment from supervisors. They complained of low morale in their departments. And, according to the Washington Post, they threatened lawmakers who didn’t agree to the legislation.

Those lawmakers did sign the bill, and the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEBOR) became the law of the land in Maryland. It was the first set of protections of its kind in the country.

Under the bill, police were offered workplace protections unique to their positions. The law established that misconduct could only be investigated by fellow officers. It also set a mandatory waiting period before officers could be compelled to cooperate in those investigations. In addition, the law cleared officers’ complaint records after a certain period of time.

It wasn’t long before other states joined in. LEBOR laws began appearing around the country almost immediately. As of 2015, 15 different states had LEBOR laws on their books.

Lawmakers have voted to repeal LEBOR.

On Apr. 10, state lawmakers voted to approve HB 670, also known as the Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021. The bill officially repealed LEBOR, making it the first state to do so. However, the passage of the law did not come without a fight.

After passing both houses of the state legislature, the bill made its way to Governor Larry Hogan (R), where he vetoed it on Apr. 9. In a written statement, Hogan said that the bill, along with others, would “result in great damage to police recruitment and retention, posing significant risks to public safety throughout our state.”
But Democrats hold enough seats in the legislature to override Hogan’s veto. And, one day after the governor vetoed the bill, that’s exactly what they did.

Image courtesy of Kevin Galens via Wikimedia Commons.

The Maryland legislature also approved other police reform bills.

Repealing the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights wasn’t the only police reform passed in Maryland on Apr. 10. Nor was it the only police reform bill Gov. Hogan vetoed. He rejected two other bills, SB 71 and SB 178. But as they did with HB 670, the legislature voted to override Hogan’s vetoes and pass both of the other bills.

SB 71 focuses primarily on police body cameras. It requires all law enforcement agencies in the state to implement bodycams by July 1, 2023. Each officer that interacts with the public on a regular basis will be required to wear them. It also mandates that cameras record and save 60 seconds or more of video footage before an officer activates the recording.

In addition, the law requires each agency to set up a system for identifying officers who may be likely to use excessive force. It also requires agencies to reduce risks and respond appropriately to claims of excessive force.

SB 178, on the other hand, places new restrictions on the use of no-knock warrants. The law requires written approval of no-knock search warrants from both a police supervisor and a state’s attorney. It would also curtail the use of early morning and late-night raids. Under the bill, all no-knock raids must occur between 8:00 am and 7:00 p.m. absent “exigent circumstances.”

The law also prohibits the use of flashbangs and other military-style distraction devices when executing a search warrant. This is, of course, again absent “exigent circumstances.”

Another bill would make it easier to punish police police for misconduct.

While the three police reform bills have already become law, another looks to be on the way. The legislature has engrossed SB 626, meaning it is ready for a vote.

With SB 626, lawmakers are attempting to make it easier to investigate and prosecute the use of excessive force. The bill outright prohibits the intentional use of excessive force. It defines this is as force that any reasonable law enforcement officer would understand is excessive and unnecessary. The bill also holds other officers at the scene accountable. It requires them to intervene to prevent or stop another officer from using excessive force.

In addition, the bill prohibits officers from refusing to provide first aid or treatment to someone injured by an officer’s use of excessive force. If an officer witnesses another officer using excessive force, the bill would require them to report it to a superior immediately. To assist with this requirement, the bill provides whistleblower protections for officers who raise complaints.

Image courtesy of Adam Bezer via Unsplash.

Maryland is taking bold steps towards police reform.

The news of these bills comes on the heels of a landmark announcement by Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. In March, Mosby announced that the city would no longer prosecute low-level crimes like prostitution and drug possession.

The city also implemented a popular idea from the Defund the Police movement. Mosby also announced that the city would work with Baltimore Crisis Response Inc. to provide a treatment-centered response to people suffering mental health crises and drug addiction.

Combined with the new police reform bills at the state level, it is clear that some in the state are taking a bold approach towards reform. The new laws and policies reflect a desire among some to scale up police accountability and scale back legal protection for misconduct.

The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights has shielded officers from legal consequences for decades. Now, many of those protections are gone. For police in Maryland, the regular old Bill of Rights that the rest of its citizens rely on will have to do.

The post Maryland Repeals Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights, A First appeared first on Interrogating Justice.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!