Penalties That Last A Lifetime
	found on New York Times written by ms_sue_collins, edited by Colin (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 31 Dec 1:03pm
		"Basically, this stuff is telling me I've served my time, I'm out, but I'm never going to be allowed to be part of society again," Mr. Stewart said. "So what do you want me to do? I'm going to end up doing something wrong." "After serving his 14-year prison sentence, Maurice Stewart wanted to live with his mother at Stateway Gardens, a Chicago public housing project. But federal law bars anyone convicted of a crime from living in public housing," ms_sue_collins writes. "In addition to the public housing ban, penalties include prohibitions against getting jobs in certain fields; the loss of voting privileges, for a lifetime in 13 states; and for those convicted of drug felonies, a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, food stamps, or federal student loans. Most of the sanctions were passed by Congress and state legislatures in an attempt to get tough on crime. Senator Phil Gramm, the architect of the lifetime ban on welfare, said, 'Welfare shouldn't be used to support drug habits.' Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr., who helped draft the ruling that was part of the 1996 welfare overhaul, said that the main intent of the welfare ban was to deter people from getting involved in drugs: 'The thought was that if someone was buying drugs, we don't feel an obligation to support them.' However, Amy Hirsch, an attorney with Community Legal Services, sees the ban hurting female convicts in particular, making it more difficult for them to stay off drugs.

	"Pennsylvania state law now prohibits people convicted of a long list of crimes from working in nursing homes or health care for the elderly. Although an appeals court ruled that the law unconstitutionally deprived one such plaintiff, Earl Nixon, of his right to earn a living, the state's attorney general has appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, saying, 'The General Assembly passed this law in an effort to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens from those who would prey on them.' But have these sanctions gone too far? By one estimate, the U.S. has 13 million felons who are in prison or have done their time, almost 7 percent of the population. In Florida alone, 600,000 people are disenfranchised voters for life. Jeremy Travis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, calls such penalties 'invisible punishment' and says that they make it extremely difficult for newly released inmates to lead productive lives. The American Bar Association's criminal justice section has suggested a re-examination and clarification of such laws, particularly that they be codified in one place and be made a part of sentencing. And plaintiff Earl Nixon sees the the law in his case as counterproductive, making 'no allowance for rehabilitation.... It just seems to go on punishing people forever.'"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 19 commentsbest: 2 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  When is enough finally enough?   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 31 Dec 2:00pm score of 1 obnoxious     When do you get through paying your debt to society? Certainly, having served a 14 year stretch in the slammer, and Mr. Stewart would have thought that his debt was paid. I guess the choice before him is to find somebody else to live with or get his mom to move out of public housing. Is it fair? No, but sometimes life is unfair. But, does the fact that he can't take up space in mom's public housing digs a good enough rationale for returning to a life of crime. According to him it makes sense. That's a shame really, because Mr. Stewart probably told his parole board a couple of times how he just wanted to be released so he could have an opportunity to demonstrate to society that he was a changed man. But, I guess if he does decide that not being able to hang his hat in the projects means breaking the law that the taxpayers in Illinois will just have to find a place for him to hang his hat for the next ten to twenty years. On a more serious note, Sue pointed out in a previously previously discussed plastic story, that sometimes society just isn't going to recognize that you have ever paid your debt and will enact some fairly stupid and draconian measures to make sure you do pay and pay and pay. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: When is enough finally enough?   by dwoz       at Wed 1 Jan 8:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Mayorbob, you make a fairly broad assumption here that other housing is actually available to Mr. Stewart. Chances are, he can't find an apartment in a nice neighborhood, when his resume looks like it does. his only options are the options that are BELOW public housing...i.e. shelters or abandoned warehouses. Now, getting a real job when you have no address and no phone, isn't that simple. I think the real issue with this is that not all those convicts are in there for "real" crimes. Lots of them are there because they were stupid when they were kids and were in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong prosecutor with political aspirations. Whether the guy in the writeup is in that category or not isn't germane...it wouldn't be too hard to find someone that is. dwoz   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Well, if the truth be told.   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 1 Jan 10:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     I was reacting more to his statement about his surprise that there was a price that society was going to extract above and beyond the prison sentence. Is he the first criminal who ever got released to a waiting world that was going to look down on him because he had committed a crime? Is the normal reaction of a person to be one of, "there is a roadblock so, rather than find a way of surmounting this obstacle, I'll just go and do something stupid and destructive"? However, if you would care to go on and read my entire comment, you would see that I call these sorts of laws that punish after the punishment is done, "stupid and draconian". I call them that because they are. It is my belief that society, can and should, do more to help someone who paid a debt to that society with his or her body for fourteen years. There should be programs in prison that help to prepare the convict for their eventual release. There should be programs on the outside that help them during their initial transition to an unincarcerated life. Employers shouldn't automatically reject applications for ex-cons merely because they are ex-cons. The laws that speak to restricting where and how they live should be either done away with or redrawn so that they truly only are directed at those ex-cons that are likely to be recidivists. Those are my beliefs in the matter, and I have actually gotten ear of the odd state legislator to press for some of these along the way. I have worked with the local chapter of the NAACP on their project to try to help prisoners while they are in prison. I have even hired released prisoners from time to time (only once with a truly bad result). Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  rights, shmights   by Ludwig       at Tue 31 Dec 2:01pm score of 1     The Department of Justice seems to think that voting is a civil right. Aren't "rights" by definition inalienable? What am I missing here? Like mandatory sentencing laws, this seems to violate the separation of powers. Sentencing, being a part of "judicial power," is supposed to be the domain of the judiciary, if Article III of the Constitution is anything to go by. These laws are for all intents and purposes appendices to sentences. And does the welfare ban extend to people convicted before 1996? If so, that's another violation. Of course, those in control of the government at the moment have little incentive to reenfranchise poor minorities, who are not exactly their voter base to begin with.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: 5th Amendment & Inalienable rights   by zyxwvutsr       at Tue 31 Dec 2:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     'No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: rights, shmights   by My name is Mudd       at Thu 2 Jan 12:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     However misguided (or even foolish) these laws may be, the controversy has nothing to do with the separation of powers. The legislature gets to decide, within constitutional limits, who gets to vote, live in public housing, sell horsemeat, drive a car, sell insurance, etc. Heck, they can even decide, for the most part, what kinds of cases courts can and cannot hear. Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Obvious solution   by zyxwvutsr       at Tue 31 Dec 2:12pm score of 2 funny     There is a way for ex-cons to regain all of their former rights. It may not be simple, and no doubt good arguments could be made for streamlining the system, but to suggest that felons are forever stuck in a civil rights limbo is not exactly correct.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Obvious solution   by Ludwig       at Tue 31 Dec 2:34pm score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 3     Yeah, good luck with that. Unless you're a white campaign contributor, of course, in which case no luck is needed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Obvious solution   by rough ashler       at Thu 2 Jan 4:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     suggest that felons are forever stuck in a civil rights limbo But is this a correct place for people who have served their time to be? If Maurice Stewart stays in Chicago, he'd be unable to sell horsemeat due to his status as a felon. In the case of a felony conviction, it matters not if its for lying to Congress, sitting down at a demonstration (resisting arrest), beating a man to death with your fists, copying Metallica, or cooking the books at some business, you get the same package as the drug dealer/peadophile/child killer/.... If the idea is to punish for a lifetime, then keep them locked up for the lifetime, if they are that much a danger. If you don't like paying for a lifetime, why not summary executions, a box of 20 .308 shells is under $10 after deer hunting season? Why wave 'once you are out of here you are a free man' when the reality is you arn't gonna be free?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Obvious solution   by stankow       at Thu 2 Jan 5:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I don't understand the "all or nothing" attitude in this and many other posts in this thread. Yes, many of these penalties are ridiculous given the offenses and should be got rid of, but that doesn't mean all of them are. I'm perfectly happy with felons not being able to buy firearms (legally). "If the idea is to punish for a lifetime, then keep them locked up for the lifetime" is intellectually dishonest -- the idea should be to restrict them from certain activities that lend themselves to recidivism (weapons ownership or associating with other felons, for instance). The solution should be (as with most things) a rational approach, rather than simple all-or-nothings like "felons can't live in public housing."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Obvious solution   by rough ashler       at Thu 2 Jan 9:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     The solution should be (as with most things) a rational approach, But how is a conviction for copywrite violation (Ala the DMCA) worth having the ability to vote or to go hunting at all rational? Why does the ability to sell horse meat require one to be felony-free?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  A thought...   by rdww       at Tue 31 Dec 2:12pm score of 1     For any government, either federal and state, a paroled felon is the ideal subject.       You can make virtually everything in their lives a "privilege," compel them to check in with you on a regular basis, submit to drug and other testing, force them to pay for their own monitoring, take away their rights to vote, own weapons, freely associate, and often to travel... and at them same time they owe every cent of taxes any citizen does.       Ex-cons are serfs, and any government worth the name has a prejudice toward creating as many serfs as possible.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: A thought...   by natophonic       at Tue 31 Dec 2:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     it feels strange, and mildly disturbing, when i find myself agreeing so strongly with conservatives on this type of thing. now, how about we try to end that war on [some] drugs? oops, did i just break the grand coalition? What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Cheapness, not wickedness   by Mad Ogger       at Wed 1 Jan 3:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Basically, the supporters of these penalties think criminals are not punished enough by their time in prison. But imprisonment is really expensive. Instead of lengthening prison sentences a few years, they just start tacking this stuff on. It makes a lot sense if you agree that criminals are not punished enough, but I think current prison sentences are probably enough. The other part is that, statistically, ex-cons are dangerous. Nursing home customers are going to prefer nursing homes that don't employ ex-cons. Apparently the government has seen fit to discriminate against felons for us on the grounds that it's too much of a bother for us to do it ourselves. If those laws were repealed, people would probably do about the same thing voluntarily. What would really help is a way for rehabilitated ex-cons to signal their status. Maybe a year working at some specially designed crappy job that a criminal would never be able to stand.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  All this, and ex post facto too!   by Dvandom       at Wed 1 Jan 3:05pm score of 1     It gets even "better". A lot of these lifelong penalty laws (not just for drug offenses) are retroactive and apply to anyone currently in the system. So far, suits brought on the premise that these are unconstitutional on the grounds of double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same crime) have not been successful, unfortunately.       Dave   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Article VIII.   by Megalon       at Thu 2 Jan 8:37am score of 1     Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. These laws and punishments clearly violate the 8th amendment to the U.S. constitution. When will a righteous lawyer defend these disenfranchised people to the highest court in the land?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  I hear the Marriott near Dupont Circle is nice.   by phenry       at Thu 2 Jan 9:00am score of 1     I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned our country's most famous convicted criminal living in public housing. phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: I hear the Marriott near Dupont Circle is   by gonzocanuck       at Thu 2 Jan 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Funny that you mention Marriott, as Sodexho Marriott (formed by the merger of Sodexho and Marriott International Inc in 1998) serve prison cafeterias as well as school cafeterias. Yeah, I know, useless trivia...:-D You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Further Punishment?   by David Flores       at Thu 2 Jan 12:25pm score of 1     But federal law bars anyone convicted of a crime from living in public housing," ms_sue_collins writes. "In addition to the public housing ban, penalties include prohibitions against getting jobs in certain fields; the loss of voting privileges, for a lifetime in 13 states; and for those convicted of drug felonies, a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, food stamps, or federal student loans. When a conservative politician presses for legislation that prevents certain individuals from receiving government benefits, one can't help but think that such legislation has a lot less to do with further punishment for whatever crimes the offender may have committed, than simply finding another excuse to deny people government benefits. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]