54 Countries participated in CIA program

Extraordinary Rendition: Is Anyone Innocent

In the article “A staggering map of the 54 countries that reportedly participated in the CIA’s rendition program,” countries were identified that participated and cooperated with the CIA in multiple steps of the rendition program. The program was originally started after September 11^th attacks in 2001. The U.S did not want to bring terrorist suspects back into the U.S or formally press any charges on them so they developed this program to get around the rules by secretly transferring the prisoners to locations for interrogation. The article names 54 different countries that helped the CIA with the rendition program. Countries like Poland, Thailand, Romania, and Lithuania housed some of the secrete prisons for the CIA, while a lot of other countries participated in handing over detainees for the rendition program. Many European countries, Middle Eastern countries, and Asian counties were involved in handing over people to the CIA for rendition. While on the other hand, countries like Greece and Spain, allowed the CIA to use their airports for transportation of the detainees.

            Iran and Syria were countries that were involved with the capturing and transfer of individuals. When Iran handed over individuals, no records were kept relating to investigations or there whereabouts in the secrete rendition operations. Syria has a history of civil war and the government has been know to be in favor of torture techniques and inhumane conditions in their prison systems. The U.S had vast knowledge of these methods and conditions that Syria had used and yet the most common stop for detainees in the rendition program was in Syria.

            The extraordinary rendition program was a huge controversy due to the issue that the U.S and many other countries were unlawfully detaining people and violating their human rights by torturing them and not giving them a day in court.  The article talks about how many different countries participated in the questionable program and that they all knew to an extent that these people would be held and questioned and not formally charged with anything. The program was created to capture suspected terrorists and to prevent more terrorist attacks from occurring. However, the program went far beyond just questioning the people and getting information. The people that were detained are some times held in a prison for the rest of their lives because their cases cannot be heard in court due to possible national security issues. I personally think that this program should not have been even created because it violates human rights and the CIA knew that countries like Syria would use torture methods to obtain information. It also surprises me that so many counties participated in the program. However, when the program came out into the public, I now understand why no other countries have tried to charge U.S officials with violations of human rights. The other countries probably cannot charge them with any violations because they are just as guilty or participating.

Article Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/a-staggering-map-of-the-54-countries-that-reportedly-participated-in-the-cias-rendition-program/ 

Court Win Translates to Court Change

New York Times article, "Pakistani, Held in Iraq, Wins a Round in Court," by Katrin Bennhold discusses the recent success in a British court for an alleged terrorist suspect to sue the British government for inhumane treatment, otherwise known as torture. In this particular court case, the plaintiff, Yunus Rahmatullah, is a Pakastani citizen. He was originally detained in Iraq during a raid of his apartment by the British armed forces. Once captured, he was taken to Camp Nama and Abu Ghraib prison before being sent to a military base in Afghanistan. Rahmatullah claimed that he was first tortured by the British. Then, he was handed off to U.S. military personnel, who performed similar acts of cruelty.  In May 2014, he was officially released. Now, he is set on exposing his extraordinary rendition and its damaging consequences.

This occurrence of events sounds quite familiar much like past court cases involving El Masri, Mohammed, and their respective defendants, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the UK. The plaintiff, a former prisoner charged with terrorism or association to it, goes against the state or certain state officials to unmask the reality of torture. From this court ruling, Rahmatullah has been granted the chance for redress and a formal investigation into the committed acts of torture during his imprisonment. The British government has been attempting to reverse the court decision and any following action through used excuses, specifically noting the potential harm towards relations with the U.S.

Despite their best efforts, the British government is at a loss. Their determination has no effect—investigations must be pursued on both American and British sides to uncover Ramahtullah's allegations of torture. This relates to the reading, Uncloaking Secrecy: International Human Rights Law in Terrorism Cases, as the UK and U.S. each disguise their illegal actions citing public interest immunity and state secret privilege, respectively. In Ramahtullah's case, the UK cannot defend themselves from disclosing any perceived sensitive information. The court is demanding transparency. The UK can no longer hide behind the U.S. and its tightly adhered state secret privilege that has rendered several torture victims in circuitous appeal proceedings.

With a sympathetic streak for former prisoners of either extraordinary rendition or torture, this court ruling has a significant effect on three other comparable cases, where the victims are able to sue specific parties that played a role in their imprisonment and subsequent treatment. Yet, controversy and pessimism still exists. Very few think that the U.S. will change its current assessment of revealing illicit activities. As stated in the article, the Obama administration is disinclined to acknowledge the wrongdoings of the Bush administration. Instead, they keep tossing these torture cases aside. Even with the UK court system trying to hold the government responsible, the U.S. refuses to hold its officials accountable for their illegal acts. It raises the question of why the U.S. seems to view itself as a higher entity than other states? Will legitimate loopholes eventually be found in the secret state privilege doctrine and be admissible in future court cases and proceedings? While the UK government has been cooperative with its courts, their legality was compromised. Reportedly, in another case, lawyer client confidentiality had been breached. So called spies neglected the steadfast rule, listening in on private conversations. This brings further questioning of whether states are truly concerned about the threat of disrupting national security versus maintaining their justifications for torturing alleged terrorists. How are basic human rights being disregarded so nonchalantly?

Although there are still many facets of controversy and layers of issues being raised around these cases, this successful court ruling is one step forward for similar victims' cases. The future of torture victims seeking reparations is still far from reach, but there is slow and sure progress being made in courts. If one court sets a precedent, other courts should follow. 

Article Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/world/pakistani-held-in-iraq-wins-a-round-in-court.html?ref=topics&_r=0

 

The Unblinking Stare: The Drone War in Pakistan

Article: "The Unblinking Stare: The Drone War in Pakistan" by Steve Coll
The New Yorker, November 24, 2014 issue

In Pakistan, there have been an estimated four hundred drone strikes since 2008, all with the purpose to weaken Al Qaeda. The Obama administration considers these strikes as successful; they have killed Al Qaeda personnel and inflicted “few civilian casualties”, all while keeping American troops safe. However, this article questions the humanitarian advancement and effectiveness of drone strikes in the Middle East.  A 2012 report from NYU and Stanford law students stated that the Obama administration's assertion that drone use in Pakistan is “surgically precise” and “effective” with “minimal downsides or collateral impacts” is false. In fact, the estimated civilian death toll is between four hundred and nine hundred and fifty. The CIA responded to this report by dismissing the counts as influenced by Pakistani and Taliban propaganda. They referred to classified documents that show annual civilian deaths to be “in the single digits”. However, there are reasons to be skeptical of CIA’s estimates; according to former officials, the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center assesses collateral damage in after-action reports using a specialized, independent group to investigate. However, these investigators assess their colleagues and bosses, so objectivity comes into question.

The article continues to lay out the precedent and justification for the current drone strike policy, citing guidelines and statements made post 9/11 by the Bush administration. Specifically, the counter-terrorism  Memorandum of Notification (MON) signed on 9/17/2001 that authorized targeted killings of terrorists and their allies was cited as the foundation of the drone operations. The MON includes guidelines on how to nominate a suspected terrorist for killing or capture and instructions to avoid civilian casualties “to the maximum extent possible”.

In the early years of the drone strike campaign in Pakistan, the Bush administration needed Pakistani government approval for every drone strike. However, by 2008, President Bush approved a plan to increase drone strikes without the necessity of permission from Pakistan. These changes gave birth to the “signature strike”, a strike targeted at any armed military-aged males engaged in suspicious activities without identification needed. According to UN officials, signature strikes are unknown to international humanitarian law; currently, the laws of war dictate that for a person to be targeted, they must have a “continuous combat function” or are “directly participating in hostilities”. As a result, if a suspect is targeted without sufficient information showing the necessary involvement, it is unlawful. The Obama administration’s current position is that the CIA’s remote operators are able to determine whether armed men are against American personnel and interests, and therefore it is not necessary to known names or identifications before ordering a strike.

    Additionally, the article describes the Pakistani civilian perspective with multiple interviews with university students in Islamabad. The students recognize and acknowledge the atrocities and terrorist activity of the Taliban, but they also consider the United States a similar threat. It is believed that because of the United States presence in the Middle East, the Taliban exists. Drone strikes only exacerbate the issue, and they create a sense of terror in the villages comparable to the presence of terrorists. Furthermore, terrorists use the drone strikes to garner support and sympathy; ISIS media specialists are known to tweet photos of child victims of drone attacks in Yemen. Through all of the uncertainty and controversy surrounding the drone attacks, the Obama administration has not has not publicly investigated reported civilian deaths or compensated survivors. This has further outraged critics of the drone strikes. 

    The current controversy surrounding the legality of drone strikes is similar to the debate over extraordinary rendition and torture discussed in class. On one hand, the executive branch’s power to control and order military operations in the interests of national security and war justifies drone attacks against suspected terrorists. This power is evident in the 2001 MON created by the Bush administration, which eventually gave rise to the current policy on drone strikes. This MON used vague and non-specific wording, especially with regard to civilian casualties, stating avoid them “to the maximum extent possible”. This is similar to the language employed in the 2002 Bybee memo on torture, which described torture as interrogation techniques causing pain equivalent to severe injury or death. The broad language allows for multiple interpretations on the maximum extent of civilian casualties. On the other side of the drone debate, international humanitarian law condemns the killing of suspected targets without adequate confirmation that they are directly involved in terrorist activity against the United States. This debate between national security and international humanitarian law was exhibited in the extraordinary renditions court cases, specifically the El-Masri case, which used the State Secrets doctrine to avoid civil prosecution of state officials for torture and extraordinary rendition. This case held that the executive branch and state department had the right to withhold state secrets as evidence from the court to protect these secrets. In order to determine whether evidence or information meet this criteria, officials within the executive department make a decision. This raises the question of objectivity, and a similar conflict is mentioned in this article; collateral damage from drone strikes is assessed by officials within the CIA, who are then reviewing their own colleagues or supervisors.

    I personally have mixed opinions about drone strikes. I understand the necessity for difficult decisions and sacrifices in ensuring national security, and this means that collateral damage cannot always be avoided. However, drone strikes are employed often enough that there needs to be better regulation and monitoring in regards to civilian casualties. At the very least there could be a group outside the CIA and executive branch evaluating drone strike collateral damage. Unfortunately, I do not think there is adequate concern for civilian rights in the United States, especially for civilians in the Middle East and Muslims. I have an emotional investment in this issue; I have half of my family living in Iran, a country that is on very tenuous terms with the United States. I have been to the Middle East, and this has given me a different perspective of the region. I deeply sympathize with those living under constant fear of drone threats, but sadly I do not think there are enough people who do.

Source:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare

Considering Civilan Casualties of Airstrikes

Considering Civilian Casualties of Airstrikes

Jacqueline Wojcik

October 5, 2015

The article “Airstrike Hits Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan” by Alissa J. Run addresses the United States airstrike that damaged a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing at least nineteen people and injuring thirty-seven in what was stated to be possible collateral damage.  The United Nations and various humanitarian organizations have condemned this action.  It renews the discussion of civilian casualties caused by United States airstrikes.  This event raises the question of how to combat a terrorist organization with minimum loss of civilian life.

Kunduz has been this site of conflict between Afghan government forces, backed by the United States, and the Taliban.  In response to the Taliban’s capture of the city on Monday, the United States military began airstrikes, assisting Afghan government forces.  The Doctors Without Borders, also known by their acronym of MSF, operated a hospital in the city, providing medical care to all injured in the conflict.  Its specific location was repeatedly given to United States and Afghan military officials.  In the early hours of October 3^rd, bombs began falling on the hospital, continuing for thirty to forty minutes despite calls alerting officials of the situation.  Reports regarding the instigation of the bombing vary and are under investigation.  The United States and Afghan forces said there was fighting around and shooting from within the hospital.  MSF doctors and nurses stated there was no fighting in the immediate vicinity, and the organization’s director asserted that there were no Taliban fighters in the facility at the time of the strike.  Regardless of the presence of lack of Taliban soldiers, civilian humanitarians and their patients were killed and injured in the airstrike, drawing criticism and calls for a transparent investigation from the international community.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights described the airstrike as “utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly even criminal.”  It may have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, but depends on how they can be applied.  The relevance of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols becomes challenging when a non-state terrorist organization is involved.  Convention IV, Article 2 states the Convention applies in all cases of occupation of territory of a High Contracting Party.  This appears to imply that the Convention applies in this situation, as the territory of Afghanistan was occupied.  Protocol I states in its first article that it follows the same rules of applicability as the Conventions.  However, the United States has only signed Protocol I and not yet ratified it; this raises questions of how the Protocol affects the United States, but also whether or not the Protocol should be followed regardless of a lack of internal ratification.  Article 1 of the Protocol states that even in cases where it does not apply, civilians are still protected under common international law, the principles of humanity, and the public conscious.  The specific applicability of the Conventions and Protocol may be muddled by the involvement of a non-state organization and incomplete ratification, but the MSF faculty and their patients should have been protected by common law and the public conscious.

If the Geneva Conventions and Protocols can be applied to the airstrike, it could be a violation of them.  Protocol I mandates parties distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives, forbidding direct and indiscriminate attacks on civilian objects.  One definition of an indiscriminate attack is an attack that anticipates civilian damage without anticipation of a concrete and direct military gain.  Investigations will clarify how these rules will apply.  If insufficient evidence of fighting in the near vicinity of the hospital is found and no adequate anticipation of concrete, direct military gain is demonstrated by the United States to justify the strike, it may be a violation of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol, and likely of public conscious.  If evidence of conflict is found, it raises questions of the value and morality of engaging terrorists when civilian casualties are expected.  Significant context is added with the United States’ history of causing civilian casualties in Afghanistan with airstrikes.  Until investigations reveal more information, no concrete conclusions can be drawn.

Public conscious, reflected in the statements of officials, reflects grief and demands justice.  Common ethics dictate that the bombing of a humanitarian hospital is immoral.  However, complications arise with conflicting reports, and applications of law cannot be concluded until investigations are complete.  While these are underway, the tragic event will renew conversation regarding the use of airstrikes by the United States throughout the Middle East and how best to prevent the deaths and injuries of civilians while effectively combatting terrorist organizations.

Source Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bombing-hospital-doctors-without-borders-kunduz.html?_r=1

Additional Sources:

Geneva Convention (IV)

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C

Geneva Protocol (I)

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4

Rights for the LGBT Community - Alisha Beeman

There have been a number of issues dealing with the LGBT community and injustices that are taking place regarding their human rights. The people within this community are constantly discriminated against and are treated inhumane because of their sexual orientation or whom they identify with based on gender.

Cooley v. Forrest County Sheriff's Department was one of the many cases that protray the discrimination that people within the LGBT community face. Upon reading Cooley's resume and hiring him, the Sheriff's Department welcomed him with open arms, stating that his resume and work ethis was one of the best that they had ever seen. When they learned that Cooley was a gay man and had a partner after arriving on scene to his home after being called for a domestic dispute, he was fired from his job and the Department attempted to deny him unemployment benefits. After Cooley filed suit with the ACLU against the men who violated his equal protection and due process rights he was rewarded a settlement.

Some of the injustices that lie within the Cooley case were the fact that he was a victim of domestic abuse and his rights were attempted to be taken from him because of his sexual orientation. Cooley was written down in the case file as the victim of the dispute yet he was still being held accountable because of his sexual orientation. The Sheriff even told Cooley that he was being fired because he was gay. It is an injustice because someone who has the credentials and the work ethic to hold such a position that Cooley did in his department, should not be fired or exempt from continuing to do so because of who he chooses to love or simply whom he is attracted to.

Some remedies for the injustice are emphasis on the separation of church and state. Many of the ideas about homosexuality being a “disease” or a “sin” come from religious views. Homosexuals should still be able to maintain the same rights as heterosexuals, even if the majority of those who are religious that may also believe that homosexuality is wrong or a sin, have an issue with it. They are people as well and they deserve the same rights as any other human being on this earth.

We also need to recognize the freedoms that are being taken away from people of the LGBT community with the denial of same-sex marriages. Things such as deciding what type of medical procedures should take place when same-sex couples have a partnership is a right that is taken from them because same-sex marriage is still not recognized in some states. Things such as health, divorce, family leave, insurance, and taxes are just a small list of things that are much different for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.

As students there are a few things that we can do to help. The ACLU has opportunities to be a member, donate, attend events, or volunteer to support civil liberties that include rights for the LGBT community. Becoming informed with the types of issues that lie within denial of rights for same-sex couples is important as well. Some people may think that they are just being denied a wedding or marriage papers, but there is much more to marriage than walking down the aisle that needs to be considered when politicians are denying rights to same-sex couples.

The Elkhart Four Injustice Report

Katelynn Agazzi
Comparative Justice
April 22, 2015
The “Elkhart Four”

On August 22, 2013 three boys from Elkhart, Indiana were found guilty for the death of their 21 year old friend, Danzele Johnson, while one other pleaded guilty back in November the year before. Although none of the boys were armed, and did not actually murder Johnson, they were given 50-55 years. Black Layman, Jose Quiroz and Anthony Sharp were each given 55 years while Levi Sparks was given 50. On October 3, 2012 Layman, Sparks, Quiroz, Sharp and Johnson needed cash for drugs and decided to find an empty house to break into. They found a house, which seemed to be empty, and broke into the house through the back door (Layman, Sharp, Quiroz and Johnson) while Sparks stayed across the street as a “look out.” The homeowner, Rodney Scott, was upstairs taking a nap and heard the noise. He quickly ran downstairs with his handgun and fired the gun being scared for his life. Scott ended up killing Johnson and wounding Layman.

Under Indiana’s felony murder statute, a person can be charged with murder if someone is killed while he or she is committing or attempting to commit another crime: arson, burglary, robbery, carjacking, human trafficking, sexual trafficking, or sex and drug crimes. Felony murder carries the same penalty as murder, but unlike a murder charge, in which intent to kill must be proven, a person can be convicted of felony murder even if the death is accidental or unintended.
This case is specifically an injustice for many reasons. It is unlike other felony murder cases because they typically involve armed defendants who can reasonably foresee that someone could get killed in their actions. It is also unlike other felony murder charges because they were attempting to commit a non-violent burglary of what they believed to be an unoccupied residence. The last reason is because they were all juveniles.

In October of 2013 Layman, Sharp and Sparks filed notices of appeal in the Indiana Court of Appeals, asking for the overturn of their conviction. On September 12, 2014 the Court of Appeals upheld their convictions, but ruled their sentences were inappropriate and suspended 10 years of Layman and Sharps sentences to probation and suspended 5 years of Sparks to probation. On October 14, 2014 Layman, Sharp and Sparks asked for their cases to be transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court and as of February 26, 2015 the Supreme Court held oral arguments, however justices have yet to decide whether or not to rule on the case.

There are many actions that citizens and politicians can take that will eradicate felony murder charges like this one in the future. Michigan, Hawaii and Kentucky have already abolished felony murder, but most still have some sort of variation of it on the books. In some states, felony murder is included in the definition of first degree murder. In others, it’s a less serious offense, typically second degree murder. A lot of state representatives around the country believe that it should be abolished but do not take any action to do so in their state because of lack of constituent support.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/04/19/men-became-murderers-without-killing-anyone/26027173/
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/felony-murder.htm
http://freetheelkhart4.com/who-are-the-elkhart-4/

The injustice of incarceration rates in America and the privatization of the prison system

Jermayne Largent
4/15/15
Poli 337
The Privatization of America’s Prison System:
An Unjust form of Punishment in regards to Justice

One of the key concepts that has been taught since the beginning of this course, was that justice is a process. “Justice should be conceptualized as a process whose purpose is to reconstitute the equilibrium of human dignity and not simply as an end result.” For justice to truly be obtained each step in it that process must be successfully executed. One of the steps in that process, that seems to not be carried out completely or to its fullest potential, is punishment. Punishment is necessary for justice, because if executed properly, (which one could relate to proportionality) eliminates attacks of vengeance, but also because it deters crimes. Punishment doesn’t only affect the perpetrator(s). Punishment when it is successfully implemented by being proportionate to the crime(s) committed, is key in restorative justice. Punishment shouldn’t only deter crime but also restore the dignity of the victim by providing them with closure, which presents an opportunity for reconciliation and forgiveness. America’s prison system, as a whole, in my opinion is an injustice. I believe that the value and purpose of our prison system over time has been distorted and forgotten. In my opinion, our prison system in this day in age, does not successfully deter crime nor does it equally re-establish human dignity. This can be attributed to two reasons: the first being, incarceration rates which have been affected by “one size fits all” sentencing, giving lead way to the privatization of prisons and the second being a lack of re-entry resources for ex-convicts.

A for profit private prison is a facility managed by a for profit organization through a public-private partnership with a government contract (on the federal and state level). For profit private prisons thrive off of growing incarceration rates, which state governments can’t afford to maintain. Thus benefiting off of our justice system’s sentencing policies and lack of finding alternative punishments other than incarceration. Policies such as, “Mandatory sentencing, three strikes laws, and ‚truth-in-sentencing laws”, limit parole eligibility and keep people in prison longer. Even policies like the “war on drugs” have sent more people; especially people convicted of drug offenses, to prison. I’m not trying to subjectify these policies as wrong in intent but rather criticizing to what means in which they were carried out. Those policies were made because of problems in our society i.e. drug trafficking, gang violence, but to use incarceration as a “one size fits all” solution to those problems is unjust and negates proportionality. Such sentencing policies have been a primary contributor to the number of people in prison giving lead way to for profit private prisons to take advantage of the prison system and further diminish the overall lesson(s) that being incarcerated is supposed to teach the perpetrator.

Private prisons generally charge a daily rate per person incarcerated to cover investment, operating costs, and turn a profit. The Justice Policy Institute’s June 2011 report, Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies, details the success of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and The GEO Group; the most successful and prominent companies operating, for profit private prisons. As of 2010, CCA operated 66 correctional and detention facilities, had contracts in 19 states, as well as, D.C., and had record revenue of $1.67 billion. Majority of that money, $838.5 million came from state contracts, while 13% ($214 million), came from the state of California alone. As of 2010, GEO operates 118 facilities world wide, contracts with 13 states, the Federal Bureau of Prison, the U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In 2010, 66 % ($842 million) of GEO’s $1.27 billion in revenue was from U.S. corrections contracts. Of the $842 million in revenue, 47% came from corrections contracts with 11 states. The primary injustice with privatizing prisons is that they prostitute crime. Morally speaking a society with low crime rates is the ultimate goal, but not for for-profit private prisons. The contracts between themselves and state governments often include a Guaranteed Occupancy Clause; an agreement that private prisons are guaranteed a certain occupancy rate, and if it is not met than the state will impose a low crime tax to make up the loss profit. The state of Colorado has had to collect $2 million dollars in low crime tax dollars. Approximately 65% of private prison contracts include occupancy rate guarantees, and the range of occupancy rates range from 80%-100%, with 90% being the most frequent guaranteed occupancy rate. This behavior may actually cause a civil uproar by making victims and other citizen feel like the justice system is corrupt if they were made to pay a “low crime” tax, that in its self, to them would be a punishment which they do not deserve, which could lead them into a state of retribution. For-profit private prisons discredit a lot of the core elements of the process of establishing justice.

The main injustice with our prison system is the threat that, for-profit private prisons pose on the state of justice. The privatizing of prisons is diminishing the effectiveness of incarceration as a punishment and its ability to deter crime and equally re-establish human dignity. But the thing fueling the need for these for-profit private prisons is our steadily growing incarceration rate. Possible solutions to lowering the incarceration rate include, implementing better re-entry programs to convicts, with startup dates beginning early enough for them to really grasp the material, in order to implement it in real life. Majority of these programs are made available to inmates during the last two months of their sentence. By implementing better re-entry programs and techniques, there is a chance that the continuous population of people, who intentionally return to prison because they can’t assimilate into society, will be eradicated. Another solution would be for state governments to really go back and reconsider or redefine what crimes are punishable with incarceration, as well as, finding alternative solutions like house arrest. For instance, what Maryland did by decriminalizing certain amounts of marijuana will definitely help lower the incarceration rate in our state. In regards to possession of marijuana, our state government has done well at coming up with punishments or penalties that are in place before incarceration would be an option. To help restore our prison system, my peers along with myself should go out and vote for laws that may affect incarceration rates, or even volunteer in a re-entry program at a prison. Also, just practice the golden rule and don’t judge a book by its cover, everyone deserves a second chance…and some people may need a third or fourth, but don’t write someone off just because they were convicted of a misdemeanor of felony. Finally the most important thing we can do, is make sure we don’t commit any crimes and continue the trend of the current incarceration rate. Our generation can change the status que about "reckless youth". We need to educate ourselves of the laws that are in place and that are on the desks of our legislators and politicians. We must understand the full impact of how voting laws, policies, and procedures into place may affect our society in the long run. Changing the ways we act and respect others can be very auspicious to obtaining justice. When voting we shouldn't think about ourselves in the individual state but instead how those said laws may affect other individuals making up our society. For example, while I do not condone substance abuse, I am in favor of decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, because I believe it will lower incarceration rates for something that I consider a new socially accepted norm amongst society and a petty crime.



Link to read, The Growth of INCARCERATION in the United States, a book consisting of research compiled by the National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18613&page=R1
Sources

“Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies.” Justice Policy Institute (2011): n. pag. Justice Policy Institute. June 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2015.

Times-Picayune, Cindy Chang The. "Prison Re-entry Programs Help Inmates Leave the Criminal Mindset Behind, but Few Have Access to the Classes." Nola.com. The Time Picayune, 19 May 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2015.

"Privatization Scan April 07, 2014." In the Public Interest. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2015.

"Private Prisons: The Injustice League - Online Paralegal Programs." Online Paralegal Programs. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Short, April M. "6 Shocking Revelations about How Private Prisons Make Money." Saloncom RSS. N.p., 23 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2015.

Zurcher, Anthony. "Report: US Prison Rates an 'injustice'" BBC News. Echo Chambers, 2 May 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2015.