The Los Angeles Times published an article here about a pilot program in the federal courts in Southern California which allows a small number of defendants facing federal charges to complete sentences without prison time and, in some cases, to have their cases dismissed. It is unclear from the article what the intake procedure is and how defendants qualify for this program. But, the article states that defendants are first required to plead guilty, although some may later qualify to have their cases dismissed if they complete all the requirements. This program seems to admit a large variety of offenders and doesn’t seem to exclude violent crimes (such as bank robbery) or drug sales. This is in contrast to many state level problem solving courts that routinely exclude defendants convicted of violent crimes or drug sales offenses.
This is an example of the kind of programs that Attorney General Holder praised when he announced the Justice Department’s new “Smart on Crime” policies in August that I wrote about here . Although problem solving courts and alternative sentencing are common at the state level, they are still fairly new and not widely used in the federal system.
Hat tip to Crim Prof Blog for posting the LA Times article.
The CASA program, as described in the LA Times article, brings much intrigue.
First, I think the CASA program can be an effective tool to potentially limit overcrowding in the prisons. As the article demonstrates, the incarceration rates are through-the-roof–91% of federal felony convictions went to prison in 2008. This complemented with the rise in crime rate, in certain areas of the US, makes it difficult to comprehend how state and federal prisons can accommodate the demand. By implementing a program, such as CASA, the government can save thousands of dollars. Further, it potentially lessens the crime rate in prisons, as prison guards are not as out-numbered.
However, I believe this is a delicate issue, and could result in serious consequences. A skeptic commentator would argue that for every criminal that is released under CASA who becomes a model citizen, there is another criminal that does not take advantage of his/her second chance and continues engaging in illegal activity. As such, it is possible that the CASA program is only worsening public health and security by allowing certain criminals to avoid jail time. Imagine the public outcry if a CASA participant, who avoided prison time, subsequently killed another human being.
With that said, I feel CASA representatives understand the important caution that must be taken (still, all potential consequences should be addressed). Further, I believe, under the right circumstances, certain criminals should be allowed second chances. As the article and other commentators have already suggested, I believe many first-time criminals are not life-time criminals and, instead, encountered unfortunate situations that led them to certain crime. With proper rehabilitation, these criminals should be allowed back into the general public.
In conclusion, I believe CASA is a great example of “problem-solving” and look forward to seeing it succeed in the future.
I am thrilled to hear the federal courts are offering alternatives to prison sentences. There is no rehabilitation happening in prison and it is time we offer individuals the help they need. While I understand many will fail to meet the requirements, the program is worth the time and expense if even a few individuals change their lives. I also am encouraged that there is a careful screening process and defendants must take responsibility of their actions in order to participate.
I strongly believe that alternatives to the harsh reality of the modern day prison should be praised and sought after. Empirically, it is clear that today’s prison is not a place for rehabilitation; recidivism rates nationally, consistently, hover around sixty-five percent with no evident impetus for change in the horizon.
As is outlined by the post, there are certain prerequisites to qualify for this “pilot program”, though not outlined; these conditions serve as a hurdle to prevent those that have a propensity to commit violent crimes from qualifying. I believe this program can serve as a stepping-stone for future prison reform that can better serve society.
Although I agree partially with the previous comment and I do think it is important for the judiciary to understand that some people should not be allowed to avoid punishment, I don’t think that allowing certain more major crimes in the CASA program is outlandish.
I recently spent time with a Restorative Justice Program through Marquette University talking to inmates who have done some very serious crimes. However, many of them were almost forced into incredibly difficult situations. Although the participants in the program agree that their actions are inexcusable and that they have harmed many people, it is important to acknowledge the fact that many of these men recognize that they will get a second chance.
If the courts are smart and administer CASA on a case-by-case basis, I think it’s a great idea in giving more would-be felons a wake-up call and giving them a second chance to see their mistakes and avoid them at any cost.
While I agree with the fact that the current thinking regarding incarceration, especially with regards to non-violent offenses, I am somewhat surprised that this program seems to be open for violent offenders. Not to say that people can’t be rehabilitated, but violent offenders have done more than simply made a bad decision. In my mind, opening the door to violent felons to escape punishment, starts down the path of possibly letting those who deserve punishment get around the law.
Also, while I applaud the efforts, I would be curious as to the screening criteria that are used. Objective criteria are hopefully used, and not just subjective criteria that looks to see who has the “best chance.”