In 2017, Pennsylvania State Senator Sharif Street and State Representative Jason Dawkins introduced bills that would abolish prisons sentences of life without parole. State legislators nationwide are introducing similar bills. The issue isn’t limited to Pennsylvania. It’s a complicated nationwide issue that requires understanding of sentencing laws, political history, the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, racial disparity, and multiple viewpoints.

What is Life-Without-Parole?

When the court sentences an individual to life-without-parole (LWOP), it means that person will spend the rest of their life in prison without any ability to appeal the sentence. They will never get a chance to leave. They will die in prison.

How Does an Offender Receive LWOP?

Each state has its own laws, both criminal and civil, that all its cities, towns, and districts follow. If an offender commits a crime in one of its cities, towns, or districts, the court in that area, oversees their arrest, conviction, and incarceration. The state legislature establishes the laws and determines the rules and procedures that every jurisdiction follows. While each district and town may have its own set of rules and procedures, it nonetheless adheres to and follows the state’s laws.

State legislators set forth sentencing guidelines for certain crimes. When an offender agrees to plead guilty or if the jury or judge finds them guilty of a that crime, the judge must follow those guidelines when imposing the sentence. The guidelines usually allow the judge to consider factors such as the offender’s age and criminal background. Oftentimes, probation or parole officers and sometimes even independent agencies prepare presentencing reports that investigate the offender’s background and other extenuating circumstances. In many cases, there is a sentencing hearing, even when an offender pleads guilty, and individuals who wish to speak on either the victim’s or offender’s behalf can do so freely. Even the offender is allowed to speak and the judge gets to observe their demeanor and consider whether they regret their crime. In other words, judges have discretion and some leeway when imposing sentences.

Mandatory sentences, on the other hand, are those in which the judge must impose regardless of any extenuating circumstances. There’s no presentence report, no presentencing hearing, nothing to consider, and no leeway. The judge must impose the legislated sentence.

States usually impose LWOPs for habitual criminal behavior or as punishment for a serious offense, usually a capital murder, which is one that immediately subjects the offender to the death penalty. Capital murder typically involves a child, a police officer, or multiple victims. It can also include felony murder, which is an unintended killing that takes place during an intentional crime. For example, three people rob a bank. One robber shoots and kills a police officer. The state will charge the shooter with murder and the other two robbers with felony murder.

Rise of the LWOP

When Vice President George H.W. Bush ran for president against Massachusetts’ Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988, his supporters funded an ad, now renowned as the “Willie Horton Ad,” which focused on a convicted murderer who raped a woman and stabbed her partner after escaping prison while on a state sponsored prison furlough program. Massachusetts lawmakers later prohibited such programs and instead began more heavily implementing LWOP. Other states followed.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Among other things, it established the “three strikes” rule, which imposed mandatory LWOP for federal offenders with three or more convictions for serious violent felonies or drug trafficking crimes. The bill also granted billions to states that passed “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which required inmates to serve at least eighty-five percent of their sentences.

The “Willie Horton” Ad

Since elections in this nation began, candidates have vowed to get tougher on crime and criminals. Conservative and right-wing leaning individuals generally prefer harsh prison terms and their administrations typically focus on such policies. The public overall favors harsh prison sentences for serious criminals. such as those who commit rape, assault, and serial murder. That harsh offenders can earn good behavior credits and eventually qualify for parole even when sentenced to “life,” can frustrate certain people, regardless of their political predisposition.

Violent crimes and drug abuse rates increased in the 1980s and even juveniles began committing more brutal crimes. The public fell for the ad’s scheme. At certain moments during the 1988 presidential election, Governor Dukakis was ahead of Vice President Bush. Some claim by even seventeen points. That all changed after the “Willie Horton Ad” and many experts credit it for his ultimate landslide election.

The “Willie Horton” ad, even by today’s standards, is one of the most racially antagonistic political ads, as it so obviously promotes white fear of African Americans. (Ann Coulter calls it “Bush’s finest 30 seconds” and Trump, for his re-election is seeking an ad with similar effect). While President George H.W. Bush claimed he had nothing to do with the ad and that his PAC backed it, he nonetheless ran a “revolving door” ad that still played upon racial stereotypes.

The “Three Strikes” Rule

While the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that Bill Clinton signed applied only to federal crimes, it encouraged states to pass their own mandatory “three strike” laws and impose LWOP. Those state rules eventually saw individuals serving life sentences for crimes such as shoplifting, simple assault, or other violations that would normally result in minimal sentences or even probation.

LWOP Statistics and Racial Disparity

Racial disparity in state and federal sentencing exists even with standard sentencing. African American male sentences are nearly twenty percent longer than white male sentences for similar offenses and African Americans and Latinos offenders face higher incarceration rates and are sentenced to much longer sentences than similarly situated white offenders. Simply recall Brock Turner’s six-month sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. Turner actually served only three-months.

The disparity grows deeper regarding LWOP. There are more African Americans serving LWOP than those serving parole eligible life sentences. According to the Sentencing Project, as of 2012, out of the 159,520 people serving life sentences, 49,081 were serving LWOP (thirty-five percent). Such represented an 11.8% rise since 2008.

According to the National Center for Youth Law, in 2006, there were more than 2,000 offenders serving LWOP for crimes they committed while they were under eighteen years of age. About twenty-six percent of juveniles are sentenced to LWOP for felony murder and fifty-nine percent of juveniles receive LWOP for first-time offenses. At the time, courts nationwide sentenced African American juveniles to LWOP ten times more than white juveniles. In California alone, of the 180 inmates sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed before they were age eighteen, 158 were African American.

In twenty-six states, anyone convicted of first-degree murder is sentenced to LWOP, even a juvenile. In Pennsylvania, anyone convicted of first or second-degree murder is automatically sentenced to LWOP, including juveniles.

Pennsylvania has the most inmates serving LWOP for crimes they committed as juveniles than any other state (more than 450)

To be continued…

Images provided via google

Election night 2016 wasn’t all that disastrous. Californians overwhelmingly elected Kamala Harris to the senate. Her win was historical and monumental. She is the second woman of color voters elected to the Senate (Illinois’ Carol Moseley Braun was the first) leading by over sixty percent.  

Roughly, three years later, in January 2019, she announced her presidential campaign. About 20,000 Californians cheered Kamala Harris on as she emphasized the current political discord and feelings that the United States’ position in the world was at its lowest point. She borrowed from Abraham Lincoln saying “I’m running to be a president of the people, by the people, for all the people.”

So, who is Ms. Harris and for what does she stand? Let’s look at her background and career thus far.

Family and Early Life

Ms. Kamala Harris, whose name originates from the Sanskrit word for lotus flower, was  born in 1964, to parents who emigrated to the United States. Her father, who is from Jamaica, taught economics at Stanford University. Her mother, an Indian diplomat, researched breast cancer. 

After her parents divorced, her mother took her and her sister to Montreal, Canada. Kamala returned to the states after graduating high school to attend Howard University, where she majored in economics and political science. Upon earning her bachelor’s degree in 1986, she went to the University of California, Hastings College of Law, and earned her Juris Doctor. She failed the California Bar exam upon her first attempt citing it her “most half-assed performance.”

In 2014, Ms. Harris married attorney Douglas Emhoff.  

Public Service Life

Ms. Harris entered public service right away. She first worked as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California. She then joined the San Francisco district attorney’s office as Chief of the Community and Neighborhood Division, where she managed civil code enforcement matters. 

In 2003, she beat two-term incumbent Terence Hallinan to become San Francisco’s District Attorney. She formed a unit to focus on hate crimes against LGBT children and teens and assembled a national conference to discuss gay-transgender hate crimes. She also prosecuted drug traffickers and attained a $20 billion settlement for homeowners facing foreclosure.

In November 2008, Ms. Harris became the first female, Indian-American, Jamaican-American to become California’s Attorney General. In 2014, voters re-elected her. She helped defeat Proposition 8 (which opposed gay marriage) and supported marriage equality nationwide. Her office’s investigations into pipeline oil spills resulted in numerous indictments and further probes into potential price fixing schemes. She began the Bureau of Children’s Justice to focus on foster care, truancy, childhood trauma, and juvenile justice. 

In 2015, Senator Barbara Boxer announced her retirement following twenty-four years of service. Ms. Harris decided to run for the seat. From the start, Ms. Harris remained a frontrunner, catching the endorsements of Governor Jerry Brown, Vice President Joe Biden, and President Barack Obama. 

Service as Senator and Achievements

Since her election to the senate, Ms. Harris supported democratic causes and continued to counter Donald Trump’s decisions, policies, and appointments

Immediately following her election, she vowed to protect immigrants from Donald Trump’s policies. At a January 2018 hearing, she grilled Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for preferring Norwegian immigrants and alleging to not know that Norwegians were mostly Caucasian.

Ms. Harris supports single payer healthcare and opposes attempts to weaken healthcare protections for those with pre-existing conditions. She supports Senator Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill and has insisted that repealing the Affordable Care Act would declare health care a “privilege” instead of a “civil right.” She was one of ten senators to sponsor the Choose Medicare Act, a public option for health insurance that additionally increased ObamaCare subsidies and granted eligibility to higher income individuals.   

In August 2018, she co-signed a letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency alleging that it was not helping Puerto Rican homeowners displaced by Hurricane Maria. 

She co-sponsored the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, which sought to speed the transition to cleaner energy without increasing taxes.  She also supports Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.   

While Ms. Harris did not initially support the legalization of recreational marijuana, she co-sponsored Senator Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act, which would remove marijuana’s classification as a controlled substance and require federal courts to expunge prior marijuana possession and use convictions. 

Ms. Harris opposes the death penalty, but states that she would consider each case individually. She prefers life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and thinks such is also more cost-effective. She supports middle class tax cuts raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour; cash bail reformation, and tuition-free college education. 

She supports a woman’s right to choose, so Planned Parenthood Action Fund has consistently given her a 100% rating. She supports gun control and says that thoughts and prayers are inadequate solutions to shootings. The National Rifle Association has thus, given her an “F” rating. 

She believes there is a direct relationship between habitual truancy in elementary school and later criminal history and has, thus, called for deeming such truancy a parental crime. 

Presidential Campaign

When Ms. Harris announced her presidential campaign, she vowed to defend against cybersecurity threats and to safeguard elections.  She reaffirmed her commitment to immigrants stating her  desires of an America that welcomes refugees and offers a path to citizenship. 

Kamala has also stated that she will not accept donations from Political Action Committees (PACs).

Potential Issues

In this article, when required and appropriate, Ms. Harris is described as a “woman of color” and “black.” Such was done out of respect to her wishes. It also relates to recent articles that concern whether she is “black enough to represent African-Americans in the White House.”  These articles simple state that “critics” and social memes have asked about her ethnic background, her history of incarcerating minorities, and her marriage to a Caucasian. The matter most likely stemmed from Tariq Nasheed’s January 24, 2019 tweet in which he notes that Ms. Harris has no ancestral connection to native black Americans and asks how her presidential run benefit native black Americans (Mr. Nasheed is a film producer and media personality).

In February 2019, Ms. Harris appeared on The Breakfast Club, a hip-hop, morning radio program in New York City, and addressed these matters. She said, “I’m black and I’m proud of being black. I was born black. I will die black, and I’m not going to make excuses for anybody because they don’t understand.” When a host asked her about a meme that claimed she was not African-American, she explained that she was born in Oakland and lived in the United States and Canada.

The hosts also asked if she had “hurt black people” as a prosecutor and if she regretted any decisions, relating to a meme of her laughing about a program that prosecuted underprivileged parents of truant children). While she acknowledged systemic racism, she highlighted her re-entry and recidivism programs and efforts to reform the bail system. She further claimed that some would simply reject her just because she was a prosecutor and noted that she married for love.

In July 2017, the New York Post noted that Ms. Harris met with several of Hillary Clinton’s biggest financial backers in the Hamptons. Some of her donors include Allergan, Bank of America, and the Hospital Corporation of America, all of whom are large corporations. 

When Ms. Harris was a prosecutor, she handled some controversial matters, including the shooting of a police officer. She did not seek the death penalty, as she vowed never to do so.  Such infuriated and defied the police department. 

Overall

Ms. Harris has an extremely good reputation as a public servant, is determined, and is certainly qualified to run the country. You could examine every decision she made in her current and prior positions and find problems with everything, if you wanted. While she has corporate donors, such hasn’t yet caused a problem. She’s very nice and determined, as well. 

Her one major problem could be her corporate donors. Such could turn off progressives and liken her too much to Hillary Clinton.