You currently do not have JavaScript enabled in your web browser.
The ABA website relies on JavaScript for display purposes.
To fully experience the ABA site, please enable javascript.
American Bar Association ABA

Lawyer Resources
Student Resources
Public Resources
Member Services
Member Groups
Find Legal Help
Lawyer Locator
ABA Home

  Search:
 Advanced Search
  Topics A-Z
 
March 2006
e-news for members
Send a letter to the editor Print this article Email this article
 

Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions looks to alternatives to detention

The ABA Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions is hearing from top criminal justice officials from around the nation as part of two hearings on alternatives to incarceration and relief from collateral consequences.

The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the world's prison population, with more than two million people housed in its prisons and jails. Each year, 650,000 people are released from prison; within three years nearly two-thirds of them will be back. The commission is looking for answers to what can and should be done to both reduce our reliance on incarceration and reduce recidivism.

Steve Saltzburg, law school professor at George Washington University and cochair of the commission, moderated the first hearing, held on March 3 in Washington, D.C. The hearing featured officials from Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland and New York, as well as a representative from Community Legal Services of Philadelphia. Former Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson also serves as cochair of the commission.

Saltzburg, in his opening remarks, said the purpose of the hearing was to learn what programs work in individual states, and whether those programs may work in other states. Further, he said that the commission hoped to find common ground among prosecutors, defenders, and others "without an adversarial" slant. "Nobody likes crime," he said, and "we all want to reduce the number of victims."

Alternatives to incarceration that were discussed at the hearing included drug courts, therapeutic communities, mental health courts, community punishment and juvenile courts. David Guntharp, director of the Arkansas Department of Community Correction, noted that while many of the alternatives were created and implemented in an effort to address the escalating costs of the prison system, the public must also be comfortable with it if a program is to be successful.

Several of those giving testimony said that re-entry and re-socialization programs are critical. Paul DeWolfe, public defender in Montgomery County, outlined several elements of that county's re-entry program, including a pre-release center, a one-stop employment center, treatment, gang return prevention and legal services.

Also discussed was the stigmatizing effect of a criminal record, which prevents many from returning fully to society and gaining employment, finding housing and receiving scholarships. Several speakers at the hearing discussed pardon and expungement programs their states have implemented to assist those individuals who have successfully completed a sentence or probation.

A second hearing is slated to be held in Chicago on March 31. More information on the hearings and work of the ABA's commission is available online.

Back to top

© 2006 American Bar Association
 

TOPICS A-Z WEB STORE ABA CALENDAR CONTACT ABA

American Bar Association:  Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION   |    321 NORTH CLARK STREET   |    CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60654
ABA Copyright Statement   ABA Privacy Statement