Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

America is guilty of over-incarceration

Person's hands holding prison bars
Victor de Schwanberg/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

Cooper is the author of “ How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

A huge number of Americans — disproportionately those from underprivileged backgrounds — are trapped in a senseless system of mass incarceration. According to New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, “The United States has less than five per cent of the world’s population and nearly one-quarter of its prisoners. Astonishingly, if the 2.3 million incarcerated Americans were a state, it would be more populous than 16 other states. All told, one in three people in the United States has some type of criminal record. No other industrialized country comes close.”

But America doesn’t just imprison too many people. While incarcerated, people are often subject to terrible conditions. Long-time political prisoner Nelson Mandela once said, “No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”


America’s performance under this standard is abysmal. Our jails are consistently overcrowded and lacking proper oversight. The Department of Justice, for example, recently detailed conditions in Alabama’s state-run prisons.

“The violations are severe, systemic, and exacerbated by serious deficiencies in staffing and supervision,” the Department of Justice explained. There was “a high level of violence that is too common, cruel, of an unusual nature, and pervasive.”

The costs of this system, moreover, are significant. As the Brennan Center explained, “Mass incarceration has crushing consequences: racial, social, and economic. We spend around $270 billion per year on our criminal justice system. In California it costs more than $75,000 per year to house each prisoner — more than it would cost to send them to Harvard.” And, the Brennan Center continued, the socio-economic impact is pernicious: “Mass incarceration exacerbates poverty and inequality, serving as an economic ball and chain that holds back millions, making it harder to find a job, access public benefits, and reintegrate into the community.”

Worse still, many with criminal records can’t vote. This prevents truly free and fair elections and undermines reform initiatives in Washington and state capitals. A constituency that can’t vote is, of course, unlikely to achieve meaningful reform.

Mass incarceration has several underlying causes. Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to sentence defendants convicted of certain crimes to often excessive sentences. In her book “ The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” Michelle Alexander describes the resulting injustice: “All of us violate the law at some point in our lives. In fact, if the worst thing you have ever done is speed ten miles over the speed limit on the freeway, you have put yourself and others at more risk of harm than someone smoking marijuana in the privacy of his or her living room. Yet there are people in the United States serving life sentences for first-time drug offenses, something virtually unheard of anywhere else in the world.”

Legal representation for underprivileged defendants, moreover, is often subpar. Poor defendants are typically saddled with overburdened and incompetent attorneys. And the court system often produces unfair results. Judges can be overworked. Prosecutors often have large budgets, broad discretion to pursue charges and legal immunity for bad acts. And juries often render erroneous verdicts.

A functioning society does, of course, need a robust criminal justice system. Enforcing laws fairly deters criminal behavior. And many guilty people deserve punishment. But the degree of over-incarceration in America is an unforgivable failure of both policy and conscience.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections
Rawpixel/Getty

The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections

The Trump administration has expended significant resources trying to meddle in elections ahead of the midterms. This coordinated campaign includes attempts to limit who can vote, wrestle away states’ authority over elections, and undermine public confidence in election outcomes. So far, virtually everything the administration has tried has been blocked by courts, failed in Congress, or simply fizzled out.

Currently, the administration is 0–21 in its court cases seeking to amass state voter data. In dozens of states, election officials from both parties have refused to turn over their complete voter rolls, which contain confidential personal information, to the Justice Department. Federal courts from Arizona to Maine have thrown out the department’s lawsuits, ruling that the federal government lacks the power to force states to hand over this data on a mass scale.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

The Erosion of Judicial Integrity

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.

The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup

Keep ReadingShow less