• Delaware Voice column by SURJ Chair Louis Freeh 6/08
• HB 71 Status at the End of Legislative Session   6/08
• Visions of Justice IX: The Aging Prisoner 4/08
• SURJ Reentry Report Online
• HB 71: Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Law Passes in the House 4/07
• SURJ Names Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh as Board Chair
• Incarceration: The Best Public Safety Solution?
• Why Should Mandatory Minimums Be Repealed?  11/06
• Delaware Reentry Roundtable is a Success! 11/06
• National Statistics of Ex-offender Reentry 11/06

H.B. 71 Status, June 2008           

              House Bill 71, the bill that would repeal mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws in Delaware, was not voted out of the Senate Executive Committee before the end of the legislative session.  SURJ members, allies and representatives put a great deal of time and energy in our efforts to pass the bill, which led to its passage in the House of Representatives in April 2007.  Unfortunately, Delaware’s legislators had a number of complex bills before them, and did not give House Bill 71 the attention it needed to be voted out of committee and passed by the Senate.   

            For more information on H.B. 71 please see our Issues Brief.

HB 71:
Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Law
         Passes in the House            

            SURJ is pleased to report that on Tuesday, April 3, 2007, the Delaware House of Representatives passed H.B. 71 by a strong 26-13 majority. Although we should all enjoy this victory, the fight to pass this crucial piece of legislation is not yet over.  H.B. 71 still needs to pass in the Senate, and the SURJ office has already begun planning for this next stage.   SURJ’s members are vital to our efforts and we will continue to keep you informed and let you know how you can help. 

            Thank you to everyone who came down to Legislative Hall to show their support.  There was standing room only in the House Chamber!  Thank you to Speaker Terry Spence (R-Stratford), the bill’s primary House sponsor, who fought hard to make sure that this bill received the debate and hearing it deserved and thank you to all of the other legislators who support HB 71. 

            Speaking on behalf of the bill were SURJ Board Members Edmund “Ned” Carpenter, II, Esq., Thomas A. Foley, Esq.,  and the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh.  SURJ Trustee and former Attorney General, Charles M. Oberly, Esq., also spoke in support of the bill.   

            In his remarks to the House, Ned Carpenter stressed that both supporters and opponents of this bill agree on several things—that the drug trade is a serious problem and that mandatory minimum sentences transfer significant power to the prosecuting attorney.  The desire to retain the ability to threaten defendants, Mr. Carpenter said, will be the primary reason why opponents will not support the bill.  Additionally, the opposition cannot claim that our judiciary is incapable of handing down fair sentences, since Delaware’s judges have consistently been highly ranked in national studies. 

            Tom Foley pointed out that this bill has nothing to do with diminishing law enforcement’s capabilities - the police will continue to aggressively pursue crime.  The real question, he said, is whether justice demands that each and every offender should serve a mandatory minimum sentence.  Delaware’s frequent use of plea bargaining, he pointed out, illustrates the widely held belief that a mandatory minimum sentence is not appropriate in every case.  Defendants should have the opportunity to be heard, and judges should be able to consider the whole picture instead of using a sentencing “cookbook”.  “If a guy is a bad apple, he will still go to prison under this law,” Foley argued. 

            When Justice Joseph Walsh addressed the House, he reflected on his experiences as a judge.  “Sentencing is the hardest part of being a judge,” he said.  Judges must focus on the offense that has been committed while also focusing on the individual, a difficult balance.  With mandatory minimum sentencing, Judge Walsh argued, a Judge is unable to establish a balance at all because the entire focus is on the amount of drugs involved in the crime.  Judge Walsh also expressed his confidence in Delaware’s judiciary.  “I know every judge in this state, and there are no soft-on-sentencing judges,” he firmly stated.  

            Please continue to check your e-mail for updates on HB 71!

Incarceration: The Best Public Safety Solution?

             Over the past few decades, incarceration has increasingly been used as a tool to promote public safety. The rise in the incarceration rate and the seemingly constant expansion of prisons is evidence of our reliance on incarceration to fight crime. However, the continuing presence of crime and the rising cost of incarceration beg the question of whether or not incarceration has proven effective in preventing crime and promoting public safety.

         Certainly, there are those for whom imprisonment is a necessary punishment, but these serious offenders are not the ones who are overcrowding our prisons. The United States leads the world in incarceration rates, and this is not because our citizens are generally more prone to break the law. 

It is time to become more pragmatic about seeking solutions for fighting crime. By constantly expanding our prison system, we are not reducing criminal behavior. It is no longer acceptable to assume that incarceration alone is enough to have an impact on crime.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of incarceration in 2005 in prison and jail was 737 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. 1 in every 136 U.S. residents was incarcerated in a state or federal prison or a local jail, and national spending on corrections jumped from $9 billion to $61 billion between 1982 and 2004.

As these bleak statistics reflect, Americans have generally come to embrace incarceration as the best tool to enhance public safety and fight crime.  A new approach is desperately needed.  Only by getting “smart on sentencing” will public safety be increased in a meaningful way.

            The Delaware Reentry Roundtable, co-sponsored by SURJ and the Delaware Center for Justice  (DCJ), took place on September 29, 2006 at Widener University School of Law.  The Roundtable brought together close to 100 key stakeholders to address reentry issues, including state policymakers, community leaders, and criminal justice experts.  Participants were equipped with reentry data and charged with developing research-based recommendations to improve the success of ex-offenders reentering our communities. 

The day began with a presentation profiling Delaware’s offender population given by Dr. Danilo Yanich of the University of Delaware.  At lunch, JoAnne Page, President and CEO of The Fortune Society, addressed the audience and shared her experiences of working with ex-offenders in New York.  The event also included breakout sessions in the morning and afternoon addressing the barriers ex-offenders face in terms of housing, employment, physical/mental health, and substance abuse.

"Where can you make the critical inch forward?" asked JoAnne Page.  She offered "administrative twitches" as a possibility.

The Delaware Reentry Roundtable was an important first step toward significantly improving Delaware’s criminal justice system by addressing a problem of increasing concern: how to better ensure the successful transition of ex-offenders from prison to our communities.  However, much work remains to be done.  SURJ plans to continue the momentum of the Roundtable by issuing a final report that will include action steps and policy initiatives designed to improve reentry in Delaware. Providing inmates with identification upon release that is recognized by all state agencies and compiling a directory of available services for released inmates are examples of the many recommendations that were discussed at the Roundtable. SURJ is also planning public education events about ex-offender reentry during the winter and early spring.  For more information about the barriers to reentry and the recommendations that were discussed at the Roundtable, click here.

Repealing Delaware's Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Laws

SURJ Reentry Report
Online

          The final report of the Delaware Reentry Roundtable is now available online.  A preliminary report was distributed in draft form to all Roundtable participants in the hope that it would inform discussion at the Delaware Reentry Roundtable on September 29, 2006.  To read more about the Roundtable, go here.  

     When distributed at the Roundtable in September 2006, this report was still a work in progress.  We used feedback from Roundtable participants as well as the policy recommendations developed at the Roundtable to compile this final version.  We tried to make this report as comprehensive as possible so it can serve as a resource for all those working with ex-offenders and reentry issues in Delaware.

Report

Recommendations

A member of the SURJ Board since 2004, the Honorable Louis J. Freeh was elected Board Chair this past November.  From 1993 to 2001, Judge Freeh served as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  He has also served as a Special Agent of the FBI, as an Assistant United States Attorney, and as United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.  Judge Freeh will replace Governor Dale E. Wolf, who is retiring after serving four years as SURJ’s Board Chair.  Gov. Wolf remains on the SURJ Board as a Vice Chairman.  Also elected as Vice Chairs are the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh, retired Delaware Supreme Court Justice and the Reverend Canon Lloyd S. Casson, the rector of the Episcopal Church of Saints Andrew and Matthew.  

Judge Freeh has already played a vital role in SURJ’s efforts to repeal Delaware’s mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws.  In a recent News Journal article, Freeh said, “Some people told me I’d be one of the last people they thought they’d see pushing this initiative.”  However, Freeh’s experience as a federal judge convinced him that change was needed.  As a federal judge, he recalled having to sentence 20-year-olds who were drug users – but not dealers – to nearly two years in prison knowing that they would come out hardened by the prison system. 

Most of our communication with our members is through e-mail.  We don’t send out many e-mails, but it’s the best way for us to keep you informed in a timely manner about legislation and upcoming events.  If you have not received an e-mail from us recently, please take a moment to e-mail Katie or call her at (302) 426-9252 with your e-mail address or contact information changes.