T
he
United
States,
the
world’s
leading
manufacturer
of
prisoners,
has
an
incarceration problem.
A rapid rise in incarceration
rates has crippled the U.S. over
the past three decades. During
these years, the number of
inmates in U.S. prisons has risen
500 percent. As a result, the
United States pays $80 billion
annually in incarceration costs.
$80 billion. That’s money that
could go toward keeping Social
Security
solvent,
supporting
climate change research or
rebuilding infrastructure. But
in the United States, we spend it
on putting citizens behind bars.
American
imprisonment
habits are not normal, by the
way. The U.S. has a prison
population of nearly 2.2 million
people, compared with China’s
1.5 million (despite the fact that,
in 2011, China’s population was
four times as large) and Great
Britain’s
mere
80,000.
Are
Americans just more dangerous?
What’s going on?
In
truth,
there
isn’t
a
problem
with
Americans.
There is, however, a problem
with American laws. Federal
mandatory minimum-sentence
laws cause the economic and
cultural disaster known as
mass incarceration. Current
law dictates that judges must
hand down minimum sentences
for a variety of crimes, ranging
from
immigration
offenses
to illegal food stamp activity
to bank robbery. Mandatory
minimums are fiscally and
socially
destructive;
they
create
one-size-fits-all
sentences that lengthen jail
time for undeserving criminals
and cost taxpayers money.
The
incarceration
process
is unfair and we can’t afford it
anymore. The fix is simple: stop
locking so many people up.
To do this, we need a
safety
valve
—
exceptions
to minimums that provide
ways in which judges can
avoid handing down harsh
punishments that too often
have
unjust,
unintended
results. For example, statutory
laws might force a judge to
sentence someone to 10 years
in prison for selling pot. If,
however, the judge sees the
person he’s sentencing has
no criminal history and no
history of violence, he can
adjust the verdict to something
less life-altering by way of the
safety valve.
Safety
valves
can
be
incredibly powerful in fighting
the mass incarceration crisis;
this is why U.S. law already
dictates one. The current safety
valve is described in § 3553(f) of
Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Under
the provision, federal judges
are to hand down sentences
“without regard to any statutory
minimum sentence” when five
requirements are met. Good
news, right?
There’s
an
issue:
The
aforementioned
safety
valve
applies
only
to
first-time,
nonviolent drug offenders in
cases not involving guns. This is
a ridiculously narrow offering.
Since the provision applies only
to first-time offenders, even
the most minor misconduct has
disqualifying power. So, too,
does possession of a gun, even
one that is registered.
The
safety
valve
must
expand across the board for all
federal crimes. The existing
one-size-fits-all
system
of
judicial
sentencing
leads
to
too
many
unwarranted
punishments, which, in turn,
have drastic negative effects
on the economy. More money
is
spent
keeping
prisons
running, while fewer able-
bodied Americans can supply
the workforce.
The
country’s
social
atmosphere also takes a hit, as
high incarceration rates break
up families and induce this
crushing statistic: In 2010, 1
in 28 American children had a
parent behind bars. Having a
parent in jail can be detrimental
to a child’s well-being. A report
from
the
Urban
Institute
found these kids are more
likely to experience chronic
sleeplessness,
difficulties
concentrating and restlessness.
They also are more likely to
have problems with depression,
anxiety or aggression.
Put it all together and
we’re left with a vicious cycle
that not only damages the
U.S. economy, but also leaves
kids parentless and, often,
emotionally scarred.
The Justice Safety Valve
Act proposes a broad policy
that applies to all federal
crimes that carry mandatory
minimum sentences. The bill
requires nothing of federal
judges, since they would still
be able to sentence at or beyond
the mandatory minimum. The
plan would simply give judges
more flexibility.
It’s safe to assume that U.S.
incarceration
rates
would
shrink if this bill is passed.
Taxpayer money could flow
back
toward
rebuilding
highways and revamping our
education system, and parents
would spend less time behind
bars and more time watching
their children grow up.
Unfortunately,
the
Justice Safety Valve Act was
introduced last May in the
Senate and hasn’t been touched
since. Lawmakers don’t seem to
realize the positive economic
and cultural effects that would
come out of its passage.
In essence, it’s a common-
sense idea: Judges should have
a high degree of flexibility
when making their decisions.
Of course, the far-reaching
issue of mass incarceration
won’t be solved with the
passage
of
one
law.
But
attacking the problem will
take time and effort. Why not
start with a piece of legislation
that saves taxpayers money
and gives our federal judges a
little more flexibility?
I
opened
my
computer
last Monday night and
saw so many posts with
#MeToo.
Curious
about what it was
all about, I turned
to Google. On Oct.
15, actress Alyssa
Milano
tweeted,
“Suggested
by
a
friend: If all the
women who have
been
sexually
harassed
or
assaulted
wrote
‘Me too’ as a status,
we might give people a sense
of
the
magnitude
of
the
problem.” I kept scrolling and
scrolling through the posts,
shocked to see my peers,
teachers and family members
post openly about their sexual
abuse and harassment stories.
I couldn’t believe the number
of posts there were, and I felt
comforted by the number of
allies I had to relate to and
share my experiences with.
I, too, could have posted
#MeToo, but I didn’t. While
I respect and understand
how
survivors
could
feel
personally
supported
in
posting this, I also found
it
oversaturated
social
media and resulted in a less
impactful message. I couldn’t
help but think about the
large audience who would
be viewing these posts: men.
While 1 in 6 men are sexually
abused or assaulted, the rates
for women are much higher.
Don’t get me wrong: I want
to raise awareness about this
movement. I am also a victim
of systematic sexism and want
to create change for myself
and others. Women should
be treated with respect in
all facets of their lives, and
their experiences of hurt and
trauma should not be brushed
under the rug.
But
in
that
moment, I thought I
didn’t have to share
my story because
so many others did.
I have always felt
my experience was
not
as
traumatic
as
others,
which
is
why
I
didn’t
post
about
it.
I
felt I would have
exaggerated
my
experiences by posting about
it. But when I thought about
this idea in the context of
voting in an election, I realized
the invalidity of my claim.
Every vote counts, and in this
situation, every person who
has experienced sexual assault
in any capacity counts.
Even though I don’t like to
plaster my opinion all over the
internet, I still see the value
in #MeToo. I know that I am
not alone in feeling hesitation
to
share
a
controversial
opinion via the internet. A lot
of the time, young women are
afraid to spark controversy in
fear of the backlash we will
receive from others. Men hold
so much power within our
society that women’s voices
can often be overshadowed
or disregarded. Women are
conditioned to believe that
their opinion is inferior to
that of men.
Women who were assaulted
by Harvey Weinstein were
afraid to speak out about
their experiences in fear of
losing their jobs, social status
and reputation. The power
men hold in society has been
around for centuries, and
though women have come
so far in the struggle for
gender equality, like gaining
the right to vote and equal
minimum wage for men and
women, we still have a long
way to go.
This was the first time
I
noticed
women’s
voices
elevated over men’s. This
made me realize how powerful
we can be and that we need
to move beyond speaking out
only when something bad
happens. We need to take
proactive
action
and
talk
about these hardships even
when they aren’t trending in
pop culture.
The stories of hurt and
abuse through #MeToo are
very powerful, and I have
respect for those brave enough
to share their experiences.
Though I did not post, I had
many intelligent conversations
with men and women who
were deeply shocked by what
had happened and are ready to
raise awareness and advocate
for change. I am not expecting
sexual assault to evaporate
from society overnight, but it
is the small conversations in
coffee shops or dorm rooms
that allow us to confide in
one another to create change.
Whether these conversations
planted seeds in the minds of
others or a conversation gave
new perspective about these
issues, the way we discuss
with those around us has
potential for stepping one step
closer to equality.
In order to make change, we
should share our knowledge
and experiences with others
all the time — not just when a
hashtag is trending.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 26, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Breaking the silence
MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN
Solving our prison problem
BILLY STAMPFL | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Billy Stampfl can be reached at
bstampfl@umich.edu.
JOE IOVINO | JOE CAN BE REACHED AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU
Hawkishness and hypocrisy
BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN
I
f you’ve been following the
developing story about the
Trump
administration’s
response to the deaths of
four American soldiers in
Niger earlier this month,
chances are you have
some questions. After
brushing up on your
geography, you might
ask, for instance, what
were U.S. armed forces
doing there in the first
place? You wouldn’t
be alone in wondering
this. In fact, you would
be in the company of at least two
U.S. senators.
Last Sunday, Sen. Lindsey
Graham, R-S.C., who sits on the
Committee on Armed Services,
admitted on NBC’s “Meet the
Press” that he was not even
aware of a U.S. presence in Niger.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer,
D-N.Y.,
echoed
a
similar
sentiment in another interview
on the same day. Beyond the
eye-catching headlines about a
feud between the commander
in chief and members of Gold
Star families — and a circus of
punditry about indecency that
should no longer be shocking to
anyone anymore — the timing
of such a display of ignorance
reflects something frightening.
This country’s military spending
is out of control, and the only
people who can rein it in are
either too scared or too oblivious
to even bring it up for debate.
Last
Thursday
night,
the
Senate
passed
its
budget
resolution for the fiscal year
2018 by a vote of 51-49. Though
this vote may not have been
surrounded
by
as
much
media coverage as the health
care vote was in July, it was
equally
dramatic.
Perennial
nonconformist Sen. Rand Paul,
R-Ky., broke ranks with his party
to oppose the measure, eliciting
an avalanche of criticism from
his Republican colleagues. His
opposition was based primarily
in $43 billion of increased
military spending that would
use a loophole to exceed limits
set in 2011. Not one of his 51
fellow members of the GOP, all
of whom no doubt campaign on
that phrase conservatives so like
to use — “balancing the budget”
— seemed to agree.
In doing so, Paul solidified
his position as one of the few
members of Congress who has
not rolled over in the face of
President
Trump’s
massive
hikes in military spending. In
September, he was one of only
eight senators to vote against
the administration’s
$700 billion defense
policy bill, which
included
increased
funding
nearly
across
the
board,
shelling out billions
at
a
time.
This
group
included
five (yes, only five)
Democrats.
The
rest of the so-called
liberal
opposition
party took out their rubber
stamps
and
issued
bland
statements about how proud they
were to be supporting the brave
men and women of our military.
I’d like to pause here for a
minute and make clear that I,
too, respect these brave men
and women. I appreciate their
service and all that they do to
make this country, and in many
cases the world, a safer place.
Furthermore, I’m neither an
isolationist nor a pacifist. I
understand the importance of a
global U.S. presence, and I’m not
advocating for an end to defense
spending. But a few things need
to be established.
First of all, the Republicans
who
champion
these
hikes
should no longer be permitted to
brand themselves as champions
of fiscal conservatism. Writing
checks for billions of dollars
at a time to expand a sector
that already accounts for such
an enormous portion of the
national budget and claiming
prudence are mutually exclusive
actions.
Defense
spending
was only just projected to be
returning to peacetime levels
thanks to de-escalation in Iraq
and
Afghanistan,
but
these
developments show that it is
poised to climb back up. These
are the same officials who
target
funding
for
National
Public Radio and the National
Endowment for the Arts in their
efforts to rein in spending, which
is a bit like buying a Rolls Royce
and then complaining that the $3
air freshener you bought to hang
from the rearview mirror is what
broke the bank.
Second of all, Democrats must
be made to answer for these votes
in the future. With the exception
of
the
five
aforementioned
senators — Bernie Sanders,
D-Vt.;
Kirstin
Gillibrand,
D-N.Y.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.;
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Ron
Wyden, D-Ore. — all 43 others,
many of whom have hopes
for 2020, need to explain how
approving this runaway train
works toward a more progressive
future with better jobs, better
health care and better education.
Democratic primary voters
should remember this vote in
three years as they evaluate
names like Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass.;
Kamala
Harris,
D-Calif.;
and
Cory
Booker,
D-N.J. In a broader sense, is
the party really so inept that it
cannot formulate an argument
that says simply, “We respect
the military as much as the next
guy, but sometimes the more
patriotic thing to do is to spend
that dollar in a classroom and not
researching self-driving tanks?”
Finally, the shocking lack
of oversight is unsustainable.
There’s not much to say here
other
than
if
the
military
expects nearly a trillion dollars
of taxpayer money to be at its
disposal on an annual basis, it’s not
too much to ask for senators on the
Committee of Armed Services to
know where that money and those
troops are going.
In
the
Declaration
of
Independence,
in
between
grievances about taxation and
representation, one of the most
severe charges against King George
III was that he had “render(ed)
the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil Power.” This
foundational skepticism played a
pivotal role in the formation of the
executive branch and the status
of the president as a civilian
commander in chief. Essential to
American democracy is the idea
that the military reports to us.
Today, I cannot even write an
article questioning an increase
in defense spending without
feeling as if I need to include
a
paragraph
qualifying
my
respect for the troops. Hawkish
politicians funnel money into the
armed services at historic levels,
nearly without a second thought.
Our military is romanticized,
idealized and elevated to the
point that its entitlement to
nearly 20 percent of the national
budget is a given and to question it
would be considered unpatriotic.
The Senate just approved more
money for military action its
members don’t even know is
taking place. That skepticism is
gone. We need it back.
Brett Graham can be reached at
btgraham@umich.edu.
BRETT
GRAHAM
MICHELLE
PHILLIPS
Michelle Phillips can be reached at
mphi@umich.edu.
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan Daily for
first-person accounts of sexual assault and its corresponding personal,
academic and legal implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.