The Center for Public Integrity reports at Truthout on a study showing that California juvenile arrests have plunged due to marijuana decriminalization:

The recently released policy briefing, "California Youth Crime Plunges to All-Time Low," identifies a new state marijuana decriminalization law that applies to juveniles, not just adults, as the driving force behind the plummeting arrest totals…After the new pot law went into effect in January 2011, simple marijuana possession arrests of California juveniles fell from 14,991 in 2010 to 5,831 in 2011, a 61 percent difference… 

"Arrests for youths for the largest single drug category, marijuana, fell by 9,000 to a level not seen since before the 1980s implementation of the 'war on drugs,'" Males wrote in the report, released in October…

Arresting and putting low-level juvenile offenders into the criminal-justice system pulls many kids deeper into trouble rather than turning them around, Males said, a conclusion many law-enforcement experts share.

Scrapping jail time in favor of fines seems to be a better option for young drug offenders in California. And public safety hasn't suffered as a result: arrests for violent crime actually dropped by 16 percent, homicide by 26 percent, and property crime by 16 percent between 2010 and 2011. Will other states get the message and follow suit? Colorado and Washington recently legalized marijuana use, but even there, pot will be permitted only for those who are 21 and older. Is an age minimum really the smartest policy when it comes to decriminalization? 

Crime is bustling, private prisons are flourishing, and $1.7 billion dollars is being spent on immigrants improperly detained in over 350 poorly ran facilities. There are cheaper alternatives as the Detention Watch Network points out:

Being in violation of immigration laws is not a crime. It is a civil violation…The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the agency responsible for detaining immigrants.

Although DHS owns and operates its own detention centers, it also "buys" bed space from over 312 county and city prisons nationwide to hold the majority of those who are detained (over 67%).

The average cost of detaining an immigrant is approximately $122 per person/ per day. Alternatives to detention….costing as little as $12 per day….still yield an estimated 93% appearance rate before the immigration courts.  

About half of all immigrants held in detention have no criminal record at all….Torture survivors, victims of human trafficking, and other vulnerable groups can be detained for months or even years.

Immigrants in detention include families.…pregnant women, children, and individuals….who are suffering poor conditions and abuse in detention facilities across the country….being separated often for life while the private prison industry and county jailers are reaping huge profits.

While profits flow to private prison corporations and state and county governments, the multi billion-dollar detention industry overlooks poor conditions and other abuses served to immigrants. Decide for yourself who is truly benefitting from the cost of the system and at which costs to human rights. 

Putting prevention ahead of incarceration will benefit communities and taxpayers—to the dismay of the private prison companies. The Justice Policy Institute says the profiteers want you locked up:

A number of states are already utilizing innovative strategies for reducing the number of people behind bars in their state. Reducing the number of people entering the justice system, and the amount of time that they spend there, can lower prison populations, making private, for-profit prisons unnecessary, and improving public safety and the lives of individuals.

Tracy Velázquez, executive director of JPI says: 

"Taxpayers lose when their money is used to generate profits for shareholders and to promote policies that increase incarceration; communities lose when policies proven to be ineffective for public safety are pushed through state legislatures, and people involved in the criminal justice system lose when they are locked up in underfunded and sometimes unsafe facilities."

....private prison companies continue to promote policies that put money in their pockets and people behind bars."

Why not invest in treatments and services that will improve communities and lower crime rates? Rather than focusing on putting people behind bars, let's put more energy and money towards keeping people from being there in the first place. 

Aviva Shen at Think Progress shows that an Ohio prison owned by Correction Corporation of America (CCA), one of the largest private prison companies in the U.S., has 47 state law violations: 

"Inmates claimed laundry and cell cleaning services were not provided and CCA could not prove otherwise, recreation time was not always allowed five times a week in segregation as required, food quality and sanitization was not up to standards…"

Despite the many abuses discovered at private prisons all over the country, CCA and other industry giants have greatly benefited from cash-strapped states' attempts to save money. However, recent studies show that private prisons actually cost more than state-owned ones. Undeterred, CCA has started offering states millions to buy state facilities like the Ohio prison. Ohio sold the prison to CCA last year to help balance the state's 2012-2013 budget, and CCA recently offered to buy another one in exchange for the state’s guarantee of 90% occupancy for 20 or 30 years.

So let's get this straight: private prisons cost more and run less effectively than other prisons — yet the private prison companies insist that they're an answer to the prayers of cash-strapped states looking to keep government working well. Does that make sense? Indeed, once a state sells a facility and gives a guarantee of high occupancy rates, there's no more incentive to reduce crime; the state is obligated to keep the prisons full for the profiteers. That's not a recipe for a sensible public safety policy that aims to rehabilitate, prevent crime, and minimize costs.

Californians say no more life sentences for non-violent crimes. In an overwhelming response to Proposition 36, the Three Strikes law will be amended to require that the third strike be a serious or violent offense. KPCC's Rina Palta reports:

Sixty-nine percent voted "yes" on the measure. California's Three Strikes law, once considered the toughest in the country, now looks more like dozens of other similar laws around the country.

Those currently serving life sentences for third strikes that were not serious or violent crimes will now be able to petition in court for altered sentences. Latest estimates put that number at about 3,000 inmates. Going forward, those who have previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies may be charged with a second strike for a new crime, whether or not it's serious or violent. That means they'll be eligible for double the sentence of those with no criminal histories. 

This proposition is bound to decrease incarceration in California -- doing a little more to distinguish between those from whom communities need permanent protection and those that need rehabilitation to become productive members of society.

The deputy director of NORML, a pot reform group, says ballot initiatives this year in Colorado and Washington herald the end of marijuana prohibition:

For the first time in well over seven decades, state law will declare that cannabis is no longer contraband.

While a minority of marijuana law reform activists has griped that these measures do not go far enough, the reality is that their passage will provide cannabis consumers with unprecedented legal protections. Presently, no state legally defines cannabis as a legal commodity. Some state laws do provide for a legal exception that allows for certain qualified patients to possess specific amounts of cannabis as needed. But none of these states define cannabis itself as a legal product that may be lawfully possessed and consumed by adults….

Similar to alcohol prohibition, cannabis prohibition is a federal policy that largely relies on state and local enforcement. How did federal alcohol prohibition come to an end? Simple. When a sufficient number of states – led by New York in 1923 (several other states, including Colorado, later followed) – enacted legislation repealing the state's alcohol prohibition laws. With states no longer doing the federal government's bidding to enforce an unpopular law, the Feds eventually had no choice but to abandon the policy altogether.   

Here's to history repeating itself. 

Let's hope he's right. Both measures are leading in the polls so it would be pretty shocking if we didn't get some momentum coming our way by Wednesday morning.

Can you imagine spending twelve years in prison for a $31 marijuana deal? That's exactly the sentence imposed on Patricia Spottedcrow of Oklahoma. A judge did reduce her sentence to eight years, but that may still seem a bit extreme. OK, very extreme. And the judge maintained that she needed "more time to prepare and mature" before being released into society. Is this kind of crackdown on marijuana users really making our communities safer? 

AlterNet has a rundown of this and other abysmal stories in "10 of the Harshest Sentences for Pot in the U.S."

Or take Montana's Christopher Williams, a medical marijuana provider that got busted for manufacturing and intent to distribute. Now he's facing 82 to 85 years behind bars. You read that correctly. Due to mandatory minimums, Williams could spend the rest of his natural born life in a cell for growing medical marijuana.

Sean Dunagan went to Monterrey, Mexico, to crack down on drugs. As an intelligence analyst for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he wanted to bring down the cartels and other trafficking organizations. He brought his family with him because Monterrey seemed like a peaceful, vibrant place to live. But things changed.

Jim Gray had the perfect law & order pedigree. He came from a conservative family, his dad was a judge, he served in the Navy as a JAG attorney, and he went on to become a judge himself. He wanted to do good. But as soon as he started hearing cases from the bench, he realized something was seriously wrong. Watch him destroy those who want to be talk tough instead of being smart on crime:

I listened to most of the major speeches during the first night of the Republican National Convention; not surprisingly, I heard no mention of crime and punishment issues.  But that does not mean RNC speakers lack notable records on crime and punishment issues, as this post from FAMM Florida Project Director Greg Newburn highlights:

The Republican National Committee's list of speakers for the GOP convention ... [includes many speakers who have] embraced the “Smart on Crime” model ..., and in the process have demolished the tired idea that conservatives aren’t open to common-sense criminal justice reform.

Take Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who could never be confused with a liberal.  He has argued that “we have not been very successful in incarcerating our way out of the drug problem.  We’ve created a bigger problem.  Our prisons are teeming with people who don’t need to be incarcerated as full-time inmates . . . I’m not soft on crime. Crime needs to be punished, but realistically, and justly.”...