Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality

The Canaanite Holy Temple of Science and its integrated auxiliary, the Canaanite Theological Learning Center (School of Moorish Theology & Civics Studies) and its programs of the Committee For Criminal Justice Reform and We The People of Justice Media will be coming very soon, so stay tuned!

The Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality & Our Stand On Criminal Justice Reform!

The Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality stands firm on the issue of actually fixing the errors in the criminal justice system. The goals of the Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality, which is one of the most involved organizations within the movement for criminal justice reform include decreasing the United States' prison population, reducing prison sentences that are perceived to be too harsh and long, altering drug sentencing policy, policing reform, reducing overcriminalization, and juvenile justice reform. The Criminal justice reform of the Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality also targets reforming policies for those with criminal convictions that are receiving other consequences from food assistance programs, outside of serving their time in prison.

There are many organizations that advocate to reform the criminal justice system, but the Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality is the only one that is serving the full needs of the offender, ex-offenders, their family members, while restoring the core of victim(s) or communities empowerment and core values! Most states have a criminal justice reform act as well. The Committee For Ex-Offenders Equality uses legal disputes and public events to make the problems aware to the public, but mostly the state and federal governments.

The sentencing laws within the U.S. criminal justice system are both draconian and racially discriminatory. Additionally, the sentencing laws are the main contributor to the growing and excessive prison population known as mass incarceration. In 2016, according to the Sentencing Project's Fact Sheet on Trends in U.S. Corrections, 2.2 million individuals were in America's prisons or jails. This reflects a 500% increase since the mid 1980s, which has come to be known as mass incarceration. Those in support of criminal justice reform perceive the issue to be an increase in surveillance and the use of draconian sentencing laws, especially within communities of color. While some researches claim that racial sentencing disparities are a reflection of differences in criminal activity, crime seriousness, and recidivism between different communities, other researchers believe that racial minorities are punished more harshly than their white counterparts who commit similar crimes. In fact, an individual’s race and ethnicity play a role in sentencing outcomes. Young Black and Latino males (especially if unemployed), often receive longer and stricter sentences than whites. Additionally Black and Latin individuals with drug offenses, who commit crimes that affect white individuals, or refuse to plead guilty are often given harsher treatments. Individuals are sentenced more often and for longer with the average sentence in the U.S. being nearly twice as long as Australian and five times as long as German sentences. Truth in Sentencing laws and mandatory minimums are perceived to be two forms of draconian policies that contribute to prison overcrowding. Truth in sentencing law requires that offenders serve the majority of their sentences before being eligible for release, restricting or eliminating sentencing exceptions such as good-time, earned-time, and parole board release. The majority of truth in sentencing laws require offenders to complete at least 85% of their sentence. Due to the formation of the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program by Congress in 1994, states are given grants if they require violent offenders to serve at least 85% of their sentences. Mandatory minimum laws are those that require judges to sentence an individual to a specified minimum for the committed crime. This shifts power from the power of judges to prosecutors who have the ability to use the threat of an extremely long sentence in order to pressure defendants into accepting a plea bargain.

When it comes to drug policy reform, we point to the war on drugs, ma*****na law reform, and reducing drug harm as key issues. The CFEOE are advocates for policy change and we perceive that the War on Drugs was and is a policy failure that has led to wasted resources, human potential, and a violation of rights. We view the mass incarceration of drug users as a waste of taxpayer money. The United States spends over $51 million yearly on the war on drugs. The CFEOE can show proof that the likelihood of imprisonment for drug related charges is racially disparate. The CFEOE stands firm on its position that the War on Drugs is a new form of systematic oppression and social control that resembles Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation. The enactment of the War on Drugs in the 1980s is primarily responsible for the dramatic rise in incarceration rates in the U.S. In the 1980s, 40,900 individuals were incarcerated due to drug offenses, and by 2015 there were 469,545. In 2016, 1,572,579 individuals were arrested for drug law violations (84% of which were due to possession). Of this number, 643,249 were arrested due to marajuana violations (89% of which were due to possession). Approximately half of the individuals currently incarcerated in federal prisons are there due to a drug offense. Half of the individuals in federal prison are there due to a drug offense. Compared to 1980, there are ten times as many people in state prisons for drug offenses. The focus of the War on Drugs is misguided for stigmatizing drug users. Drug use is framed as a criminal rather than addiction and health issue. At the CFEOE, we point to countries that focus on the reduction of drug related harms such as overdose, addiction, and disease as metrics for drug policy success. Portugal is extremely successful for their drug policies since decriminalizing low level drug possession in 2001 and shifting towards a health-based approach to drug use. Since doing so Portugal has seen a decrease in violent crime, addiction, and the transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C.

Policing reform typically focuses on police brutality and the use of dangerous force against minority individuals. Police brutality refers to the "use of excessive physical force or verbal assault and psychological intimidation" by law enforcement against individuals. Police have killed 1,147 individuals in 2017. This shows an increase from previous years with 963 individuals killed by fatal force in 2016 and 995 killed in 2015. The distribution of these killings varies widely by state with the majority of incidences occurring in states such as California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona and the least in Rhode Island, Vermont and North Dakota. While the distribution of killings by state within the U.S. is not even, overall more individuals die due to police shootings and other acts of excessive force than in any other Western, developed nation. Additionally, there are racial disparities within statistics of police killings. Of the 1,147 individuals killed by the police in 2017, a quarter were Black, meaning Black individuals were three times as likely to be killed by the police than their White counterparts. 30% of the Black victims were unarmed, compared to 21% of White Victims that were. At the CFEOE, we point to recurring examples of discriminatory violence towards individuals such as the Watts Riots of 1965, the beating of Rodney King in 1991, the death of Amadou Diallo in the 1990s and recent stories of police brutality such as the cases of Trayvon Martin. Theories from various fields including sociology and psychology have attempted to explain the phenomena of police brutality. Sociological theories of brutality focus on the way in which interactions between police and individuals are influenced by the status of the individual. This means that differences race, gender, and socioeconomic status result in disparate treatment by law enforcement. Additionally, “situational factors” such as the character of the neighborhood also affect the interactions. Each of these factors are cues that push officers to make judgements about how to proceed. So, according to this theory minorities are over-represented in police killings simply due to perceptions of their race. Psychological theories of police brutality emphasizes that different outlooks and personalities result in differing behavior by the police. This follows behavioral psychology in suggesting that differences in gender, socioeconomic status, educational and experiences affect one’s responses. Organizational theory suggests that police brutality is a result of the organizational structure of law enforcement. The use of excessive force is seen as a response to disrespecting their authority. At the CFEOE, we perceive that White individuals and groups typically excuse police brutality due to a deep seated prejudice towards Blacks. Media representations of Black individuals and disparate sentencing contribute to the idea that Black individuals are inherently more criminal. Research reveals that Black males with features considered Afrocentric such as darker skin tone, broad noses, and full lips, receive longer sentences than their lighter skinned counterparts with Eurocentric features. Broken Windows policing, or quality of life policing, is based on a criminological theory known as broken windows theory. This theory suggests that repairing broken windows in buildings and other form of physical disorder within a city indicate whether or not there is crime. When translated to policing tactics, minor offenses are targeted as a way to deter greater, more serious crime. The CFEOE point to the ways that broken windows policing negatively impacts communities of color through criminalization and excessive force. Additionally, it is typically seen as responsible for over policing and the militarization of neighborhoods. Offenses such as drug possession, “suspicious” activities or mental health crises often lead to the characterization of a neighborhood as disorderly and in need of stronger policing. At the CFEOE, we suggest that this leads to the inherent criminalization of poor, minority and homeless individuals. It creates a stigma that reinforces the underlying problems that lead to the perception of crime within the neighborhood. Additionally, we suggest that these issues are improperly addressed by law enforcement and instead should be treated by social workers or healthcare professionals. Predictive Policing is an analytical technique used by law enforcement in order to predict where crime is likely to occur. It involves predicting both the potential time and place of crimes and individuals likely to commit them. It is used as an alternative to full reliance and trust in the “hunches” and instincts of law enforcement that are believed to come with training. Those who are not targeted by the police believe that it is a way to minimize bias and discriminatory practices within policing. At the CFEOE, we point to the fact that (1) the data used to isolate patterns of criminal behavior uses a privatized algorithm that only companies have access to and (2) its potential to reinforce existing biases against poor and minority communities. Because predictive policing algorithms use existing data to make predictions, it would follow that existing bias within the system is not eliminated but amplified. Additionally, we perceive that it is a way to “manufacture” crime; it reinforces the idea that crime in an area exists and just needs to be found by law enforcement. Stop-and-frisk stops refer to “a brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect” warranted by “reasonable suspicion” that often involve a pat down of the suspect. Stop-and-frisk policies became a large part of criminal justice reform efforts following NYPD's use of the tactic. NYPD vowed to end its implementation of stop and frisk policies August 12, 2013 when ruled unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York. Although this is the case, similar policies are used in other cities throughout the U.S. At the CFEOE, we perceive that it is unconstitutional, ineffective, and racist. Most cases in which stop and frisk is used are a result of the War on Drugs. In line with this, the majority of those targeted are racial minorities, specifically African Americans. A report by the Public Advocate's office indicates that of the 532,911 stops made in 2012 in New York City, 53% of individuals were Black and 31% were Hispanic. Additionally, the New York Civil Liberties Union indicated that only 97,296 stops were made in 2002, or less than a fifth of those made in 2012. At the CFEOE, we point to the fact that stop-and-frisk is often unproductive and fails to fulfill its aim. Of the 2.3 million instances of police stopping Black males based on reasonable suspicion between 2004 and 2012, only 16,000 resulted in the seizure of illicit goods.

At the CFEOE, we express that re-entry programs need reform and we point to recidivism rates within the United States criminal justice system. While those against reform claim that recidivism rates are indicative of inherent criminality amongst certain groups, but at the CFEOE, we perceive it is indicative of the ineffectiveness of re-entry and parole programs. Different types of disenfranchisement exist that affect ex-offenders after their release. At the CFEOE, we push for the reform of restrictions on federal aid and societal participation. Federal restrictions that exist include bans on the use of welfare programs and federal financial aid for education. Restrictions on societal participation include felons not being allowed to hold public office, teach or work in child care, or vote. Voting restrictions are known as felony disenfranchisement. This refers to the regulations that prevent those with a felony conviction from voting in local, state, and federal elections on the basis of their conviction. 6.1 million individuals were unable to vote due to felony disenfranchisement in 2016. Former prisoners are incarcerated multiple times, increasing recidivism rates, because they are unable to follow strict rules and regulations. At the CFEOE, we perceive these regulations as not being focus on community well being, but instead on controlling parolees. A report for Columbia University’s Justice lab showed that in the four years since January 1, 2018, New York City’s jail population declined by 21%. However, during this time period, the population of individuals incarcerated due to parole violations increased by 15%. The Second Chance Act was passed with bipartisan support in an effort to reduce recidivism rates and improve outcomes for individuals following their released from juvenile facilities, jails and prisons. Second Chance Grant Programs include those that focus on substance use and mental disorders, mentoring and transitional services for adults, improvement for the outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system, and technology career training.

The push for reform within juvenile justice highlights the notion that Black and Latin individuals, especially males, are criminalized prior to adulthood. The juvenile justice system is viewed in the same light as the criminal justice system as a form of social control that incapacitates Black and Latin youth. Criminalization is also thought to occur in other social institutions such as school businesses, the streets and community centers. At the CFEOE, we criticize he juvenile justice system itself for perpetuating the notion that non-criminal individuals are criminal. The majority of individuals that enter the system have committed non-violent offenses, but still experience the effects of indirect punishment, direct punishment, and criminalization of their violent counterparts. Overall, this criminalization is thought to be harmful due to its impact on the perception and Black and Latin youth have of themselves and their capability to be successful within society. At the CFOEO, we perceive that the juvenile justice system is a part of the school to prison pipeline which funnels individuals from public school to the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Harsher disciplinary rules prevent individuals from re-entering schools following an offense, making it more likely for them to experience social pressures such as low income and unemployment that we at the CFEOE perceive to lead to criminal activity. Additionally, in school arrests contribute to the pipeline. At the CFEOE, we point to the fact that 70% of students arrested at school are Black, further contributing to the criminalization and mass incarceration of Black individuals.

One of the main goals of the CFEOE is to spread awareness about perceived injustices within the criminal justice system and to promote action against it through social and policy change. The CFEOE will soon announce its bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system in the United States. The reforms of the CFEOE will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences.

Home COMMITTEE FOR EX-OFFENDERS EQUALITY