3 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/14/18 11:55pm)
MONTPELIER — In addition to protecting the general population, incarceration is meant to serve as a punishment to criminals in order to discourage the commitment of further crimes. However, recidivism is high for those who enter the prison system. 67.8 percent of the 404,638 state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states were arrested again within 3 years of release, and 76.6 percent were arrested within 5 years of release, according to a special report from the U.S. Department of Justice that looked at recidivism from 2005 to 2010.
To make matters worse, that state of Vermont has more inmates than prison beds available. “Today, Vermont has a total incarcerated population of 1744. Of that, 1,585 are men. We only have 1,300 male beds. As a result, we have about 230 inmates out of state,” said Lisa Menard, the commissioner for the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC). For a state that has more prisoners than beds available, looking for ways to decrease the recidivism rate is paramount. One such alternative that the state has adopted is a method of restorative justice.
Restorative justice is a broad term that describes a collective rehabilitation process involving the offender, the victim of the crime, and the community.
“Restorative justice means that a person who has committed an offense takes responsibility for that offense and tries to make amends to the victim and the community for their behavior,” Menard explained.
“One of the nice things is that it really takes the victim into account,” added “It asks: what are their needs? In the criminal justice system, crime is viewed as a violation of the law and the state, whereas restorative justice looks at it as a violation of people or relationships.”
Restorative Justice Centers (RJCs) are the cornerstones of restorative justice. The Vermont DOC allocates 3 million general fund dollars to RJCs annually. Although each center is run differently, they offer the same programming. Vermont is the only state to have an RJC in every county.
From transportation and housing to alcohol and drug services, Restorative Justice Centers serve a variety of functions and provide an assortment of services. RJCs are geared to serve two demographics: those who are at a high-risk of entering the criminal justice system, and those who have served time and are looking to be reintegrated back into society. RJCs work with anybody in the criminal justice system at any time as long as they take responsibility for the crime they committed. One notable restorative justice program is the Circle Of Support and Accountability (COSA).
The COSA program is a reentry program for high-risk offenders, available following their served prison time. In order to run this program, RJCs find three volunteers from the surrounding community who go through a training and make an agreement to meet with an offender twice a week every week for a year, working to repair the harm the offender has done.
The offender agrees to be honest about what their needs are in order best to work with volunteers. Conversely, volunteers agree to support and follow any rules that the DOC has set or that the offender has set for themselves.
“Bottom line of the COSA program is no secrets and no more victims,” said Kym Anderson, the director of the Randolph Community Justice Center. “If a person coming out of jail has a social support network, they are significantly less likely to reoffend.”
Being placed on Reparative Probation — a program similar to COSA — versus Standard Probation decreases the odds of a new conviction during probation by 23 percent. Furthermore, the odds of a new conviction after probation are reduced by 12 percent for those on Reparative Probation rather than Standard Probation, according to a study titled, “Reparative versus Standard Probation: Community Justice Outcomes.”
The study outlines another program that acts to prevent individuals from ever entering the criminal justice system. People who commit low-level crimes can be referred by police, school, state’s attorneys or judges to participate in a community reparative panel. Offenders agree to meet with the volunteers on their community reparative panel to come up with a plan to repair the harm their crime caused. If the offender chooses to go through the restorative program and is able to complete it, they will avoid a criminal conviction on their record.
While choosing to participate in the restorative justice program may seem like the easy way out, participating in the community reparative panel is a commitment some cannot handle.
“Many people who are not interested in repairing harm find going through the panel more onerous than going through court,” Anderson said. “They drop out of the panel and decide to go to court because they see going to court as easier than the panel.”
While participating in restorative justice programs has been proven to reduce the likelihood of perpetrators committing another crime, Laura Zeliger, the Community & Restorative Justice Director in Vermont, does not think that it is always a better alternative.
“I would say it’s not better than the traditional legal system,” Zeliger said. “I would say that it’s an option for some individuals. Some would argue it’s better on a case by case basis. You would have to ask those people if they feel better by the end of the process.”
Restorative justice has been found to be unsuccessful in two specific situations. Restorative justice does not work when the offender refuses to take responsibility for the crime they committed, and it has not worked for crimes involving domestic or sexual violence.
While restorative justice has been in Vermont for 20 years, it is in the process of being revamped. “We have seen a shift towards evidence-based assessments and evidence-based programming — meaning using what we know works because it’s been shown to work by scientific method,” Menard said. “That way we know we’re spending very precious general fund dollars for what is the most effective.”
Although there are a lot of flaws to our inherently racist criminal justice system, restorative justice is a good first step.
“Restorative justice boils down to offender accountability and the opportunity to repair harm to the victim or the community for harm that’s been created through law breaking or violations,” Zeliger said. “Restorative justice gives offenders a chance to repair the harm and allows victims a voice in the process.”
Editor’s note: This article is the second in a series.
(03/08/18 12:54am)
MONTPELIER — The state of Vermont has a history of being socially and politically progressive. Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery in 1777. Montpelier is the only state capital without a McDonald’s restaurant. Vermont was the only state without a Wal-mart until 1996.
More recently, Vermont has continued to lead the way in progressive reforms both politically and socially. It was one of the first states to legalize civil unions, push for a single-payer health care system and legalize cannabis. However, Vermont’s criminal justice system does not follow the same progressive trend.
Vermont has one of the worst track records when it comes to the criminal justice system. According to Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform (VCJR) white people are equally as likely to be involved with drugs as black people are, yet, “on average, black and brown people are incarcerated in Vermont state prisons at a rate 5.1 times higher the imprisonment of whites. Vermont has a higher rate of incarceration of black and brown men than any other state. 1 in 14 black and brown men in the state of Vermont are incarcerated.”
“Drug laws exist to police people of color,” said Joanna Colwell, a community activist. “That is a national issue, though, not just a Vermont issue. It’s a double whammy: the law itself is racist and then you have those racist laws implemented in a way that is even more unfair to people of color.”
According to the 2010 census, while only 1.1 percent of Vermont’s population is black, blacks make up 10.7 percent of the Vermont prison population.
A recent study published by the University of Vermont found that black and hispanic drivers are more likely than white or Asian drivers to receive a citation once pulled over. The black arrest rate is almost double the white arrest rate. When a demographic of people are stopped and arrested more often, a higher percentage of them will end up behind bars.
“Racism is a systemic issue, not just a matter of a couple bad police officers,” said Nico Armador, an organizer for the ACLU. “Multiple disparities that are impacting people of color create a higher likelihood that they will end up in prison at some point in their life. Disparities include economic disparity, high rates of unemployment, discrimination and ways in which people of color experience the school system.”
While it has become evident that Vermont’s criminal justice system is racist, there is an overwhelming consensus that the current administration is dedicated to reforming many aspects of the criminal justice system here in Vermont.
“The good things that have happened are the results of policies that the legislature and the administration have put in place over the past decade,” said Robin Scheu, a representative for Addison County who sits on the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions. “Ten years ago, the prison population was projected to be 2800 people in 2018. Today, the population is down to 1700 prisoners.”
This downward trend in inmate population comes in conjunction with policies that have been passed by recent administrations. The current governor and state legislature have made a conscious decision to transition towards a restorative justice criminal justice system.
Vermont is the only state to have community justice centers in every county in the state. The state has also passed legislation that focuses on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment: People can no longer be kept in prison for misdemeanors, and programs have been created that use youth age court diversions to keep people from entering the criminal justice system.
Youth age court diversion programs are used with first-time offenders for minor crimes, and encourages their sentencing to be kept at a minimum. Vermont’s restorative justice system also gives offenders the chance to perform certain restitutions to avoid punishment, and pretrial services exist that allow people to receive services they need before they ever actually enter a prison system.
In light of the study published by University of Vermont, which emphasizes discrimination in the criminal justice system, the state legislature passed a bill to create The Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Advisory Panel. The bill states that “the Panel shall review and provide recommendations to address systemic racial disparities in statewide systems of criminal and juvenile justice.”
The panel will be comprised of 13 members, five of whom will be appointed by the attorney general from “diverse backgrounds to represent the interests of communities of color throughout the State.”
In spite of these reforms, Vermont’s criminal justice system has a long way to go. All of the state-owned prisons in Vermont were built before the time of restorative justice. The prisons are designed to emphasize punishment as opposed to rehabilitation.
Colwell explained that the state of Vermont is currently paying Pennsylvania to house 262 Vermonters in a state prison, which not only makes it extremely difficult for relatives to visit inmates who are incarcerated but also inhibits prisoners’ access to rehabilitation programs.
The Vermont ACLU is pushing for cash bail reform and a reform to the role that prosecutors play in rates of incarceration. In order to alleviate the pressure from psychiatric hospitals and emergency rooms, the state would need to expand the number of beds in correctional facilities.
Although the creation of a panel to review the racial disparities in the criminal justice system is a good start, more reforms have been demanded to combat the systemic racism evident in Vermont’s justice system.
Editor’s note: This article is the first in a series.
(10/18/17 11:23pm)
Former House of Representative member Barney Frank (D–MA) sat down with former New Hampshire governor John Sununu (R) last Wednesday to discuss the status of economic opportunity in the Trump era. Gail Chaddock, the former political editor for the Christian Science Monitor, moderated their discussion.
Sponsored by the Common Ground Committee and the Christian Science Monitor, the discussion was part of a series called “Critical Conversations,” an initiative started the college in response to the political events that occurred last spring. Its mission is to emphasize Middlebury’s commitment to free expression and inclusivity while promoting better arguments with greater respect.
The conversation, titled “Find Common Ground for Economic Opportunity in the Trump Era,” focused on four main topics: jobs and growth, economic opportunity and the social safety net, taxes and regulations, and immigration. Throughout the discussion, the two politicians emphasized the importance of maintaining civility during a time of increasing political polarization.
“The process of arguing and disagreeing is essential to democracy and to finding the right answer,” Frank said.
Both politicians blamed the proliferation of technology and the wide-spread use of social media for causing the current political climate.
“Because of today’s technology, people only talk to others whom they know have the same political beliefs. This promotes a cluster of sameness and creates a climate in this country that dissuades confrontation,” Sununu said.
Both men used this conversation to criticize the media — saying the media only covers the negative aspects of government and ignores the positives. Frank said this focus on negativity makes bipartisan cooperation increasingly difficult.
“When you compromise, you are the traitor,” Frank said. Both politicians emphasized a need for the media to find a balance between holding the government accountable and praising their successes.
In terms of economic policy, the two did not disagree on specific issues but instead they emphasized different aspects of the economy they deemed most important. Sununu highlighted the need to encourage capital investment on U.S. soil.
“The government needs to create incentives for companies to repatriate jobs here,” he said. “Democrats and Republicans need to come together for tax bill that has incentives while protecting the middle class.”
He added a need for the tax reform bill to include a way for the three to five trillion dollars in companies overseas to come back the U.S. economy.
Although Frank praised trade and capital investment, he put more emphasis on the need for equity.
“We make money by selling things to other countries. It’s a mistake we’ve made a push for trade yet we fail to compensate those people who are hurt by trade,” Frank said. “Trade does not offset the benefits between winners and losers. It multiplies the benefits for the winners, and the losers are the same.”
Both men condemned what they saw as President Trump’s inability to produce a coherent agenda — Frank going as far as to refer to Trump as “the insulter-and-chief,” but also they praised him for starting a dialogue about the need for countries who participate in NATO to pay their fair share.
Their discussion turned to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to apply to remain in the country. Both criticized President Trump unfavorable view of the policy.
“People whom were brought here without being asked should be allowed to live here and become citizens,” Frank said.
Sununu added that DACA was a potential cornerstone of cooperation for Congress, saying that this policy was the perfect opportunity for the two parties to reach across the aisle and begin compromising.
The conversation ended with both men emphasizing the most effective way for students to bring about change in the government was trust in the political system.
“It’s important to participate in the process and stay with it even if things don’t happen quickly,” Sununu said. “Keep participating and don’t get frustrated. The system was designed to be hard to change major policy.”
Frank stressed the need to vote against obstructionist politicians in order for more legislation to be passed.
“Primary elections have more of an effect on politics than final elections. Refusing to vote in the primary perpetuates extremists in politics,” he said.
The audience had mixed opinions on the discussion.
“I appreciated their perspective and their history having both worked in Congress for so long and how, as representatives of two different parties, they were able to forge compromises and have substantive discussions” said Margie Harris, a visitor from Portland, Oregon, in town to see the leaves change colors.
Jackie McMakin, a local resident of Middlebury, said, “It’s enlightening and refreshing to hear a Democrat and a Republican spark each other to go deeper and to create value for the country.”
But to some of the students in attendance the conversations centered too much on the importance of respectful dialogue during confrontation, which some students felt ultimately detracted from the over all content of the debate.
“They were too focused on civility so they ended up not having any substantive debate over policy,” Avery Dyer ’21 said.
David Rigas ’21 agreed with Dyer. “They emphasized the importance of disagreement, but it kind of seemed like they agreed on everything,” he said.
The next event in the Critical Conversations series will take place on Thursday, Oct. 26, at 7 p.m. in Wilson Hall. It is titled “How I Shed My Skin: Unlearning the Racist Lessons of a Southern Childhood.”