On March 26th, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia – a democrat and a Vietnam combat veteran – introduced the ‘National Criminal Justice Commission Act’ to the Senate. The biggest (if not only) proposal of its kind in recent history, if passed the Act will likely have significant implications, changing the way the criminal justice system processes inmates and the way Correctional Professionals do business. So far, it has received significant bi-partisan support. Last month, Corrections One asked readers to send in their questions regarding the Act. We sent those questions to Kimberly Hunter, Sen. Webb’s press secretary, who provided us with the following interview. If you have further questions after reading this interview, feel free to leave them in the comment box below and we’ll sent them Webb’s way. Also, remember to check out our full report on the Act, available here. ~ Luke Whyte, C1 editor |
Key goals of ‘The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009’
The Act’s purpose is to “create a blue-ribbon commission to look at every aspect of our criminal justice system with an eye toward reshaping the process from top to bottom.”
This means an expert commission will study the system at the local, state and federal levels before proposing an agenda for “wide-ranging” prison reforms.
Corrections1 has further outlined the goals of the Act in our full report, here.
Interview with Kimberly Webb
Corrections One Readers: The National CJ Commission Act will “create a blue-ribbon commission to look at every aspect of our CJ system.” What type of professionals will the commission be composed of?
Kimberly Hunter: The legislation is designed to shape a commission with bipartisan balance.
Commission members will be selected with the President nominating the Leader; the Majority Leader and Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress, in concert with the Judiciary Committees, appointing two members each; and the Republican and Democratic Governors Association each appointing one member.
Senator Webb has expressed that he would like the Commission to be composed of people with wide expertise and credibility in this area. It’s also important to note that the Commission, in exploring the number of findings listed in the legislation, would reach out to all the different stakeholders including law enforcement and corrections officers.
C1 Readers: What bi-partisan support are you getting on this Act?
KH: The legislation has bipartisan support from the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judiciary Committee member Senator Orrin G Hatch (R-UT), and Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME).
Senator Webb and our staff have engaged with more than 100 organizations and associations, representing the entire gamut of prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, advocacy groups, think tanks, victims rights organizations, academics, prisoners, and law enforcement on the street. These organizations span the political spectrum. Engagement is ongoing, and support continues to grow.
C1 Readers: One of the duties of the Commission is to “improve prison administration, including competence and career enhancement of administrators.” Are there any indications of specific problems with existing correctional professionals?
KH: Corrections officers face enormous challenges in the workplace, from violence to a lack of resources for training.
Neither corrections officers nor offenders are served by the inadequacies in our prison system.
The legislation charges the Commission to conduct “an examination of prison administration policies at the Federal, State, and local levels, to include the availability and quality of pre-employment training programs and the availability of meaningful career progression within the profession.”
C1 Readers: Could you define “meaningful re-entry programs for ex-offenders” (one of the duties of the Commission)?
KH: Offenders without employment opportunities upon release are virtually guaranteed to re-offend.
“Meaningful,” meaning effective, re-entry programs channel former offenders into productive endeavors and help keep communities safer.
The Commission would be tasked to examine the effectiveness of current re-entry programs both inside and outside the prison system to recommend initiatives to reduce recidivism and ultimately decrease the additional burden that overcrowding places on corrections officers.
C1 Readers: It seems that, too often, bills are passed as unfunded mandates and state correctional systems are left to figure out how best to comply. Thus, where will the money come from for these reforms and how much it is estimated to actually cost?
KH: Senator Webb understands that state and local authorities are critical to pursuing any efforts in criminal justice reform. This is also one step in a long process.
At this stage, the legislation proposes a Commission to examine the system and recommend policy solutions.
The scope of those reforms, the associated costs, and the ways of paying for policies will need to be discussed once the Commission has concluded its work.
C1 Readers: After the 18 month period, what sort of a time frame are you estimating for implication of these recommendations?
KH: Senator Webb would like Congress to consider the recommendations of the Commission as soon as possible after the conclusion of its work, but it is premature to be able to articulate the precise process that will be followed.
C1 Readers: Do you support a restructuring of sentencing such that fewer non-violent offenders will be incarcerated?
KH: Senator Webb is not advancing policy recommendations. That is the job of the Commission.
C1 Readers: How will corrections officers be directly affected by the bill? What sort of changes can they be expected to make? Is there a risk that this could lead to job cuts? Why or why not?
KH: The goal of the Commission, after examining all elements of the criminal justice system, will ideally be to produce recommendations that create a safer environment for correctional officers and offer better support in dealing with violent criminals under their supervision.
C1 Readers: One goal of the commission will be to “improve and streamline the treatment of mental illness,” could you elaborate on this goal? Further, if mentally incompetent criminals don’t belong in prison, how are you going to convince them they need help when they refuse treatment?
KH: Jails and prisons are too often warehouses for the mentally ill. As such, this is an important issue for the Commission to consider.
How best to respond to the myriad issues associated with the overlap of mental illness with the public health and criminal justice systems is for the Commission to determine.
C1 Readers: Why assume that it has to be the system that needs reform, and not the evil intentions of criminals? How about a movement to improve officer safety as opposed to increasing the comfort level of inmates? Inmates in GA get television, medical care, store opportunities, and recreation, yet they still complain about their rights and attack officers.
KH: With all due respect, I fundamentally disagree that our effort to re-examine the criminal justice system equates to making inmates more comfortable.
Prisons and jails are not monolithic. This nation has many fine correctional facilities, but it also has facilities that are in deplorable condition. Part and parcel of looking at prisons is, in fact, making sure correctional officers are safe and that they get the support that they need.
The Senator has consistently said that without question, it is in the national interest that we bring violent offenders and career criminals to justice.
The purpose of this legislation is not to let dangerous criminals go free or to make violent criminals more comfortable. It is to determine how best to structure our criminal justice system so that it is fair, appropriate and--above all--effective.
We can be smarter when it comes to crime.