publicans left, but the two different.re quite they have different orientations and philosophies. most of it is the same. but the way they come at problems is quite different. the same is clearly true for the republicans. you could not have candidates more different than donald trump. if you get involved early, you can influence the selection of the nominees. find a candidate in these large candidate fields that come close to your views on some things. the democraticn line, mike, from tampa, florida. you are on with larry sabato. caller: good morning. seems to me that the republicans and democrats have these ways of keeping independents out and

stopping them from airing their views. seems to me that smart people would realize that and that they have started to kind of make , either republican or democrat, but in name only. i mentioned donald trump on the republican side. bernie sanders on the democratic side. my point is that if you boil it , they areenough co-opting their party and airing their view on the ballots to get in the face. a party that welcomes independents will be more successful than most. thank you.

guest: that's an interesting point. i think it is in the party's interest to attract and incorporate as many as they can. we have had national committees, the parties are basically state oriented, local oriented. let's take the state parties. some do a better job than others in incorporating independents. some allow them to vote in their primaries, encouraging them to come in because they are thinking about the general election. if they can get them to come in and participate in their party caucuses,rimaries are whatever they may be, they have a decent chance of holding one in the fall. there are others that are much more exclusive.

they insist that only registered republicans or democrats participate in their primaries or caucuses. i understand why. they don't want people from the other party invading their contest or trying to pick the weaker or weakest candidate to go on the ballot. i must say the research in that area suggests that it really is a very small percentage of the majority ofvast primaries and caucuses that come from the other side with that kind of motive. so, it depends on the orientation of the party and what the party wants to do. i think that it's better that the parties that want to win elections, there are an amazing number of people i have found that don't really care about winning that much anymore. if they want to win to incorporate the independents. if they are more concerned with purity, they will keep them out

as well as members of the other party. host: we are talking about independent and third-party .andidacies with larry sabato candidates whof may not identify with their party, such as donald trump in bernie sanders, there is a piece from over the weekend in "the washington post," talking about how it access in the difficulties that many candidates face. it says that if you are a nomineeic or republican your party will appear on the ballot in all 50 states, but if you are an independent candidate you must get it on through 51 separate signature drives requiring the collection of millions of signatures. a complicated process that can cost millions of dollars. talk about the ballot access a little bit, please.

>> there is no question that the two major parties that control 99% of the seats from the 7000 seats in the 50 state verylatures have made it easy for their parties to qualify. are some ways that they can fall off the ballot if they consistently get a low percentage of the vote, but by and large they are automatically on the ballot. can imagine that the people who are democrats and republicans in the state legislatures don't have a lot in common anymore in terms of issues. they do have one thing in common. to keep the pie divided into. 4, five, or six. in some states it's not that difficult. , collect ag fee

certain number of signatures. other states make it very difficult, either with a large filing fee or many other signatures, thousands and thousands of signatures. out -- my own state of virginia, that's one of the most restrictive. this is an instructive example. 2012 the rules were complicated enough with money and effort, two of the republican candidates qualified. mitt romney and ron paul. they were the only two on the ballot. there were many other candidates. of course, candidate supporters were furious. so, they cut the number of signatures in half.

i forget the exact number required now. it's a few thousand. they also require several hundred from each of virginia's congressional districts. there are other rules. states have the right and the power to arrange these requirements. some do it more effectively than others. so, that is the tradition there. it may be good or bad but it is certainly difficult for a candidate to get the nomination of a major party with automatic a la access. rather than to jump through all the soups and spend all this money to get on the ballot as a third party or independent candidate, they have relatively little chance of winning.

improving sigil -- civic education in the political process, our next caller is on the republican line. patricia? for taking myyou call. i love c-span and i love catching larry on whatever network use on. i voted republican at the reagan reelection and 84. year i'm hoping that trump doesn't get the republican nomination. and if he does, i'm hoping that bernie sanders gets the democrat. i will be voting democrat for the first time in my life. however, if clinton gets the democratic nomination, i would be open to voting independent. i'm not the only republican feeling this way. larry, how much of an appetite do you anticipate for like patricia to base

their desire for independence on an the results of the primaries? and by then, will it be too late for an independent candidate to jump in? -- guest: no, it will be too late. an independent can get on a fair number of state ballot, even in the summer. it may be too late for all 50, that's quite a task. a solid majority? someone will be able to get on. particularly a strong supporter big donors, like michael bloomberg, who has billions himself. i don't think that that will be the problem. --s lady that has a lot of that just called from texas has a lot of colleagues out there. it's pretty clear the republicans will be split to some extent. i want to remind people that

it's early march and a lot is going to change between now and july, when the two major party conventions are held, and certainly by november. so, it's impossible to say happen.y what will i think that it's likely that you will have some significant portion of the republican party happy. whether it is donald trump or one of the other candidates. installthey are able to the romney or someone else. you will have a fair amount of the party to satisfy. if they are dissatisfied, will they become satisfied enough by november because -- to support the nominee -- the party nominee or will they decide that their rum -- their nominee is so that they either need to

support the democratic nominee or an independent. now, there may be some sanders supporters to balance that, some sanders supporters if he doesn't get the democratic nomination. and he is not favored to get it. hise may be some of supporters that decide that they will vote for an independent. maybe a liberal independent on the ballot. someone more so than hillary clinton. so, this will go both ways. host: maryland, you are on with larry sabato of the university of virginia. caller: hello, larry. hello, larry. thank you so much for having me. guest: hello. caller: hi.

i'm in all over this whole process. i don't understand why the gop is basically completing political suicide by even toying with the idea of other candidates, such as mitt romney. that is why so many people are flocking to possible independent parties. it is just such an outrage. the big travesty in all of this is that there are two strong front runners, yet that is not good enough for the establishment. opinion about why they are trying to do this to themselves? that's a very good question. why is that? well, they are on a principle basis, not just in terms of power, they are simply totally opposed to donald trump. i don't know how to put it any other way.

they don't like them, they don't agree with him, they don't think .e's a real conservative they don't know what he really stands for because he has changed positions on a number of issues, which can be common in politics. it is a feeling that is so intense and fundamental it rules out for many of them a way forward, a path forward towards supporting donald trump. or so they say in march, you know? .eople can turn on a dime politicians practice that daily. for sure whether that's going to happen in the end, but that's what they say, both privately and publicly. some of the practical republicans are simply afraid loses thed trump election. they are relying on polling being done now -- i'm sure it's representative -- there are so many polls that have been taken

-- i'm sure it's somewhat representative of the public opinion as it exists now -- but again, polls are not predictive. you cannot say that this public opinion that shows trump losing to both clinton and sanders in many key states, you cannot say for sure that that would be true in november. but they are afraid it will be. there are people with special personal power interest to our running for president. or they wish they were running for president. or they run before and as the old saying goes, the only group -- the only cure for license is a pine box, six feet under. host: talk about the brokered convention on the republican side. how difficult would that be to happen? what would it -- what would it entail, exactly? guest: a lot of people do call a brokered -- call for a brokered convention.

like many others, i object to that because i don't think there are any brokers. in 1948 the republicans got thomas dewey for the second time at a brokered convention. that was a brokered convention. you could even make the argument that both party's conventions in were brokered. eisenhower over taft from ohio, democratically nominated adlai stevenson over a host of potential democratic candidates. but we don't have brokers anymore. our parties are run not by party primaries, by caucuses, and millions and millions of voters. the more cynical would say that that is just window dressing.

we don't control anything. in the vast majority of cases, you in fact install the party nominees whether the leaders like it or not. this is a very unusual case. on the republican side this year it is a close call as to whether 1237d trump can accumulate delegates, the majority needed to be nominated, or if he will fall short of that. i don't think any candidate has a way to get to that. but we may actually have a convention that opens without a candidate having the magic number. so, maneuvering on the convention floor, maneuvering outside the convention in the corridors of power, maneuvering in the campaign headquarters with the real brokers who are the candidates and their staff and campaign managers -- the it is akers -- contested convention.

now, i still -- i still doubt -- 51% of me doubts that this is a contested convention. on the morning. here's a substantial piece of me that has come to believe that it's possible, amazingly. we talk about it every four years and it never happens, but it just might this year. i still would not bet on it. or if i'd bet, i would bet my pocket change and no more than that. host: all right, democratic line, lee seek -- lisa, louisville, kentucky, you are on with larry sabato of the university of virginia. and thank you, c-span, for taking my call. i think the republicans are forcing donald trump out to try to run as an independent. in my opinion, if he does, you will take a lot of votes with him. but i kind of think it will in short the democrats a win. believe me, i don't want it to be hillary, she's not an honest

broker. a lot of us democrats have moved over to bernie sanders. he is the true independent in the race. as you have been discussing all morning how the system is set up, it's very hard to get on every ballot. do you think that this does assure the democrats a win? may i have your opinion on that? thank you. it's a very good question. what i'm fascinated in with the question -- and several others as you can see the calculations individual voters are making in this complicated race. they are thinking about all the candidates and trying to figure thewhich ones will help other ones or which ones will hurt the other ones and how the final combination will produce a result and i think that's a good thing. voters are considering all the alternatives. i think that she's basically

right. i have a hard time believing trumpou could have donald as the republican nominee on a real republican ticket and then a democratic candidate, hillary clinton or bernie sanders, and somehow have one of the two republicans winning. the demographic changes in the united states have been moving as more towards the democratic candidates for president anyway. so, they have got a major advantage there. republicant the voting in any significant way, it seems to me that it's likely to produce a democratic victory. now, it's also true if donald trump is denied the nomination. and then he or a surrogate decides to go and run as an independent. again, if you split the core vote, you will wind up in all likelihood with a democratic candidate. again, we don't know all the circumstances and we don't know ort scandals will arise where the economy is in the

fall, where the president's approval rating will be. all of these things will matter. i think that her analysis for early march is about as accurate as you could get. host: ross perot talked a little bit in 1992 about the impact that his race would have in his concession speech. the impact that his run would have an the campaign. clip] ross perot: millions of you came together to take your country back. [cheers and applause] washington a laserlike message to listen to the people.

cheers and applause] you have done an incredible job of getting this country turned back around to the type of country that our founders established, a country that came from the people. you have changed in this country through your efforts. i compliment you for it. in the end even though ross perot had upwards of 40% in his polling, he didn't win a single state. what impact do you think that he had in that race? what impact might an independent have in the current race? republicans tend to think that ross perot denied george h.w. bush a second term. look, he had a role in it in the sense that he came in in february of 92, when people were unhappy with bush but had not cut their tie with him.

they have not yet attach themselves to the democratic candidate. he had cut that time for a lot of republicans and independents who got alienated from president bush senior's administration. vote was9% of the extraordinary. i miss fascinated today with his i was back in 1992. it was so extraordinary. for him to get 19%, second only to teddy roosevelt in the modern , for someone who is running for office, it wasn't that widely known. the main test the name may have been known, but he wasn't known when he first decided to run.

the best studies show that bill clinton still would have won. if ross perot had not been in the vote -- in the race he would have gotten the majority. i believe that that research is accurate. there is an important point here. leaving aside the fascination we all have a ross perot, you can get a large percentage of the folk today and not win a single state. at stake.win 1980, john anderson, he didn't win a single state. 7%. didn't carry a single precinct, including his own precinct, illinois. 1948, running as a dixiecrat, he got several, yet he got a significant number of electoral votes because the 3% was concentrated in a few southern states.

george wallace, 1968. he got 46 electoral votes. he came very close to throwing the election into the house of representatives. been disastrous for the country if that had happened. today i think it is much more likely that you will have the raw role model then you are going to have the teddy roosevelt model. a candidate can get a fair percentage of the vote with no electoral's. host: this comes to us from twitter -- "is the libertarian party the most viable third party close vote? -- party"? they arehere -- guest: very well-established. they are stronger than some others. they have a very strong appeal states.of the western

places like alaska, which are very independent by nature. states, in some places they are stronger than others. they are established but have never been able to make that breakthrough. in some state races they had managed to get a sizable digit ore, a single double digit lower, depending on the structure of the race. partyare not two major candidates. or maybe they are both and aged in one way or another. i would certainly call in a significant third-party. not madeole they have a difference in presidential elections. at least that i can recall. i don't think that anyone would say they made a difference in the result.

there may be some examples at the state level where they made the difference. up next we have jane, from cincinnati, ohio, on the republican mine. jane, you are on with larry sabato of the university of virginia. jane,: hello, this is i've never spoken to your seen you in my life. or the lady sitting next to you either. i don't watch every morning, you know. anyway, i have a 100% strong voter for donald trump. i have been ever since i saw him first and listened to everything that he had to say. that's one point. there is not -- any of the 17 republicans that was running that i would have had anything to do with. there is not any one of the would have hadi anything to do with. i don't agree with what

democrats are talking about at all. extremely. i am not liberal minded enough. host: ok, let's get larry a chance to respond. isst: well, my only response that they somewhat she said there's a pretty good chance she's going to vote for donald trump. that's all i can offer to you. what should we be looking out for three now in the end of the primary season to get a better idea of whether we might see an independent run? -- guest: well, on the republican side we want to see how far the contest goes. is it that donald trump is going to win the key states of florida and ohio, defeating the people in the home state? on march the 15th? if he wins both of those, probably. this crazy year?

thatot going to say anything will definitely happen. if that happens, probably he's the nominee. if he loses both of those, it's certainly not over. this will probably go through to the end of the primary season and in june. you go to the convention with that interregnum between the end of the primaries and the july convention, where the candidates will, iaign managers assume, try to work things out. maybe work out a ticket as a way to produce the votes for somebody. want to watch that. there are a lot of key points in this process. six months from now, i think thatyear has reminded us every single contest matters.

every single day matters. every issue with -- raised by the candidates can matter. they can. they all down, but they can, which is why we should watch them. i'm looking at an awful lot of things on the republican side, because it is the most unsettled. on the democratic side bernie sanders has continued to do well , but not well enough to overtake hillary clinton unless something big happens. to otherg to leave people to speculate about what that something they could be. think that hillary clinton is likely to be the democratic nominee. what we don't know is the shape that she will begin in july, if nominated+ at the democratic convention. will she be sweeping into philadelphia or will she be lifting in? -- limping in? i don't know and no one else does, either. host: ok.

larry sabato announcer: on the next washington journal, the --.ident of the on race,stal right politics, and that campaign. washington journalists live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join the conversation with your comments on facebook and twitter. announcer: coming up on c-span, sentencing policies. primary, wehigan's have hillary clinton campaigning in detroit. that is followed by bernie sanders campaigning in dearborn. homeland security secretary jeh johnson testified on the

dhs budget2017 request. we will have coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. announcer: as campaign 2016 three primaries and one caucus are taking place tomorrow, with a focus on michigan and mississippi. candidate speeches and if you are reaction. to theyou on the road white house on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. announcer: and now, a summit on sentencing laws. federalants include judges. this portion is just over two hours.

crags good morning. welcome to the summit. director, along with many of our partners who have collaborated and worked with us. we are privileged and honored that you have joined us here as we take some time of the next and shareo talk about our experiences and ideas regarding alternative sentencing and explore the roles alternative sentences can play both and reducing our number of individuals that are incarcerated, but certainly delivering on public's safety and visit -- fiscal

responsibility. we have, as you can see from the programs, two very full days. we are very thankful that we have very excellent experts and leaders in the fields of alternatives and matters relating to that. i just want to run through a few quick housekeeping matters. so we can make it them out of the way and get on with this important program. during the program and during the panels, we're going to allow as much for qa a day. is of thee time essence -- you can see we are starting a few minutes late, we are going to utilize e-mail and in twitter. on the screen you have the e-mail address and twitter if of would like to submit some your questions and comments that

way. we will have an opportunity to address them. to keep the introductions to our speakers quite brief. as you can see you in your programs, there is a wealth of information which can highlight all of the important features of each of these individuals that we are going to try to keep our focus on the program and not the introductions. summit, we are going to be working with the coalition for public safety to keep a toolkit. -- 18thl be for a curry tool to prioritize the issues we discuss. you can submit comments and thoughts to twitter and the e-mail. finally, we have a special, nice late addition. the national association for sensing advocates and litigation

specialists, along with the center for american progress are going to be hosting a cocktail in event following today's program. sure to announce the details toward the end of the day and we hope that everyone will join us there. due to the late start, we are going to run through the program this morning and not take the brakes as indicated in the schedule, but throughout the day there isng refreshments and coffee available in the atria. so, if you would like to take your own break that is available to you. thank you for joining has, and without further a do i would the rabbi, thece founder of the institute over 35 years ago. together, and in the chambers of weinstein, judge weinstein, filled.itute was

unfortunately, judge weinstein cannot join us here today but he sends his greetings. so thank you. [applause] cracks -- lipskar: thank you very much. in thinking about this conference and the extraordinary anlaboration of i would say extreme array of high-level people that covers the entire spectrum of the justice and , duringent, that we can the course of this conference,

cayenne and have a pivotal and necessary opportunity to rethink processol that failed extraordinaryur cosponsors and presenters for this inclusive summit. the reason i say failed, that is a strong word, it has nothing to do with philosophy or ideology led is simply based on the various studies and statistics. growth of ourl prison population, including those on parole, probation, they'll -- the numbers are staggering. in 20 wasumber i saw somewhere between 6 million and 7 million american citizens. prisonthe world's population is right here in the most democratic, free country in the world. more than 5% of the general

population. that are in prison anywhere in the world are right here in the united states. women. single mothers and other similar circumstances. the enormous cost, wasted lives, families, and the most effective the environment for the perpetual promulgation of criminal conduct will come out of prisons and we already know it. recidivism is statistics, we know. a lousy lawyer, lousy judge, whatever the case is. course an area that has not been adjust at all, and that is preventative education which is a critical factor so,

would we do about that. judge weinstein, he shared with light therican institute's draft number 3, 2014 will stop for sentencing reform. and bold and forward-thinking perspective. another discussion and this well well studied and documented on collateral damage, including collateral damage deportation. loss of profession. loss of public assistance benefits. low self-esteem. etc.. single most devastating collateral damage was not even mentioned and did not even receive any attention. children 3 million

under the age of 18-years-old have a parent in prison. 3 million children under the age of 18. the damage to those children is pernicious.and and because it comes at an age when the child is at the most critical time. self-esteem, underperformance in schools, dropouts, drugs -- the disproportionate, way disproportionate percentage of children entering the criminal justice system. -- seven times as many children of prisoners go into the prison population. children entering into the criminal justice system will be arrested before he goes to school. these are children.

how can you say it is a person's fault when he should've known. you do not say that to a person who does not send his children to school to do something about it. here, we are causing that whole process. we are not even addressing it. that is the key. we need to implement other means needsill address all the of 3051. very wisely, but unfortunately, retribution, deterrence, public safety, have continued to be the hallmark that is taken into consideration during sentencing. the one thing that has been excluded as rehabilitation. they took that word out to in the early 1990's. the reason they took that word out is because they did not have a budget for. very simple. you don't have a budget, you cannot do it. a non-requirement for successful

reentry, the suppose it, absolute, desired goal. impossible. you take a person out of a warehouse where they've have been in suspended animation for so long. stories and success stories that i have seen and inspired byually religions or other group volunteers or a mother who never loses her love for the child. so the mother claims a coveted position in the inmates mind. many times, it is the mother who going gets the listeners in their lives. there is a reason, that is another ideological discussion, there is a reason a book on ethics and morality, the bible, it considers all different modalities of punishment. punishment, corporal

punishment, financial punishment. but not prison. aison is not considered punishment that is excepted and biblical terms or times nor thereafter. gettingon is, without into the philosophy and psychology, etc.. there is a lot to be done. prison is living in suspended animation. you want to do something -- you cannot even tell your teenager to behave because they will say, i will take you off my calling was. which i've seen happen. and a possible way to grow or thrive and no sense of of one of the most single important aspects of human life which is now been prison -- proven through controlled studies in behavior and neurology. one of the most five critical factors, meaning and purpose. no meaning, no purpose.

empty space. the really minds, ideas, and selfless pursuit of human develop something put is different, we should our minds together and say, it is time for change. real change. i don't mean to have something else a little bit. this is going fast. it is exponential in terms of growth. 3 million kids could be a lot of problems in the next generation. thehe age of our times, developed particle, and neuronal plasticity, robotic mind control, and we have really grown handed financed so exponentially in dealing with every day except one.

the human condition. we need to make some changes in the system and hopefully this conference, all of us together, our thinking in commonality because you all so to speak have already committed to the subject. together we can make that little change that could be so important. tois a great honor for me introduce a very special chairperson of this summit's percent dedicated all of his life to humanizing the sentencing process in a very significant way. former deputy attorney general to the carter administration, a human being of the highest order who sat on the bench. as you know, he cared about every single person. he did what i consider to be the

ultimate for a jurist and showing what a jurist truly is. i have to say i bring regards to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general from your dear friend jack weinstein, who says that, i do respect the to improve the criminal law. he is one of the two icons i look at when i think about , yourselfe concepts and judge weinstein. there's no doubt in my mind the one thing that impressed me the most of anything i've ever seen sits down with the person he sentences and he looks them in the eye and he knows that he is talking to another human being. you have shown that extraordinary compassion and it is a great honor to introduce you.

[applause] cragg's i wish my mother was still alive so she could have heard introduction. you have heard the statistics. 2.4 million persons in this country are behind bars. our previous speaker said, we have 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the prison population. 1980, there were approximately 24,000 people in federal prison. there were 217,000.

an increase of almost 10%. system,ederal prison over half are there for drug-related crimes. although the statistics are not quite as hyper state prisons, it highest for kansas and there are very serious problems in the sentencing of juveniles and african-americans in this country. ofhink the shocking rate recidivism is evidence the system is not working. these statistics that we do have do not reflect the total number of persons whose lives have been altered and shaped and misdirected because of the incarceration of a family member. i think however, today, we are at the threshold of reform in the criminal justice system.

i believe the timing of this summit is highly significant. growing publica perception of the need for reform. historically, politicians acting , whether democrats or republicans, conservatives or liberals, shared a common bond. the way to deal with crime is to be tough will stop to be tough on crime. as a result, it's meant to more people were incarcerated for periods of time. however, as bob dylan said, the times they are a-changing. reform efforts to deal with the criminals in the justice system,

united states federal sentencing commission has authorized early release for over 25,000 persons possession.drug an additional 40,000 are planned with some 14,000 released this year. the administration has addressed the need for reform. it is not just the federal system. in california, we have a statewide initiative and changedion 47 and 2014 shoplifting and drug possession from felonies to misdemeanors, making people eligible for earlier release. year 2007,n the there are estimates they needed an additional 17,000 beds which required new prisons at a cost of $2 billion. legislatore allocated a smaller amount and used community service and did

not need those extra beds. increasee need to momentum for these changes. in these civil justice system, the alternative street resolution mechanisms are changing the way we look at litigation and disputes. englande the world, in a report came out, access to justice. law inevolutionized the england as far as common law. some people say it is the biggest change in the history of english law. know, we are having a cosponsors,d distinguished panel speakers, panelists, but the ultimate

success of this summit is going to depend upon you, our audience. you are the stakeholders in the incredible justice system. if we are successful, you will be the spokesman for and the actors who implement the changes we urge. tohink we need to be open alternatives such as community service, fines, suspended sentence, pretrial release, identification and screening, risk assessment, bonding schedules, court-based initiatives, and proportional response. we also need to deal with the problems of reentry. what are the factors that make reentry and lack of recidivism possible? this is the era of big data. would are the data, what are the fact is that show? is there some correlation

between the likes of incarceration and recidivism? are there some kind of programs in prison that indicate someone is less likely are more likely to engage in recidivism? we should not use our jails and prisons as a place for drug treatment. we need to find out what facts are a result of having failed to have those programs. the criminal justice system is not static. the criminal justice system is dynamic. and we learn more about the consequences of our actions when we are able to adopt and adapt. we need to cover and share information about proven methods as well as exploring new methods. to do financially what

we have to do. this greatest system is tosically -- fiscally sound consider human safety from the victims of crime. we are going to look at the ohio department of rehab and follow on the federal experience. day to we are going to examine the alternatives and expiration rehabilitation programs. we have interactive partners with the cps. first of all, let me tell you what i did as a young federal judge. inas confirmed by the senate 1971. i had no idea what sentence to oppose. fourears, three years,

years probation. what to do? i had no data. no information. , but there school was not a great emphasis on this. so i evolved over time. i had a four-step program. every criminal sense i opposed, i re-examined on a motion i made for reconsideration to see whether in hindsight it approved -- it approved appropriate or needed to be changed. occasionally, it did. he second thing i did was visit prisons. they had to our tours, three-hour tors. but i would spend at least two days. i would sit in on classification hearings, and discipline hearings, ethnic groups, educational groups, vocational training. i got a sense of what different prisons were like and what programs they had available. caseworkered up the of the institution to find out

how the prisoner was doing and of course, they did not accept my call because they thought i was a fraud. me andn they called found out. and i asked, are they participating in a substance abuse program? how are they doing? i would find the kind of attitude was increased because of my interest in them. they made an effort. they were hoping to get a modified sentence. i modified some, very few. but it made a difference. the last thing i did, i had the probation department give me quarterly reports. written reports about what efforts they made for her education, substance abuse, and then called in the individual defendant and the probation officer after hearings to meet with me and chambers and discuss what has been done and what should be done in the future. and the result, one of the saddest but at the same time

flattering things, i got several letters from people i sent to prison who asked if they could use me as a reference. because they felt i knew more about them than anyone else they had met. it wasgood news, but sad. unbelievably sad. we have exceptional panels here. has been panel, working with a number of state governments in tracking efforts and success in criminal justice reform. particularly in the field of justice reinvestment. jake horvitz, one of the main architect of georgia criminal , judge reform commission mike boggs of the georgia court appeals. julian james for the united states department of justice someonef justice and

from the southern poverty center. they will talk about how states will protect what safety. while reducing levels of imprisonment. leaders in georgia, mississippi, and south carolina will discuss how their states moved from problem-solving statements to policy reform to results. the stories of these three in as will be placed national context as part of this summit meeting. i would like to bring the first panel out. [applause]

>> good morning. this morning the introduction mentioned the number of people behind bars. we had a high water mark in 2007. 2007,that time, incarceration has fallen 10%. control have fallen 13%. meanwhile, violent and property control has fallen 7%. so, there is a bunch of reasons for this and i think the judge's remarks talked about a few of them. talk about going to on this panel is take a look at how three states made conscious decisions to revisit their sentencing and corrections portfolios in order to achieve a better public safety return from state spending. to talk abouting

the justice reinvestment of private partnerships in the states. bringing into consideration efforts to stop the growth of correctional populations in this country through evidence based programs and-based hold both offenders and the system more accountable. so that is our modest goal for the next 50 minutes. my name is jake horvitz. we have four folks here who could not be be in terms of this topic. we have introductions but we're going to go fast. a formero my right, zipcar court justice and representative in the state of georgia assembly. he is really speaking in large part as an individual who has served on the special counsel

for criminal justice reform for georgia starting in 2011 and he has been cochair sense 2012. next to him, julie james, senior policy of u.s. department of justice. the administers reinvestment issue but serves as .echnical assistant to my left, jody owens, of the southern poverty law center. he served on mississippi's criminal and tasks force. served on south carolina's criminal justice reform task force and now serves as the chairman of its oversight committee. we have a great view. these folks led the reform efforts in their respective states. the justiceersees reinvestment issue so i look forward to diving in.

youruestion, why did states care about this? what was the reason for reform? why was it a problem to begin with? your states decided to spend time. judge boggs, take us back. georgia was led predominately by the technical assistance provided by pew. georgia's prison population from 1999.2011 one out of 70 georgians was in prison. the national average was one and 100, that may georgia the fourth-largest incarceration state in the united states. andake matters worse, one 13 georgians was under some form of correctional control. or in a county jail. george of, which made the national leader in corrections in the country.

we were spending $1 billion per year on the budget and george's tax payers were receiving about a 30% recidivism rate. 13,000eans out of released, 6000 would be back within a year. $2 million to $1.1 billion, so there was a very important fiscal imperative. drivingtion, what was this enormous growth? it started with tough on crime policies including mandatory timeums, abolishing earned credit, those sorts of things which god many folks elected but ultimately created disparities. people came to the table in georgia over the fiscal imperative, but also the social. 60% of locking up about

offenders in 2011, they were not violent but 20% were categorized as low-risk. we were locking up a lot of people in the state of georgia who, based on data which has since come to light, could be ine fully treated evidence-based grants. those were the statistics which led us to the conversation. --cks talking about what talking about this, kind of imperatives were important? my friend was a georgia football player, not in the sec conference. [laughter] >> you have football in north carolina?

[laughter] greg's i -- we lost senator pinckney and south carolina to share. he was my sweet mate. mate.ite our project back in 2006, just to take you back to a practical way to look at it. legislators do not look at a system. south carolina had absolutely no system. so we would come in, and we as ad to portray ourselves -- society. it did not have rhyme or reason so they had legislation that would come in and they would get it past, the mandatory minimum was three years.

once we start looking at it, here are the numbers. i have migrants i can make sure we get it right. in the 25 years prior to 2010 when we started, our prison population was about 9000. it had increased to 25,000. what we know is, the early 1980's, what did we have? the war on drugs. and what we now now is that the war on drugs did not work. and then we had enhancements in those kinds of matters as it relates to guns and other things. and so we have a relatively or state. we have four point 6 million people in the state and you can look at the numbers in proportion to the right of incarceration. i do not quote georgians very often's, that speaker knew to ingrid said that you are supposed to lock up bad people but south carolina was just locking up people they were mad at.

390 4 million, we knew we are going to go up. prison populations were increasing. wehave all of these numbers can end up putting in place. here are the big numbers. 49% of our prison population was non-violent. forof those incarcerated felonies were in for class f felonies, the lowest class of ellen these. we start looking at these triggers to see what was bring about our prison population. we had this thing that were revocations that were a real problem. have theis thing into probation officers handle technical violation. you go to court, the before judge, he says, he you don't have a job. you are suppose have a job. so they revoked it. you don't have the right

address, they would revoke in. -- feel it drug test, they you fail a drug test, they would revoke it. a large portion of population going back into the prison system. going to decide if we are to be more of a rehabilitation and repentant society. >> let me bring in miss owens from mississippi. , any other?ming due what else was a motivating in mississippi? >> it was cost. the projection was we would spend $260 million given the rise of incarceration within the next 5-7 years. mississippi, already being a poor state, realize we cannot do so. we were second in the nation ratethe highest per capita

of incarceration. it was bankrupting the state. we were suing the state for inhumane conditions. violations of the eighth amendment. we wanted to drive the cost of because we knew the state could toll on the people that were incarcerated. much time.ok way too 5-6 years, we were still fighting the same litigation we file before this. pew into the picture, the policy changes we made realizing two thirds of our , tole were going to jail prisons, not because they committed crimes but because they violated the supervision efforts. two thirds were doing nonviolent crimes. it did not make sense. the math was not adding up. there were too many things we

could do as opposed to incarcerating them. ms. james, we heard a lot prison population. it has started to plateau and is starting to follow modestly. back in 2010, growth was the problem. what is it now? our the changing landscape? >> we have an interesting split because there are still places that are overcrowded and that is dangerous and costly. be the casegoing to for states to motivation to come to the table. set ofare seeing a new states interested because they are no longer interested in making those investments and they are ceasing a choice. new or do they make a smaller but potentially more effective investment and an alternative.

a changing landscape, but one we are constantly learning and going through the data to help us learn what is next. >>. is why states want to get involved and take a fresh look. we have talked about the why, now how? it is a divisive issue. mentioned, there is movement in the wrong direction. how do you focus on what will get you from problem statements to policy solutions? we first had to get a commitment to doing it, then we had to get the expertise. pew and others[ came in. we had to find problems in our system. -- didr things may deny not make sense.

one of the third-highest incarcerated offenses was for a properithout license. that brings attention to it. then you bring in a group, bipartisan, all the stakeholders from prosecutors, defenders, faith-based groups, and the experts. ended up doing, bringing the evidence together. then you start to put together a system. then, as assistant's from judiciary, from the executive director and legislative branch. you try to bring everybody together with a task force to move it forward. >> senator williams talked about bipartisan, interbranch, data-driven, bring all the people around the table to talk about it. in your experience in actuallypi, did that change any opinions?

do you think the process actually moved people in terms of where they came in the process to where they and it? i think people learn to understand what it really looked like. we had so many policymakers who did not understand why people were going back to prison. workhen they were ready to with the department of corrections and say, if you want to reduce your population, you have to do this. you have to accept you are doing something wrong. we had judges wanting more wantedy, everybody something. our process was most effective because we had some-groups. we had one like-minded person who worked on each subgroup who knew what we had to give and what we had to get. every year we go back, and i am sure it is the same in south carolina and georgia. people are still trying to roll back some of what we did because of the rollback. let's lock them up. they would take the worst example, one person doing

something really bad and making them the poster child to stop terminal reform. becauseins make sense we get these games every year and they continue to tackle it, that we still know what a will and up looking like. that has not come up yet is straight leadership. one person grabbing this issue and saying, this is what i am going to focus on. could you talk a little bit about the governor and georgia? he was elected in 2010, a superior court judge, like a position i used to have. his son runs the adult felony graham. not just thes moral imperative but the fiscal imperative. you forget what was going on 2007 -- 2010 with respect to the budget, i have said routinely and will continue to

repeat, states are interested in doing this and have to have exceptional executive leadership. you cannot do this without that sort of executive leadership on the heart. notgovernor has led on this because of the fiscal imperative, i think he his hearty was led by and his compassion and interest in trying to think outside the box. for georgia, collaborative and inclusive like south carolina. jody's point is extraordinarily well-taken. what you can do in the first year of criminal justice reform is much more limited than what you can do in the fifth year because it is an education process. letting people know that you beingot get beat on it, soft on crime. if the moral imperative and the detail were going to drive change, it would've already happened in georgia and south carolina and mississippi. andthe central come down

and linchpin to georgia success has been overwhelmingly executive leadership i our governor will stop it is surprising to most -- executive leadership by our governor. democrats and republicans and independents, and passed unanimously. i think in the five years now that i have cochaired the council, we have had maybe three no-votes. year we passed these things. this year at passed unanimously. i credit extraordinary leadership in the legislator, senate, house. because of theis governor's leadership. it would not have been possible without that. pick up on that? i think george's model is one we should all look at. thesystem understanding

assistance was made available. it is not just about keeping the stakeholder from rolling back the efforts, which i think is so keen. that is, is am product of years and years and the layers and layers of decisions. decisions that have been made over the years and it is not going to be undone session,gislative right? and so, georgia has taken the view that we are going to take is one year to time, one step at a time. accomplishment, the first hb-876. they are now looking to take another step. i know you are interested in probation the population, long, fines and fees are on your radar. really, i think they would not have been where they are at they had not taken that first step

will stop so, i think, you know, looking at this as -- it is not just a one and done. that is something we are really trying to support at the department. something, with all due respect, we did not have south carolina. i remember back in 2011 after south carolina passed it. we did our first round of sentence reform. juvenile justice system reform is something that is needed. we had only three no-votes from oath bodies back in 2010. the question now is, where do we go from here to try to take it further. georgia, with all due respect, has passed us on that issue. you have to have the reinvestment aspect of it, which is something we will end up getting a chance to discuss. need a time check at some

point because we have three other topics. policies, politics, impact. if someone from the conference would give me a time check. so, policy. you each get to nominate one policy from your state you are particularly proud of. what is the best thing you saw coming out of this? non-fender --g a non-offender decrease their time by almost 50-70 5%. because of that provision, we have started a three strikes project in which we are helping individuals get out. we are talking about individuals who had 60-70 years to serve, getting their lives back. > a big deal was to give the

prosecutor a sense of the victimsand most serious rights that would end up bringing more folks into the fold. expanding the amounts on crimes and giving folks a second chance and bringing in administrative surcharges on matters of drug crimes and to really take a look at all the mandatory minimums. getting the mandatory minimums out of the system. we increase some of the length of systems but took out the mandatory minimums and gave judges flexibility. so what we have done is taking the nonviolence out of the prison system and had more space for those config -- committing violent crimes. > intuitively what you do not understand if you have not been engaged in this, the first baby step in criminal reform, data-german component. -- collaborative,

inclusive things that lead you to think you have not thought of before. georgia started off with a. reform, moved into juvenile reform. then we moved into reentry. we talked about stopping and 8% prison population growth, flatlining that. into the juvenile arena, the fossett filling up the tab of the terminal justice system. then we moved into reentry, how releasing them population?eir i am very proud of the governor getting money back into the accountability courts. the veterans courts, drug courts, mental health courts. those are demonstrative of the recognition of this nation that a large percentage of our

privilege -- prison population is there because of a crime.lated the expansion of accountability courts driving that is very important. in south dakota, ovation policy, currently under assessment. we're hoping to -- probation policy, currently under assessment. taking a couple classes of crimes and making probation possible. in delaware, a unified system, a little bit different at a handful in this nation. looking at pretrial. where previously they could use to decide who could be released or not. assessment objective to whether someone possesses a

safety risk or not. to condensenot fair this into 3.5 minutes as you just heard. sometimes you see 100 pages in length, 20-40 policy provisions. "pew" and the state name, and the year, you can find this. now, politics. where to start? who is most and least enthusiastic and why? going back to the question i asked mr. allen's earlier, did anyone come across on an issue or support that you did not rank would support -- did not think it would support when we first started? is it for real in your state? pick out any one of those.

surprising that in mississippi, we learned her through the process that people being incarcerated is a money business. not just private prisons, but on a local and district level. restitution has to be made. we had a check-caching of fence. every college kid in the world might bounce a check that that is not a reason they should be a rested. we found district attorneys were supplementing their budgets based on these charges. we had to literally shame them about that, that they should not fund their office through over-in kars ration. -- through over-incarceration. >> let me paint a quick picture.

28 republicans in the sentence -- in the senate, 17 democrats. basically, we are a very red state. very prosecution-oriented. we had to bring it together to make certain's the folks could have a reason to show what they were doing and to understand it was not going to have an effect upon their elections. basically you have to take the p out of politics and put it into the people. once we got everyone together, brought all of the stakeholders together, got the give and take to have a balance, we just passed a consensus bill. there were some things that people wanted and some things others did not, but we had a lot of folks to come together. andperson mediated them all

ask them, mr. prosecutor, would you want? what do you want? so we gave everybody something and we used the old ronald reagan model, god bless him. 80% of what you want is a good deal and we brought everybody together and that is how we got it. is the bottom line for all reforms passed. it is a political process. a beautiful policy package that everyone and visions, what would be the best outcome for that cut? maybe, but the bottom line is we have a system of government for the people and by the people and you all are elected to do that. i think we should be real that it is a political process and i will leave it at that. state where they are

concerned about being beat in the primary. in 2012, every republican primary, just out of curiosity to see if the issue of criminal justice reform came up. if you keep track of what georgia has done, the governor has not only led from the heart and been exceptional, but it has been the seminal component of his state of the state and inaugural addresses every year. it has been an issue is campaigned on. a republican governor in a red state. it came up in this context, a legislator who was on the criminal justice reform council was accused of taking too much credit for. that is how it came up. somewhat unusual for us to be having a conversation about a collaborative, inclusive, bipartisan public public where issues of

policy are vetted with all stakeholders having a say. right? that is the oddity here, that that is how this works. that is how all public policy works. but generally, most public policy is reactionary and that is not always the best way to bring about the most solid foundation. the things was when the citizens and faith-community came in. it made a big difference for those of us sitting in the chair's everyday. i know this greens are small but i would be glad to share this with folks afterwards. this is all for not to if we do not move the needles. we talked about length of stay, technical revocation. the question is, where's the population today? there are a few other pieces i want people to talk about. facility closure, race. starting with mr. owens, what

have you seen in terms of impact in mississippi's is an population? allen's: we can now close a prison. prison company to move them out of mississippi. two deals, right? you are making money out of incarcerating people. we could not shift this conversation because the state that we had to have private prisons. in two years, we can get the private prisons out of mississippi. this has been absolutely transformative for our state because if you build it, you have to keep them all. multi-prison signs contracts prison ise 90% of the full at all times. in doing so, if you run a prison, you can tech time on people's senses themselves for violations. a large thing that

we thought was never possible. >> >> talk about closures. i have been fortunate to chair the senate's commission and we have an oversight commission as well that we have been able to chair. in the last five-and-a-half or six years, we have closed 3.5 prisons in south carolina. that is real money as relates to fiscal conservatives. you see the population has gone down to 21000 and change. things folks said at committee meetings is in order to make things change, you have to make them change. the mouse, to move you have to move the cheese. you can't do the same thing over and over. you have to and of making it work. closures, the prison

population has gone down, watching recidivism change, and seeing crime rates continue to go down, because none of it works if you don't keep your community safe and the fact that crime rates are going down is a key component. if you could hit on the population, particular -- on -- larly the issue >> it would have given georgia about 60,000 inmates, which probably would have made us the largest population per capita in the united states. this demonstrates from the baseline in 2011, we reduced our population by 9.5%. our numbers are around 52, but this shows 53. i want everyone to understand, and i think the senator would agree with me, criminal justice reform is not responsible for all of these.

i want to make sure everyone understands that you can't -- therely attribute are cycles of criminal conduct heard their is different policing. this stuff does not work in a vacuum. the racial makeup of georgia's prison population has had significant effects from judicial reform. justice reform came in in 2011, we have reduced the number of african-americans to about 62%. still an unacceptable number, but numbers going in the right direction. futures well for the when you look at the commitments of african-americans to georgia's prison system in 2015. georgia admitted 9983 african-american men and women to the presence is a. -- that was a 21%

reduction in men, 37% reduction in women. the number represents fewest number of african-americans committed to prison in georgia since 1988. [applause] i think the numbers speak well that criminal justice reform, in things,ation with other helped move the cheese. causesngling the various of the trends we are seeing. that is something we want to learn from. we want to learn how they work. i don't think we can say with any confidence that these five things together made these changes. strategyn assessment that really looks set specific policies.

in south carolina, evocations. we look at what officers are doing on the ground. we work with states to come up with specific performance measures so we do not wait five years down the line and say, how are we doing? we know going into it. whether judges are used in sentences available to them. whether the alternatives are being used as intended. that is something we are constantly learning from, and i am glad to say we are working on an assessment for one of georgia's policies. that will be useful not just to them, but also to many other states as they look to make these changes in the future. >> how are we on time? >> we have a couple more minutes. do you want to do questions? >> sharing information between the states has been critical. that is something we have really

are motive. we are talking to other states about what they were doing and we have come up with these ideas. it is a critical part of this. those things that we can do. >> let's open it to a couple of questions. we have microphones in both aisles if you want to line up. lets summarize a little bit here. we talked about pressure and reform, population regrowth, a system that looked out of balance and type of admission type in crime type, we saw length of stay increasing pretty dramatically. we created a process. bipartisan, bicameral. you talk about policy reforms that hit different parts of the system. people use the analogy of a balloon. squeeze somewhere and it enlarges someone else. what folks in these states did

was hit sentencing, revocation policies on parole. criminal in the justice system and addressing politics. recognizing the landscape of politics, making sure there were leaders in place, and we did not spend enough time on it, but oversight issues. when the ink dries on these bills, the work is, what, half done? >> just starting. that is not to undercut the amount of effort it took to get those bills passed and move from statement to policy reform package. a lot to cover. if you would introduce yourself very briefly. >> i am certain that you have defined criminals by color rather than culture.

my vignette was very simple. think eric gardner, i can't read, and think wolf of wall street and made up. i explained that from the first arrest. they fingerprinted him and mug shot at him. he went to jail, was branded a felon, he came out, and to check -- wasand was riveted found to revisit his him. the crimes that should be in jail. i published monthly reports with countless people over the years, thousands, and these are people who have stolen money, identities. we don't need the list. we know it made off is all about -- madoff is all about. we discovered documents that people knew his crimes 50 years ago. that is the culture that should be addressed as a criminal,

rather than pitching out a culture of young men and women that are really looking for guidance. i would like you all to pitch in somehow on that. the question may be about white-collar versus street crime. could we be saying more of these are less than these in prison. unfairly targeted. it is easier to be guilty and wealthy versus innocent and poor. we know that. the system goes back to the things that we discussed in all of our states, to public offenders, to prosecuting someone who does not look like you and you may not be aware of the crime. we have seen that in this country. mr. horowitz: were going to take a couple of the questions. >> i am art. i'm from north carolina.

professor, former director of prisons for 30 years. i haven't seen you in a long time. just one question that i am most interested in from my work. i work with juveniles pro bono. i have spent all my life working in prison and now i am spending time working with juveniles. where's the prevention part of this piece? because if we can't get these middle schoolers through are now-ramping up to be criminal jenna, if we can't stop them in middle school, all of this is for not. that is where we need to be going, is middle school, and maybe even elementary school. where is this going with juveniles and how to impact those folks? mr. owens: georgia's tackle but we have also been other. >> we have looked at costly out of home placements.

$90,000 a year for a bed in georgia. refitted it recidivism is between 35% and 50%. we asked 29 counties in georgia who represented 70% of georgia's at risk youth to build evidence-based program that at been proven to reduce recidivism in the populations. after the first nine months, they did not reduce by 15%. the reduced by 62%. 1666 youth which would have been an out of home placements are being treated and evidence-based programs. , mymost important thing wife is an elementary school teacher. we have conversations about criminal justice reform, we think about the system. judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, razor wire. that is what we are thinking. community supervision and guns and baggage is -- guns and

badges. reform is not just about the system. it is about getting further back in the continuum and working on education. i provided over felony criminal court for seven years in the first three years, i counted 6000 criminals in court i dealt with and i asked them three questions -- how far to go in school, which is the first drug use, what drug got you in trouble? what percentage of 6000 adults at a high school diploma or ged? i suspect these numbers will be relevant. 20%? here is the number. the number is 34%. people, if that is not demonstrative of the court with a perfect between criminal -- the correlate of affect between terminal justice and education,

i don't know what is. >> the earlier education of children. one of the things we have our succeed the read to built last year, but also corresponding with that was trying to get to a universal four k education and earlier. that is one of the key components. we have not addressed juvenile justice reform yet. we are doing it piecemeal. there are certain pieces that are being found out. south carolina is one of the only states that does not have it passed. new york and north carolina has it down to 15%. we need to end up changing that. at the end of the day, treat children like children. with the miller, graham, and roper decisions, i think people are really starting to pay attention to where kids are and treat kids like kids.

we have seen a decrease across the country. ms. james: and pushing a little further on that, not just kids, but young people. 24, 25. we are taking a lesson from that brain science that roper was based on to say what else can we do, and can we learn from this and let kids and young people leave that behind? really looking at that as an option. mr. owens: the people matter. the leadership -- we don't have a lawn said -- we don't have a lawn south carolina that his age, but we have 17-year-olds incarcerated with adults. he has one institution where they eat together and do that stuff. that is something that he can do within his position. he is not required to do it by law, but he does. we can do the things we can do to make it better as well. mr. horowitz: two quick things about the juvenile system and

then we wrap up. 2007, the texas reforms were mentioned in each directory remarks. -- in the introductory remarks. foreverted to 14,000 beds texas. the same section of legislature put $4.7 million in partnerships. , proven model to raise crime teenage pregnancy, smoking, thats that are in between young age and adolescence. folks of the old system are really worth noting, because there is a fascinating distinction between adult and juvenile system. if you look at the peak of crime in the 90's, it has been falling for everybody. kids and adults. -- the adulton

prison system has plateaued at 2007 or 2009. the juvenile system has been cut in half. why is it that the adult system experiencing the same crime to climb -- crime decline has plateaued when the juveniles more returns. has to be length of stay. juveniles are only juvenile so long. it means the system is stacked on itself and can only go so far. i want to quickly wrap up by saying thank you to the panelists. what you heard here is that these are issues driven by policy decisions and therefore policymakers need to lead to respond to them. please join me in thanking our panelists. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] thank you to our moderator, jake horvitz. i want to thank our panelists judge boggs, ms. james, senator malloy, and miss owens for your comments and that detailed view from some of the initiatives and successes that is happening from the states. i would like to introduce mr. gary moore, who is the director ofthe ohio department rehabilitation. director moore has 40 years of experience as a corrections professional and he is known for his efficient prison management. more importantly, i just want to note that director moore as an important policy which is to

impact corrections in america, you must continue to invest in people, not bricks and mortar. he is committed to this process to not opening additional prisons in his state -- in his state and under his care. looking at the alarming incarceration rates of females and drug-related crimes that create collateral consequences that can last a lifetime. he is going to underline the importance of making some of these changes in society. we look forward to your remarks. thank you. rabbi lipskar: -- mr. moore: what a great panel that was. i want to start by saying it is a great day to be alive. that is important to me because i think it reminds all of us that all of us can be a major part of making tomorrow a whole lot better for a lot of people if we believe it today. it is an honor to be here.

career july 1, 1974 at the marion correctional institute as a teacher's aide. i was to pay ranges below a correctional officer when i started and i had some great experiences. that i have been able to work in this profession. i had the opportunity in 1983 of the segregating a prison -- desegregating a prison. i had the best job in the world for 12 years being a warning, or a superintendent where you can change the vision. i had the opportunity to both ask the and the american correctional association on solitary confinement. what i want to say with that is i see a tremendous parallel between the struggle with putting too many people in restrictive housing in prison systems and the issue of mass incarceration that i want to spend most of my time doing today. if you don't wind, i want to

start with a personal story. it is why i am here today. it is very personal. it is why i am here. department of our rehabilitation and correction at the and of 2002 and i loved our system, i loved our career, i loved everything i did. but i retired. we did some work in the juvenile system. i worked for three years with juveniles, running a facility and the juvenile facilities in ohio, and my wife and i became consultants. you don't supervise anyone when you are consulting. it is an interesting thing. selfishly, linda and i had the chance -- i have been married 43 and a half years, and we had the opportunity to spend a few months every month at our place in sunset beach, north carolina. i love that place. we were having the greatest time

and we are writing, doing all kinds of training and leadership development and working with culture in prisons, something that we have not heard this far that is really important. , i got threef 2010 calls from the transition committee in ohio. governor kasich had been elected and the calls came in and said, gary, would you like to be the director of the department of rehabilitation and correction's of ohio, a department that you spent your life supporting? the first call came in and i spent three or four minutes, and what it honor it is, and it was great, and it had been great but, no, thank you. it is an honor. the second call was my response was a lot shorter, and the final call was no, i don't want to. it was selfish because we were enjoying our lives. finally, the fourth call comes in and it says, listen. some people have been talking to governor kasich about how to run

the correctional system. have a lot of budget issues and he just wants to bounce some of these ideas off of you. which to at least come in and talk to him. i would hope that, regardless of your political persuasion, when the governor asked for your opinion, you would give it. this is december 27, 2010. seven weeks after the election. the largest state agency trying to figure out what we are going to do here. the person says you only have 15 minutes with the governor. my wife -- we live about an hour from columbus. she said, we will go. we will spend the time and we will go to lunch. , so we goloyalties there. we are on the 19th floor price center. i take linda down to one side where she has refreshments. she loves diet soda. i go meet john kasich for the first time. i shake his hand.

he looks like he does on television, and he says gary, you've only got 15 minutes. i said, i understand that. i want to bounce some ideas that people have been giving me and i want your honest reaction. i'm not going to give all of the ideas that he had, but he spent about 10 of those minutes talking about the plans. andave to reduce budget this is how are going to do it. i said without thinking, and i did not have any notes and i am not scripted, i said that is the stupidest idea i've ever heard. [laughter] quite to send people out of our state. we are not going to give people the care in a private facility someplace else outside of ohio, away from family, doing things that we don't know what's going on, and turned them back to neighborhoods and families and expect those neighborhood and families to be better than they were when they left. to threeinutes went

hours. some of you have heard this story. three hours with the governor. remember, i started at the marion correction institution, two dollars for the four cents an hour. an hour.4 they asked if my wife is here. i said yes. she is still down in the soda room. when she walks in, the eyes were big. i knew she had had more than one large soda. meets the governor and says, governor says, linda, i want gary in this job and we are going to do it his way. moment, i had no intention until that moment of taking that job. none. none. folks, the next thing he said was gary, i want you to reform the most unreformed part of

government. do it. dedicated, since the december 20-- since 7, 2010, to these things. i will talk about what i consider to be the insanity of what we have talked about bus far. -- thus far. i have to talk about this before we do it, because it is important. 19221975, the united states of america had a very stable as an population. 200000 andeen 400,000 for 55 years. i think it just adjusted with the population. 1975 was a dramatic increase that we saw. numbers,alked about

but from 1975 we have gone from under 500,000 to about 2.5 millions in our state prisons and jails. in ohio, we have the lowest violent crime rate we've had since 1969. i will talk about the trends in ohio before we get into this. we know. we know that martinson wrote his book about nothing works. vietnam ended during that time and our people came back not supported in a drug culture at this point and tough to get jobs. we know that the mental health system was decentralizing and our prisons became the default -- not just the default place of sentencing ford judges, but the default mental health hospitals, and as we stand here today, i have 10,600 mentally ill incarcerated in our prisons in ohio. talk and end with a

discussion of this. we have talked about the sentencing practices in this country. the process to make law. the process to make sausage. laws have been in a significant influence. we have not talked about that significantly in this country. we talked about the national trend. i don't care if you are a fiscal conservative or whether you care about people, and let me just say this -- i have to say this. the underpinning, and until we get to this point, and untold these walls are not down and everyone outside this room hears it and understands it, we are working with human beings. we are working with human beings. [applause] i will tell you that are people that do not believe that. if you don't understand that, talk to someone who is trying to get a job who spent maybe six months in prison or have never been to prison, under parole.

we have to understand this and talk about it. we have to talk about the fact that we are in the people business, not the inmate business. let me go back briefly. i want to understand the time. july 1, 1974. i don't think i'm that old. a lot of people do. i don't. in the state of ohio, there were seven prisons. today, 27. 8300 people in prison. 50,600 in prison in ohio. out of that subset, the day i started in ohio's prison system, during my career as a teacher's aide, there were 291 women incarcerated in the entire state a while i'll -- state of ohio wondering around. 291. today we have 4300.

it has been a trend that is significant and if you think about the lowest violent crime rate since 1969, it is a logical. we have had a default system of sentencing. we have had some were current andds and our population commitments are down a bit overall, but 6% increase in the percent of women coming in. i want to talk about women in just a second. as we look at the trending of women -- what do we know? it is an interesting thing. it is hard to see this, but we passed house bill 86, which has caused a significant decrease, a drop of almost 1000 inmates as we passed the first year of our and a stray should. first-time nonviolent offenders should not be sent to prison.

it is a remarkable and dramatic thing, isn't it? that is what passed. there was a 14 month consecutive reduction in our prison population. you see it with the women as well. it has gone up. now what we see are 23% of our new intake happens to be probation violators. what i want to talk about is between the intake and actual population. a huge issue is length of stay. 2007. it is important that all of our jurisdictions understand and look inside our numbers at what is causing this. 2007 in ohio, there was a decision by the supreme court called the foster decision. previously, was four sentences to go in the very top range of the sentencing range, there had to be a set of reasons documented and submitted.

in 2007.struck down we have seen a remarkable difference then, without any restriction to document the reason for the highest sentence. we have seen the impact of that decision being 6700 more beds into our system because of the length of stay extending. that length of stay is predominantly with our most or felony fours and fives in ohio. we talked about the numbers. it is pretty darn important. if we identify the five most frequent, the five most frequent , most serious offenses for which people are sent to prison in ohio, it targets either an opporty