A Vote This Week Could Mean A Tool That Will Deepen — Not Relieve — Racial Disparities In Criminal Sentencing Is Coming To Pennsylvania


Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing public hearing in December 2018 (credit: ACLU of Pennsylvania)

by Nyssa Taylor

It has been said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome. This week, the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing may be approaching their own brand of madness.

A decade ago, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law mandating that the sentencing commission develop a risk assessment tool — a worksheet with the aim of helping judges determine whether an individual being sentenced to one crime would be likely to commit another crime in the future.

For ten years, the commission has time and again failed to fulfill this mandate. Just in the past fourteen months, the sentencing commission has brought forth plans for a risk assessment tool only to be met with opposition from policy experts, individuals impacted by mass incarceration, and many who have worked inside the system. Time and again, these proposals have failed.

With each new attempt to fulfill the mandate, the commission’s proposal becomes more Byzantine and more racially problematic.

With its latest plan, the commission has doubled down by offering the most confusing and complex proposal yet, a far cry from the decade-old mandate to simply create a worksheet.

The current plan on the table is still plagued by the racial biases that are baked into criminal justice data that a risk assessment tool would pull from.

The commission’s latest plan also keeps many of the problematic pieces of past proposals in place while creating a whole new level of unnecessary bureaucracy by implementing an additional, untested risk assessment tool and passing the buck to county probation offices when it comes to actually making the final assessment. Even those deemed “low-risk” by the sentencing judge would be passed to a probation officer for an additional assessment. Across the commonwealth probation offices are underfunded and overworked. Adding work to the already full plate of probation officers makes no sense.

Rep. Todd Stephens of Montgomery County, who is the vice chair of the commission, and some other members seem to think that the implementation of this risk assessment tool will somehow benefit individuals charged with crimes by leveling the playing field. This is fantasy.

The reality is, implementation of a risk assessment tool at sentencing will have a disproportionate impact on people of color. Pennsylvania counties rely on data points directly correlated to race, including zip code, associations with friends and family who have criminal records, education history, and employment status, among other factors. Even the question of whether someone receives public assistance or has “financial problems” scores as a risk factor.

Pennsylvania judges should have the authority to make individual, case-by-case assessments about future risk, not be limited by a one-size-fits-all risk assessment tool.

This farce has gone on long enough. The Pennsylvania legislature should repeal the mandate that the commission create a risk assessment tool. If the commission is to pass the latest proposal in a planned vote later this week, the legislature should register opposition before this policy is ever implemented.

It’s time for smart justice in Pennsylvania. The current proposal in front of the sentencing commission would move us further from that goal, instead of advancing us towards it. When it comes to criminal law, Pennsylvania is near the bottom when it comes to the racial disparities that plague the system. The proposal on the table would double down on these racial disparities and could deepen the mass incarceration crisis for another generation.

We can and must do better.

Take action to urge commission members to oppose the implementation of this risk assessment tool at sentencing:http://bit.ly/NoNewRAT.

Nyssa Taylor is the Criminal Justice Policy Counsel for the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Stories from Philadelphia’s broken bail system

On March 12, 2019, the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the law firm of Arnold & Porter filed a lawsuit against bail judges in Philadelphia who regularly violate their own rules when setting bail.

When these bail judges don’t follow the rules, bad things happen. People are being locked up for days, weeks, and months in Philadelphia’s county jail before they ever have their day in court simply because they cannot afford to pay bail.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Philadelphia Community Bail Fund and the Youth Art & Self-empowerment Project.

Also included as co-plaintiffs are a number of individuals incarcerated in Philadelphia’s county jail because they cannot afford their bail (as of the filing of the lawsuit).

These are their stories.

M.W. is 18 years old and has worked for a local remodeling company since he was 16, which helps cover the bills at home where he lives with his mother and younger siblings.

At a bail hearing following his March 6 arrest, the teleconference audio was not working, and M.W. could not hear most of what his bail judge said. The bail judge never asked whether M.W. could afford cash bail of any amount, finally setting bail at $7,500.

Not being able to afford the $760 required to secure his release, M.W. remains incarcerated, worried that he has lost his job and concerned about the amount of stress his absence is having on his mother and his family.


P.R. was arrested on March 4. At his hearing, the bail judge never asked whether P.R. had the means to afford cash bail before setting bail at $10,000.

P.R. works a seasonal job for an asphalt and concrete company but has not worked since December due to the winter weather. Because of this pause in his income, P.R. does not have the financial means to pay $1,010 required to secure his release.

P.R. is worried that he will still be in jail when his seasonal work resumes. If he is still incarcerated at that time, he will likely lose his job. He is also worried about whether or not he will lose his apartment while in jail without the ability to pay rent.


J.H. has been working for a moving company for the past two years. A devoted family man, J.H. is worried that his fiancé will not be able to pay rent without his income. J.H. also takes his niece and nephew to school on days when his sister has to work.

Without his help while he remains incarcerated, J.H.’s family is struggling to get by.

At his bail hearing, the judge did not ask J.H. whether he could afford cash bail before setting bail at $150,000.

J.H. sits in jail at the time of this writing, unable to pay to secure his release.


“G.T.” was arrested in Philadelphia on March 4, 2019. Fifty-two years old and suffering from chronic pain from a 2014 injury, G.T. is a recipient of food stamps and was living in a car with all of his possessions in the weeks before he was arrested, as he sought an affordable apartment.

At his bail hearing, despite stating that he was currently unemployed and homeless, the judge set G.T.’s bail at $250,000, meaning G.T. would have to come up with $25,010 to secure his release until his trial.

G.T. is worried that his car, full of his possessions and parked on a public street, will not be there when he finally is released. He’s at risk of missing scheduled doctor’s appointments to treat his chronic pain. He’s sure that the leads on apartments will have evaporated. Worst of all, G.T.’s mother is dying of cancer. Everyday that he spends languishing in jail before he’s ever had his day in court is less time that he might spend with his mother.


“K.B.” is a 27-year-old mother of two who was recently arrested in Philadelphia. Despite making clear that she is not currently working and has no other source of income, the judge set K.B.’s bail at $10,000.

The judge never asked K.B. whether she could afford the $1,010 necessary to secure her release. K.B. remains separated from her children, who are five and nine.

K.B. has no idea how long she will be separated from her children before she has her day in court.


Z.L. was arrested on February 26. Just 16 years old, Z.L. was charged as an adult, and his bail set at $300,000. At his bail hearing, it was clear that Z.L. could not hear anything that was said by the bail judge or anyone else, as he tried to put his ear closer to the videoconferencing screen, to no avail.

Z.L. and his family do not have the $30,010 needed to secure his release, and as a result, Z.L. remains incarcerated in adult jail.

A football and basketball player at his high school, Z.L. was starting to look at colleges and was planning to apply to Penn State at the time of his arrest.


According to the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, using bail as a tool to incarcerate an individual before their day in court is prohibited. Further, judges are obligated to ask if an individual can afford to bail themselves out and to consider the ability to pay when setting bail. In other words: it’s against the rules to lock up someone pretrial simply because they are poor.

But in Philadelphia, as the stories above illustrate, that’s exactly what is happening.

The lawsuit filed on March 12 asks the state Supreme Court to force bail judges to follow their own rules.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania will continue to fight pretrial detention and the abuse of cash bail in Philadelphia and across Pennsylvania as part of our Campaign for Smart Justice. Learn more at aclupa.org/PhillyBail.

Why won’t Philadelphia follow the rules when setting bail?

by Ian Pajer-Rogers

“G.T.” was arrested in Philadelphia on March 4, 2019. Fifty two years old and suffering from chronic pain from a 2014 injury, G.T. is a recipient of food stamps and was living in a car with all of his possessions in the weeks before he was arrested, as he sought an affordable apartment.

At his bail hearing, despite stating that he was currently unemployed and homeless, the judge set G.T.’s bail at $250,000, meaning G.T. would have to come up with $25,010 to secure his release until his trial.

G.T. is worried that his car, full of his possessions and parked on a public street, will not be there when he finally is released. He’s at risk of missing scheduled doctor’s appointments to treat his chronic pain. He’s sure that the leads on apartments will have evaporated. Worst of all, G.T.’s mother is dying of cancer. Everyday that he spends languishing in jail before he’s ever had his day in court is less time that he might spend with his mother.

“K.B.” is a 27-year-old mother of two who was recently arrested in Philadelphia. Despite making clear that she is not currently working and has no other source of income, the judge set K.B.’s bail at $10,000.

The judge never asked K.B. whether she could afford the $1,010 necessary to secure her release. K.B. remains separated from her children, who are five and nine.

K.B. has no idea how long she will be separated from her children before she has her day in court.

At the time of this writing, G.T. and K.B., like so many others, are incarcerated in Philadelphia’s county jail. Even though they have not been convicted of a crime, they are still being held pretrial because they can’t afford to pay to get out. But working with groups like the Philadelphia Community Bail Fund and the Youth Art & Self-Empowerment Project, they are fighting back.

G.T. and K.B. are, along with eight other individuals being held pretrial in Philadelphia County Jail, co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed March 12 by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the law firm of Arnold & Porter. The lawsuit comes after observing more than 2,000 bail arraignment proceedings and after sending a letter of concern to the First Judicial District last September.

The lawsuit makes a very simple demand: that bail judges in Philadelphia follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

But before describing how bail judges in Philadelphia are in violation of the rules, let’s remember what bail is. And what it isn’t.

As cited in the complaint, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has “reaffirm[ed] that the purpose of bail is to ensure” that a person charged with a crime shows up for court and that “Pennsylvania law favors the release, rather than the detention of an individual pending a determination of guilt or innocence.”

In other words, bail should never be the sole factor that keeps a person locked up pretrial and judges have a legal obligation to consider whether an individual can afford the bail they set or whether they are effectively locking up a person for being poor.

The 2,000+ bail hearings that were observed in Philadelphia’s First Judicial District over the past year were rife with rule violations.

In many cases, judges would assign cash bail in one breath and a pro bono public defender in the next. Eighty-six percent of the defendants who were observed being assigned cash bail had already been determined to be too poor to afford bail or a lawyer.

The lawsuit calls on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to intervene and ensure that judges in Philadelphia are acting within the parameters of the rules and within the bounds of decency.

While this lawsuit is focused on bail judges in Philadelphia, the overuse of cash bail and pretrial detention is rife across Pennsylvania. We hope that judges and district attorneys statewide will take notice of this lawsuit and take time to review their own practices to ensure fairness, liberty, and justice for all Pennsylvanians.

If not, we will see them in court.

Pennsylvania Can’t Be a Model for Reform if We Undermine People’s Rights

By Andy Hoover, Director of Communications, ACLU of PA

Elected officials and corrections administrators in Pennsylvania have been doing a bit of a victory lap after the recent announcement that our state prison population dropped by 1,000 people in 2018. On the heels of the passage of the Clean Slate Act — a new law to automatically seal some people’s criminal records from public view — some have gone so far as to call Pennsylvania “a model” for criminal justice reform.

But before anyone gets carried away with the idea that the commonwealth suddenly gets it on smart justice, tap the brakes: The legislature is on the verge of granting ballot access to a state constitutional amendment that would undermine the fundamental rights of people who are accused of crimes in pursuit of “victims’ rights.”

We all feel sympathy and compassion for people who have been victimized. It’s neither right nor fair that some people are harmed by someone else’s behavior. If the government can create programs to support victims, that’s all the better.

But the pending constitutional amendment — known as Marsy’s Law and bankrolled by a billionaire from California — is a deeply flawed and downright dangerous undercutting of defendants’ rights. Supporters of the proposal say that they want the rights of victims to be equal in the Pennsylvania Constitution to the rights of the accused. Their narrative fails to appreciate why the state constitution includes the provisions it does – and excludes others.

A person accused of a crime faces the full weight of the state bearing down upon them. The state is attempting to deprive that person of their liberty, possibly even their life. Pennsylvania’s constitutional framers did not want the government to have the power to jail someone without layers of protections. That’s why our principles as a state — and a nation — include due process, a guarantee of counsel, and a presumption of innocence.

Contrast these with victims’ rights, which arise out of a dispute between two private people. One person’s rights against another person are fundamentally different than a person’s rights against the awesome power of the government. This is why our constitution, which lays out the restrictions on government power, includes defendants’ rights and why victims’ rights are primarily contained in statute.

The proposed Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment runs afoul of the protections granted to those subject to the power of the state. The new guarantees in this proposal include a victim’s right to refuse “an interview, deposition or other discovery request” sought by counsel for a defendant. Think about that: A person’s freedom is on the line in a trial, and Marsy’s Law would prohibit them from having the necessary information that could prove their innocence or mitigate the severity of their sentence. That person’s right to a fair trial would be lost, and with it, the chances for grave miscarriages of justice to occur increase.

This legislation also gives victims’ a right “to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s safety, dignity and privacy.” On its face, that sounds reasonable. We’re all about fairness and privacy here at the ACLU. But in other states, police officers have used this same Marsy’s Law to hide their identity after they shot people. Law enforcement officers have twisted a law intended for victims to hide their own behavior, at the very moment when transparency is most critical — after an officer has committed an act of violence against a private person.

The proposal in Pennsylvania is littered with vague language. It includes the constitutional right “to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related postconviction proceedings.” This language could prevent a defendant from having the adequate time needed to present a defense or from the opportunity to have their case heard in the appeals process, which is guaranteed under the constitution. It’s worth noting that once in the constitution, vague language is incredibly difficult to amend when problems inevitably arise.

While our criminal justice system is far from perfect, the guarantees of both the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions are intended to mitigate the mighty power of the state when a person is accused of a crime. Writing Marsy’s Law into Pennsylvania’s Constitution will further empower the state, at the expense of the liberty of the person who is accused. Members of the General Assembly would be wise to slow down, rethink what they’re doing, and, like legislators in New Hampshire, Idaho, Maine, and Iowa, deny Marsy’s Law ballot access.

ACLU PA Offers Testimony at Hearing on Police Accountability Following Murder of Antwon Rose, Jr.

ACLU PA Legislative Director Elizabeth Randol

By Elizabeth Randol, Legislative Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Back in June, I attended a convening with my ACLU colleagues who are working on the Campaign for Smart Justice to reduce mass incarceration by 50% and address systemic racial disparities in the criminal justice system. For three days in Pittsburgh, Campaign for Smart Justice organizers and communicators from across the country had planned on intensive strategy and skill-sharing sessions to make our campaigning as powerful as possible.

Then, on the morning of our second day, we learned that just a few miles away, an East Pittsburgh police officer had gunned down a teenager, Antwon Rose Jr., with three shots to the back as Rose fled a traffic stop.  

Putting aside our planned agenda, we quickly decided to rally and march in solidarity with the Rose family in community protests that evening in East Pittsburgh and the next day in front of the Allegheny County Courthouse.

As the Rose family continues to demand justice for Antwon, we all ask the same question about this case: How was the officer who murdered Antwon just hours into his first day of work in East Pittsburgh hired in the first place despite a long record of disciplinary issues at other departments around the county?

Last week, I testified at a public hearing regarding police training and accountability in Wilkinsburg which is, like East Pittsburgh, a borough just outside Pittsburgh city limits.

The joint hearing, convened by the PA House and Senate Democratic Policy committees and co-hosted by Rep. Ed Gainey (D-Allegheny) and Sen. Jay Costa (D-Allegheny), was in direct response to the murder of Antwon Rose, Jr.

The goal of the hearing was to educate lawmakers about what can be done to improve police training and how best to hold an officer accountable when they violate their code of conduct or themselves break the law. The hope is that this, and other public hearings and conversations, will lead to legislation that codifies better training and accountability in police departments statewide.

One recurring theme was the need for better diversity training for all police officers. Wilkinsburg Chief of Police Ophelia Coleman, a law enforcement official for more than forty years, recounted that when she took over her department the training budget for more than twenty officers was only $1500. “Today,” she proudly noted, “it’s no less than $50,000 for training.”

Wilkinsburg Chief of Police Ophelia Coleman

But, Chief Coleman reminded the lawmakers, training alone is not enough. In a perfect world, officers would be patrolling areas in which they are also community members. Calling her department one of the “best kept secrets” in terms of law enforcement in the commonwealth, Chief Coleman shared what she feels makes the officers in her department so successful: “They’re community oriented police with a capital C-O-P.”  

While it’s clear that more training for police is needed across the board, what is equally clear is that training without clear accountability to the community is nothing more than window dressing.

The good news is, when it comes to police accountability, there was a clear interest in tackling the issue among the lawmakers in attendance.  

Sen. Sharif Street (D-Philadelphia) called for the open sharing of information about officers and a statewide officer database. Sen. Art Haywood (D-Montgomery) referenced legislation he introduced this session that would require the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to handle cases in which police officers used deadly force. Sen. Jay Costa (D-Allegheny) recently proposed a bill package to improve police-community relationships. And House representatives are expected to introduce a series of other reforms in the coming days and weeks.

When it came time to deliver my testimony, I echoed many of the concerns already raised by advocates, agencies, and law enforcement officials at the hearing. I decided to highlight a few important police accountability reforms enacted in other states, including stricter hiring practices, stronger disciplinary procedures, standardized use of force policies, mandated implicit bias training, enhanced data collection and reporting, and the creation of independent investigations to prosecute officer-involved shootings.

After each instance of police violence, communities all too frequently are left waiting for their lawmakers to respond. Pennsylvanians deserve comprehensive and meaningful reforms that improve community-police relationships, de-escalate police use of force, and that will truly hold police officers accountable for their actions.

“Don’t just introduce legislation that’s easy to pass,” I urged the legislators, “Be bold and show your constituents where you stand by showing them what is possible.”

After I spoke, several legislators asked if the ACLU-PA could provide them with additional resources or assist with writing legislation to address these critical issues. I agreed that we could and would.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania looks forward to being an active participant in drafting and supporting bold and meaningful reform legislation. Justice for Antwon Rose, Jr. and far too many others like him is only possible when we ensure police are better trained and held accountable for their actions when they commit acts of violence.

It’s expensive, does not reduce crime, and destroys due process. So why pass it?

By Elizabeth Randol, Legislative Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman resorted to fear mongering to push for a mandatory sentencing bill to pass the state Senate. Screenshot via PA Senate.

On May 18, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing to consider House Bill 741, a proposal to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania. Clocking in at five hours, the hearing included testimony from 17 people affiliated with 14 organizations, agencies, and institutions, representing an array of expertise and insights.

At the hearing, I spoke on behalf of ACLU-PA, which has long opposed mandatory minimum sentences. From our perspective, the decision to oppose HB 741 was clear cut.

Not only are mandatories ineffective, they have done exactly the opposite of their intended purpose: They decrease certainty in sentencing, have no deterrent effect on criminal behavior, and have no causal relationship to reductions in crime. They alsoincrease the likelihood of recidivism, and directly contribute to mass incarceration while costing taxpayers a lot of hard-earned cash: Reinstating mandatory minimums in Pennsylvania would likely cost $20 million in its first year.

Those reasons don’t begin to touch due process principles. Historically, our adversarial system entrusts discretionary power to judges who function as the neutral arbiter between two opposing sides, weighing the arguments and considering the facts of each individual case before rendering a decision. Our system assigns the job of judging to judges. But because mandatories are tied to specific crimes, control over mandatory sentencing decisions shifts from the judges (the neutral arbiters) to the prosecutors (one of the adversaries) who have singular and unreviewable authority to decide what charges to pursue.

But central to ACLU-PA’s opposition to mandatory minimums is their obvious contribution to racial injustice. Study after study exposes patterns of uneven and unequal application of mandatory sentences, disproportionately imposed on low income people of color. Mandatory sentencing schemes exacerbate and compound existing racial disparities in our criminal justice system.

Most of us who testified at last week’s hearing offered some combination of these arguments — that mandatory minimums are ineffective and costly; that they exacerbate racial disparities; and that they run roughshod over civil liberties. But running counter to the steady flow of evidence-based, rational arguments were the insistent protestations of HB 741’s proponents. A video recording of the hearing can be found here.

In a raised voice, around the 167 minute mark, Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman made a bold appeal to fear. “Kids are gonna be raped,” Stedman said, because we’ve reduced mandatory sentences. He went on: “I don’t know who it’s gonna be, but it’s gonna happen. And it’s gonna happen more than once.”

During an exchange with Carnegie Mellon University professor Al Blumstein, a giant in the field of criminal justice, Senator Randy Vulakovich pressed him on why there’s no justice for victims. Unconvinced by Prof. Blumstein’s response, he then puzzled around the 96 min mark over why our system doesn’t allow victims to determine the punishment for their perpetrators.

Another senator faced down Dr. Bret Bucklen, the director of research and statistics at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. After establishing that Dr. Bucklen “looks at numbers most of the time” and “hasn’t sat with anyone whose son has succumbed to heroin addiction” as part of his job, the senator declared that he was “offended by his testimony” because it was inappropriate to “keep throwin’ numbers” around when human lives are at stake. Invoking “what the public wants and what the people are demanding” in terms of justice, the senator transformed the will of the people into a torch-wielding tyranny. And in a crescendoed finale, he drew a line in the sand and pitted people vs. facts, refusing to “take numbers over human turmoil and suffering.”

Earlier this year, HB 741 was voted out of the House — a first step toward making this indefensible bill into law. The May 18 joint hearing was the next step in that process. If questions and statements to the committee are any indication, Pennsylvania may well be on its way to reinstating policies that are blatantly regressive, that clearly run counter to all available evidence, and that will exact a steep price from Pennsylvanians.

House Bill 741 is an invitation to regress — a way to re-adopt outdated and ineffective “public safety” measures that disproportionately damage communities of color, and concentrate unreviewable power in the hands of prosecutors.

Please call your senators and urge them to vote no on HB 741.

IN OTHER NEWS

(Criminal justice news that could use a second look.)

Room with a view — of the execution chamber at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, just northeast of State College, Pa. Photo from the Pa. Department of Corrections via Philly.com.

  • Philly.com: “What will happen to Pennsylvania’s death penalty?”

“Pennsylvania isn’t the only state in limbo over the death penalty, as debate has raged over the probability of an innocent person being executed and the propriety of lethal injection as an execution method. Capital punishment is authorized in 31 states, but only seven have carried out executions — 31 of them — since the start of 2016, according to Amber Widgery, a capital punishment policy specialists at the National Conference of State Legislatures. ‘There are people in the world who think that no one innocent has ever been executed, and others who think it happens all the time,’ Widgery said. There are also some who don’t believe you have to constitutionally execute a criminal painlessly, she said, and others who classify lethal injection as cruel and unusual.”

  • The Baffler: “How Larry Krasner’s Victory Sounded from the DJ Booth: Finally, Philadelphia has a decarceration DA candidate, even in Jeff Sessions’s America”

“It was so fucking beautiful. We wanted this. We needed this. I heard it in every cheer, saw it every face, and felt it in every hug. The race had been looking good, but even so, we surprised ourselves. Conventional wisdom said our candidate was unelectable, but here was proof that a politics of dignity for all can win — and win big. On May 16, Krasner garnered more votes than the second and third place finishers combined, and hundreds of people turned up for his election-night party. We packed into the courtyard and community room of the John C. Anderson Apartments, one of the first LGBTQI mixed-income housing projects in the country, to celebrate a historic primary victory that should now, in a city where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans seven to one, set the stage for general election success in November.”

  • Institute for Justice: “Grandmother Who Lost Her Home Because Her Son Sold Marijuana Wins Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case”

“‘This is one of the most important civil forfeiture decisions issued by a court and the most important ever issued in Pennsylvania,’ said Jason Leckerman, a Partner at Ballard Spahr, which handled the case. ‘The court has set forth a comprehensive constitutional framework for analyzing forfeiture claims that should substantially curb forfeiture proceedings in Pennsylvania and is likely to influence other state courts considering these issues.’” More from Reason: “Court to Grandma: You Shouldn’t Lose Your House Just Because Your Dumb Son Sold Some Weed There”

  • ACLU-PA: “My graduation from a ‘segregation academy’”

“It was otherwise a mostly good experience, both while I attended CFA and this weekend’s celebrations. Unfortunately, over the course of the weekend, I saw only one other alumnus of color. Then as now, there were folks who appeared a bit leery of me, but most were very cool. Someone at the event asked me if my experience at CFA had informed my decision to become a civil rights lawyer. The truth is that it was not just CFA but my entire experience growing up in the south. And given the current state of things in N.C and beyond, there remains a lot of work to be done.”

THE APPEAL — The Appeal is a weekly newsletter helping to keep you informed about criminal justice news in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and beyond. If you’d like to receive this weekly newsletter, you can subscribe here.

JOIN— The ACLU of Pennsylvania’s mailing list to stay up to date with our work and events happening in your area.

DONATE — The ACLU is comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the ACLU that conducts our litigation and education efforts. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible to the donor to the extent permissible by law. Learn more about supporting the work of the ACLU of Pennsylvania here.

The work of defending civil liberties goes on

ACLU of Pennsylvania Executive Director Reggie Shuford addresses the crowd at the “Show Love for the Constitution” event. | February 15, 2017. (credit: Ben Bowens)

Dear supporter,

In some ways, our country changed on November 8. The United States elected a leader who, by all measures, is hostile to the basic foundations and principles that we stand for. President Trump and his regime deserve every ounce of pushback we can gather, and the ACLU will be on the front lines of the resistance.

And yet, at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, we have always taken the long view. Issues that are with us today were with us before November 8 and, to one degree or another, would have continued regardless of who was elected, including mass incarceration, police brutality, inequality for gay and transgender people, and efforts to compromise women’s access to reproductive healthcare.

You may have heard that there has been a major increase in giving to the ACLU since the election. While much of that growth has occurred at the national level, in fact, here in Pennsylvania, our membership has tripled. We saw a notable rise in donations after Election Day, but the real surge of giving happened after the weekend of the Muslim Ban. It was in that moment that many Pennsylvanians realized the significance of the threat to our values and to the people we most cherish.

You have put your trust in the ACLU in these challenging times. We are grateful for that trust and take it as a responsibility. Thank you.

The generous outpouring of support we’ve received in recent months has allowed us to think big about our work. It is my intention to add new staff to our existing staff of 22. Our current team has the talent, skills, and persistence to take on the many challenges before us. I also know that we can advance the cause of civil liberties throughout Pennsylvania by bringing even more talented people on board. The times demand it. Your support enables it.

In the months ahead, you’ll hear more about our Smart Justice campaign, our effort to reform, reinvent, and revamp the criminal justice system; our Transgender Public Education and Advocacy Project; the campaign for District Attorney in Philadelphia; the many bills we’re advocating for and against at the state capitol; and more litigation to push back against government excesses wherever they occur.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania is prepared to thwart the Trump administration’s worst instincts as they play out in the commonwealth.

And state and municipal officials aren’t off the hook. We’re working with immigrant communities to monitor federal immigration enforcement tactics while also standing with municipal governments that insist they won’t bend to every demand of ICE. We’re insisting that the commonwealth keeps its commitment to open beds for people who are too ill to stand trial and are being warehoused in local jails. We’re working at the state legislature to defeat efforts to hide the identity of police who seriously injure and kill people and to hide video that captures police brutality from the public. And we are active in ongoing struggles to diminish police presence in schools, to stop rollbacks of women’s reproductive healthcare, and to fight the practice of jailing people for their debts.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has the infrastructure and the experience to defend civil rights at every turn. Consider some of our recent work:

  • Our legal team successfully freed travelers who were detained at Philadelphia International Airport the weekend of Muslim Ban 1.0, our advocacy team supported the protests at airports in Philly and Pittsburgh, and our communications staff echoed the message to #LetThemIn.
  • Two weeks ago, we settled a lawsuit against the School District of Lancaster for denying enrollment at its regular high school for older refugee students. Older refugee students will now be able to attend the regular high school instead of being segregated at an alternative school.
  • Over the last month, our legislative director has been busy at the state capitol in Harrisburg lobbying against efforts to reinstate mandatory minimum sentencing, which has been suspended for two years due to court rulings.
  • In tandem with allies, our advocacy team has launched the Philadelphia Coalition for a Just District Attorney, an effort to push the candidates for district attorney to commit to reforming the criminal justice system.
  • Last week, our lawyers filed to intervene to defend a school in Berks County that has been sued for affirming its students’ gender identity. We’re representing a transgender student and a youth advocacy organization who would be harmed if the lawsuit successfully overturns the school’s practice.

These five examples are just from the last two months. In fact, four of them happened in the last two weeks.

My favorite playwright, Pittsburgh native August Wilson, said this about gratitude in his play Two Trains Running:  “You walking around here with a ten-gallon bucket. Somebody put a little cupful in and you get mad ’cause it’s empty. You can’t go through life carrying a ten-gallon bucket. Get you a little cup. That’s all you need. Get you a little cup and somebody put a bit in and it’s half-full.”

Well, thanks to you, our ten-gallon bucket runneth over.

Onward!

Reggie Shuford
Executive Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania