Bad policies and systemic bias are driving huge increases in Native American incarceration rates
newsdepo.com
Conditioning parole and probation on the ability to pay fines and fees is bad policy, period. Just as cash bail and disproportionate fees and fines discriminate against those least able to pay, so too do these fees imposed on people on supervised release. IBad policies and systemic bias are driving huge increases in Native American incarceration rates
Conditioning parole and probation on the ability to pay fines and fees is bad policy, period. Just as cash bail and disproportionate fees and fines discriminate against those least able to pay, so too do these fees imposed on people on supervised release. In Montana, both fees and conditions of release, which come with their own cost, have an outsized impact on Native Americans. Both poverty and geography are penalized under the current system. Disadvantaged people of every background are routinely released on supervision with little chance of satisfying its requirements. “Without treatment, housing, transportation and other basic services,” the ACLU’s Sarah Mehta and Robin Gomila note, “people under supervision are unable to meet the conditions and responsibilities—as well as costs—imposed by supervision.” Native Americans, especially those who live on reservations, are more likely to live in poverty and less likely to have access to the services they need to satisfy supervision requirements. When they fail, they’re re-incarcerated. Requirements weren’t always this severe. The number of people under supervision has quadrupled since 1980. Over the same period, punitive restrictions increased in popularity, including those that imposed costs on those on probation or parole. Other deleterious changes were driven by cost. Example: The state used to pay for GPS monitoring, drug tests, and treatment. Now, individuals do. Changing norms and increasing caseloads (without commensurate increases in resources) changed the role of supervision officers. If they ever were able to focus on rehabilitation, that’s not the case now. Rather, they’re incentivized to issue formal violations. Sometimes, that’s the only option. Too often, though, officers perceive the most extreme option as the surest way to protect themselves from perceived failure or liability. Melissa Smylie managed to get herself released from prison by becoming her own lawyer. But once under supervision, she was subject to stifling—and unreasonable—requirements. Melissa had to quit the job she’d pre-arranged because her probation officer wouldn’t let her drive; she had to turn down the next job she found because it was casino-related, though in a totally separate location. When she fought back against “baseless” probation violation accusations made by her supervision officer, Melissa had to move again, without her daughter; the same accusations barred her from signing a lease agreement or enrolling in college. She had to fight just to retain custody of her daughter, though there was no formal basis for removing her. Throughout, Melissa was ineligible for food assistance—because she was on supervision. Melissa escaped Montana’s criminal justice system, but many do not. Read more