Marijuana prohibition costs the state and its municipalities an estimated $22 million a year, creates a dangerous backlog at the agency that tests forensic evidence in violent crimes, and needlessly ensnares thousands of people – disproportionately African Americans – in the criminal justice system, according to a report released today by Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The study – Alabama’s War on Marijuana: Assessing the Fiscal and Human Toll of Criminalization – is the first of its kind to examine the fiscal, public safety, and human toll of marijuana prohibition in the state.
Among the report’s findings:
- The overwhelming majority of people arrested for marijuana offenses from 2012 to 2016, nearly 89 percent, were arrested for possession.
- Despite studies showing black and white people use marijuana at the same rates, black people were approximately four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession (both misdemeanors and felonies) in 2016 – and five times as likely to be arrested for felony possession.
- Alabama spent an estimated $22 million to enforce the prohibition against marijuana possession in 2016 – enough to fund 191 additional preschool classrooms, 571 more K-12 teachers or 628 more corrections officers.
- The enforcement of marijuana possession laws has created a crippling backlog at the state agency tasked with analyzing forensic evidence in all criminal cases, including violent crimes.
“Alabama’s war on marijuana is a monumental waste of tax dollars, undermines public safety, and is enforced with a staggering racial bias,” said Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed. “The impact of an arrest for possessing marijuana is often significant, and the consequences can last for years. Even an arrest for the possession of a small amount of marijuana can upend somebody’s life by limiting their access to employment, housing and college loan programs, and leaving them trapped in a never-ending cycle of court debt.”
The report identified wildly disparate arrest rates for white and black people in certain jurisdictions. Among the 50 law enforcement agencies that arrested the most people for possession, seven arrested black people at 10 or more times the rate of white people. Those jurisdictions are: Huntsville, Dothan, Gulf Shores, Pelham, Troy, Etowah County, and Decatur.
“Alabama continues to shoot itself in the pocketbook with harsh, outdated laws that create needless suffering for its residents, particularly for black people who are still living with the legacy of Jim Crow,” said Lisa Graybill, deputy legal director for the SPLC. “It’s past time to reform laws that perpetuate discrimination.”
A fiscal analysis conducted by economists at Western Carolina University found that the enforcement of marijuana possession laws – the police and prosecutors’ work, the court hearings and trials, and the incarceration of people in local jails and state prisons – came with a price tag of $22 million in 2016.
“Each of the 2,351 marijuana arrests in 2016 involved a judge, a clerk, law enforcement officers, forensics, storage, and prosecutors, all paid for by Alabama’s taxpayers,” Dr. Angela Dills and Dr. Audrey Redford, economics professors with the Center for the Study of Free Enterprise at Western Carolina University, said in a joint statement. “Taken together, we estimate the cost of enforcing Alabama’s marijuana possession laws to be $22 million in 2016 alone.”
These arrests alter the lives of many, leading to jail time and costing thousands of dollars in court fines and fees – sometimes at the expense of children or other family members.
Kiasha Hughes, whose story is told in the report, dreamed of becoming a medical assistant, but because of a marijuana offense she now works at a chicken plant and struggles to provide for her children. Nick Gibson was a student at the University of Alabama when a marijuana possession charge derailed his education.
And in Montgomery, Wesley Shelton was held 15 months in jail – prior to adjudication of his felony charge – for having $10 worth of marijuana and because he couldn’t afford to pay bail. The report finds Montgomery County likely wasted about $21,000 to house Shelton in the county jail.
“Alabama should follow the lead of other states that have realized marijuana prohibition is self-defeating and counterproductive,” Graybill said. “We’re draining scarce resources and driving people further into poverty – and there’s no public safety benefit. Even Mississippi has decriminalized small amounts of marijuana.”
Marijuana prohibition also threatens wider public safety, the report found. The significant backlog at the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences caused by the demand for drug sample tests has siphoned resources away from the agency’s Forensic Biology/DNA lab. That lab now faces a backlog of 1,121 cases, of which about half are “crimes against persons,” or homicides, sexual assaults and robberies.
“Now in its fourth decade, the war on drugs has failed to eradicate or even diminish marijuana use,” Knaack said. “In 2016 alone Alabama spent over $22 million on the enforcement of its marijuana possession laws. At the same time, the state agency tasked with analyzing forensic evidence in all criminal cases, including violent crimes, faced a crippling backlog. It’s time for Alabama to invest its resources on strategies and programs that will help keep our communities safe – investigating serious crimes and providing substance abuse and mental health programs.”
National opinion has moved significantly in recent years in favor of decriminalizing and/or legalizing marijuana possession. Polls show that 61 percent of Americans now support full legalization.
A new report finds that many Alabamians report sacrificing food, medicine, and other basic necessities — and in some cases, resorting to crime — to pay down unnecessarily burdensome court costs, fines, and fees. More than eight in ten Alabamians gave up necessities like food and medicine to pay down court costs, fines, fees, or restitution. Nearly four in ten committed a crime in hopes it would help them pay down their court debt. These are just two of the findings in a report on the collateral harms of criminal justice debt released today from Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (UAB TASC), Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Legal Services Alabama.
The report – Under Pressure: How fines and fees hurt people, undermine public safety, and drive Alabama’s racial wealth divide – chronicles the experiences of nearly 1,000 Alabamians who are paying court debt either for themselves or for other people and reveals how this system tramples the human rights of all poor people who come through it, no matter their races or backgrounds. It also shows how Alabama’s racial wealth divide, coupled with the over-policing of African-American communities, means that African Americans are disproportionately harmed.
Because Alabama has rejected equitable mechanisms for funding the state and has instead created a system where courts and prosecutors are revenue collectors, each year Alabama’s municipal, district, and circuit courts assess millions of dollars in court costs, fines, fees, and restitution. Most of this money is sent to the state General Fund, government agencies, county and municipal funds, and used to finance pet projects.
“Our courts and prosecutors are supposed to be focused on the fair administration of justice,” said Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed. “Instead, because they are placed in the role of tax assessors and collectors, they are often forced to levy harsh punishments on those unable to pay. As a result, Alabamians who cannot afford their fines and fees must make unconscionable choices – skipping food or medicine or committing crimes to pay down their court debt. Alabama must stop trying to fund the state off the backs of poor people. It is inhumane, makes us less safe, and undermines the integrity of Alabama’s legal system.”
This hidden tax is disproportionately borne by poor people – particularly by poor people of color. In Alabama, African Americans are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at higher rates than white people. For example, while African Americans and white people use marijuana at roughly the same rate, African Americans are over four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in Alabama.
“The over-policing of African-American communities means African Americans are far more likely than white people to face court debt,” said Scott Douglas, executive director of Greater Birmingham Ministries. “This is made worse by Alabama’s legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, coupled with modern-day structural racism, which has left African-American Alabamians disproportionately impoverished as compared to their white peers. Thus, not only do the racial disparities in the enforcement of Alabama’s criminal laws make African Americans more likely to face court debt, but also Alabama’s racial wealth divide means that African Americans are more likely to face the harsh punishments placed on those who cannot afford to pay.”
The report highlights Alabama’s two-tiered justice system. People with the resources to make timely payments experience fine-only violations as costly nuisances at worst. They can minimize the fallout even from criminal charges by paying to participate in diversion programs that result in either reduced penalties or clean records if successfully completed. People without ready access to cash, meanwhile, find themselves in escalating cycles of late fees, collections fees, loss of driver’s licenses, jail time, and life-altering criminal records.
“Equal justice under law does not exist when a person’s punishment is determined by their wealth rather than their actions,” said Knaack. “For example, access to diversion programs are often based on nothing more than an individual’s financial well-being. Thus, people who commit the same act face very different punishments because of nothing more than how much money they have. This two-tiered justice system should have no place in Alabama.”
The report examines the collateral consequences of Alabama’s court debt system and explores the ways in which it undermines public safety and drives the state’s racial wealth divide. It was funded in part by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which through its Southern Partnership to Reduce Debt, is developing strategies to lessen the impact of criminal and civil judicial fines and fees, as well as medical fees, and high-cost consumer products on communities of color.
The report can be found here.
by Frank Knaack, Executive Director
If you had asked your legislator last year about their stance on civil asset forfeiture, jail food, or marijuana reclassification you would likely have heard confusion about the first two and opposition to the third. That’s no longer the case.
While our legislation to end civil asset forfeiture, stop sheriffs from personally profiting from money meant to feed people in their jails, and reclassify the possession of small amounts of marijuana as a civil offense did not pass the legislature, we made substantial progress.
In January we, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, released a report documenting serious abuses occurring under Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws. It documented how laws meant to go after drug kingpins have been turned into tools for law enforcement to supplement their budgets by taking property from innocent Alabamians. The report catapulted the issue into the public debate and set the stage for bipartisan supported legislation to end this abusive program in Alabama.
While the legislation did not pass the full legislature, it did pass the Senate and is well positioned to prevail next session.
We will continue to face opposition from law enforcement, who make millions of dollars each year from civil asset forfeiture. Fortunately, sunlight has finally penetrated this long-abused program …
- Al.com – Alabama lawmakers propose ending civil asset forfeiture by police
- Montgomery Advertiser – Alabama lawmakers propose ending civil asset forfeiture by police
- WSFA – AL civil forfeiture laws go under the microscope
- WTVM – Lawmakers push for bill to end civil forfeiture
- WTVY – Alabama lawmakers propose ending civil asset forfeiture by police
- Dothan First – Civil Asset Forfeiture
- Fox – Despite promises to cut back, fed and state governments press asset forfeitures
- Reason – Alabama Raked in $2.2 Million in Civil Asset Forfeiture in 2015
- Esquire – Ethics Issues? Just Torpedo the Ethics Committee!
- Forbes – New Alabama Bill Would Abolish Civil Forfeiture, Require Convictions To Confiscate Property
- Yellowhammer – Here in Alabama, the government can legally take your stuff (AND NOT GIVE IT BACK)
- Al.com – Alabama could rein in civil asset forfeiture
- American Institute for Economic Research – Civil Asset Forfeiture Undermines Free Enterprise and Human Dignity
- Al.com – The need to regulate civil asset forfeiture
- Troy Messenger – Taxes are better than civil asset forfeiture
- Yellowhammer – Civil asset forfeiture: ‘We all probably deserve some blame’ for the disgraceful practice
- Tuscaloosa News – A welcome proposal to reform forfeiture laws
- Decatur Daily – Orr bill would reform civil forfeiture
- Holmes County Times-Advertiser – A welcome proposal to reform forfeiture laws
Our work with the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) to stop sheriffs from personally pocketing taxpayer money meant to feed people in their jails has also dominated the news. In January we, with SCHR, filed a lawsuit challenging the refusal of 49 Alabama sheriffs to produce public records showing whether, and if so by how much, they have personally profited from funds allocated for feeding people in their jails. As Connor Sheets’ terrific reporting has shown, sheriffs are becoming rich (from taxpayer dollars) while the people in their jails are fed food “not fit for human consumption.”
Our work with the SCHR will continue until all sheriffs understand that taxpayer dollars given to them to purchase food for people in their jails are to be used to purchase food for people in their jails.
In the meantime, sheriffs who oppose our position may want to read this …
- Times Daily – Statewide legislation would change jail food law
- WBRC – 49 Alabama sheriffs being sued over jail food money
- AL.com – Dietary needs unmet in some Alabama jails as concerns mount on use of sheriff food accounts
- AL.com – Alabama legislation could stop Etowah sheriff from keeping jail food money
- Yellowhammer – Alabama sheriff pocketing $750,000 in jail-food money draws new attention to old law
- WCBI – Lawsuit Filed Against 49 Alabama Sheriffs
- AL.com – Alabama sheriffs pocket tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars allocated to feed inmates
- WAAY – 6 North Alabama Sheriffs Named in Lawsuit over Funds for Feeding Inmates
- Lagniappe – Lawsuit seeks transparency in sheriffs’ food funds
- CBS News – Alabama sheriff legally used $750K in inmate food funds to buy beach house
- Daily Kos – Meet the Alabama sheriff who kept hundreds of thousands in inmate food funds for personal use
- National Review – Alabama Sheriff Used $750,000 in Taxpayer Funds to Purchase Houses
- Newsweek – Alabama Sheriff Allegedly Purchased Home with Money Meant to Feed Jail Inmates
- ABA Journal – 49 Alabama sheriffs are sued over refusal to say whether they pocketed leftover inmate-meal money
- The Daily Beast – Alabama Sheriffs Filled Their Wallets by Starving Prisoners
- Associated Press – Groups sue, aim to learn if sheriffs profit from jail food
- Associated Press – Enjoying leftovers: Sheriffs feed inmates, keep extra cash
- AL.com – When sheriffs go bad, public records are the best defense
- AL.com – Alabama sheriff pocketed more than he spent on jail food
- AL.com – 49 Alabama sheriffs hide jail food funds, flout open records law
We also saw major progress with our work to reclassify marijuana possession in Alabama. Every year Alabama needlessly ensnares thousands of people in the criminal justice system for the mere possession of marijuana. This policy decision is costing Alabama taxpayers over $10 million each year and misuses law enforcement resources. Worse, it is enforced along color lines. While African Americans and whites use marijuana at roughly equal rates, in 2016 African Americans were over 4.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in Alabama.
Earlier this year, a bipartisan effort to reclassify the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as a fine-only offense passed the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee. While that might not seem like a big deal, it is. Members from both parties in the Alabama legislature have now gone on the record in support. We will continue to educate Alabamians about the need for this common sense reform and hope to prevail in 2019.
by Frank Knaack, Executive Director
The staggering racial disparities in Alabama’s criminal justice system mean people of color are more likely to incur criminal justice debt and face counterproductive hurdles to reentry. People of color are also far more likely to encounter predatory lenders, whose loan products can legally reach 456% APR. Together, these systems help drive Alabama’s racial wealth divide.
With support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Alabama Appleseed has launched a collaborative project with Greater Birmingham Ministries, Legal Services Alabama, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC) to:
- Document how court-imposed debt and collateral consequences push individuals to seek high interest loans from payday and title loan lenders.
- Reduce the burden of these debts by educating Alabamians about alternative loan products that would minimize debt burdens.
- Develop and execute a long-range plan to remedy these three drivers of Alabama’s racial wealth divide.
How will we do this?
Focusing on people of color in Birmingham, Dothan, Huntsville, Mobile, Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, Lowndes County, Bessemer, and Tarrant, we will:
- Survey Alabamians impacted by court-imposed debt and/or collateral consequences to understand their role in pushing people to predatory lenders.
- Seek insight from individuals who know this system, including social workers, law enforcement, indigent defense and civil legal aid attorneys, bank and credit union workers, predatory lenders, academics, social service providers, state and local government workers, and faith and community leaders.
- Partner with credit unions and other non-predatory loan providers to host public educational forums about reasonable alternative loan products.
- Develop a broad, ideologically diverse coalition of advocates to address these drivers of Alabama’s racial wealth divide.
Here’s what we know so far:
Court fees are no longer just about funding the operations of the judiciary – they have become funding stream for basic government services. Of the over $165 million in fees collected by Alabama’s courts in 2011, more than 40 percent went to supplement government budgets outside of the judiciary, including county general funds, employee pay raises, and museums. And, fees collected by Alabama’s criminal courts made up over 66% of the total collected. These fees further ensnare low-income people of color in a hard-to-escape cycles of debt.
Alabama continues to erect counterproductive barriers in front of former offenders returning to their communities, such as arbitrary limitations on employment and housing – two key factors to reducing recidivism. According to The Council of State Governments, Alabama maintains 842 collateral consequences to a criminal conviction.
In addition to those statutorily created hurdles, because of the criminal history checkbox on many employers’ initial employment applications, individuals with criminal records often have their job application tossed out before they ever have an opportunity to present their qualifications or rehabilitation.
Alabama has more predatory lenders than McDonalds restaurants. In 2015, 246,824 unique Alabama borrowers took out more than two million payday loans. The average predatory loan rate is 300% APR and can legally reach 456% APR. Despite being sold to lawmakers as a way for individuals to obtain emergency credit, the average borrower took out eight loans in 2015. In reality, these predatory loan products are used to pay for basic needs and, as a 2014 survey conducted by TASC found, to cover court costs, fines, and fees.
By reducing criminal fees, removing unnecessary hurdles to reentry, and reining in predatory lenders, this project will help remove three drivers of household debt in Alabama’s communities of color.
by Frank Knaack, Executive Director
Under both Alabama and federal law, the government can take and keep your cash, your car, or your house – even if you are never charged with a crime. This program, known as civil asset forfeiture, turns the fundamental American principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head and has no place in Alabama.
Originally sold to the public as a tool for taking the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins, civil asset forfeiture has strayed far from its alleged purpose. In practice, drug kingpins are rarely the target: as our report with the Southern Poverty Law Center found, in half of the cases the amount of cash forfeited was $1,372 or less. The average amount of $1,372 is often less than the typical cost of hiring an attorney to challenge the seizure in court.
That’s not the most troubling finding. In 25% of the civil forfeiture cases we reviewed, there was not a corresponding criminal charge. Think about that – one in every four civil asset forfeiture cases involved the government taking and keeping a person’s property who was never even charged with a crime. In fact, in 2015 alone, local and state government entities kept at least $670,000 from property owners who were never changed with a crime.
It took some digging to learn all of this. Under current law, the government is not required to report what they have taken to a centralized database, so in order to gather data for our report, we had to write a computer program, purchase thousands of dollars worth of court records, and spend hundreds of hours reviewing them one by one. What they did with that money remains a mystery, because of the 138 agencies that were sent open records requests, only one responded with information about expenditures from its forfeiture account. Most agencies didn’t respond at all.
How did we get into this mess? It’s all about incentives.
Under Alabama law, law enforcement keeps up to 100% of the proceeds from forfeited property.
Under the federal program, Alabama law enforcement can keep up to 80% of the proceeds. Between 2000 and 2013, Alabama law enforcement agencies kept over $75 million in property, and, as is the case with the Alabama programs, none of that required a warrant or indictment, much less a criminal conviction.
Between state and federal programs, Alabama law enforcement raked in over $5 million in 2015 alone.
Law enforcement should not be put in a position where they appear to value funding their budget over the protection of individual rights.
Thanks to Senator Orr and Representative Mooney, we have a very simple solution. Their legislation would:
- Require that the forfeiture process occur within the criminal case. This legislation would ensure the government proves that the individual whose property was taken was actually convicted of a crime, and that the property seized was the product of, or that it facilitated, that crime. This places the burden back where it belongs – on the state
- Protect innocent property owners. This legislation would create a process in which property owners can promptly challenge a seizure and/or assert that they did not know or consent to the use of their property in an alleged crime.
- Bring transparency to the forfeiture process. This legislation would require annual, centralized reporting of all seizures and forfeitures and what law enforcement agencies spend forfeiture proceeds on.
- Restricts the ability to abuse the federal forfeiture programs. This legislation would prohibit Alabama law enforcement from receiving proceeds from federal forfeiture actions.
This legislation is a win-win. Criminal forfeiture protects innocent Alabama property owners and leaves in place the tools law enforcement needs to hold those who commit crimes accountable.
by Frank Knaack, Executive Director
Earlier today the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee voted to enhance public safety, strengthen our economy, and give people a second chance to make an honest living.
SB 198 (Sen. Singleton), and its House counterpart, HB 257 (Rep. Givan), would prohibit a state or local government employer from asking an applicant about their criminal history until a conditional offer of employment is made. A safeguard in the bill would enable the government employer to withdraw the job offer if the applicant’s criminal conviction is directly related to the job. Further, the bill establishes clear criteria for state agencies to consider during the screening process, which would better protect the agencies from claims of discrimination under Title VII.
Why should Alabama government employers ban the box? Because it improves the public sector’s ability to recruit the best and brightest, strengthens Alabama’s economy, helps make our communities safer, better ensures a second chance for Alabamians who have already paid their debt to society, reduces the criminal justice system’s disproportionate impact on people of color, protects Alabama from having to hire an individual whose criminal conviction is directly related to the job, and helps protect state employers from claims of discrimination.
Many of America’s largest companies, including Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Starbucks, Koch Industries, and Facebook, recognize that banning the box is good for business. As Koch Industries General Counsel Mark Holden wrote last year, “For employers seeking the best talent, it makes sense for a company to consider all factors, including any prior criminal record, in the context of an applicant’s other life experiences. We are in a global competition for the best talent period; not the best talent with or without a record.” Our state and local government employers should view their hiring practices in the same light.
As the National Employment Law Project notes, when an individual with a criminal record has a job, they will contribute more to the tax base, purchase more goods, and is less likely to commit a new crime, thus reducing the amount of money that state and local governments must spend on their criminal justice systems. It is estimated that our nation’s economy loses between $78 and $87 billion each year because of lost output caused by criminal record-related barriers. To strengthen our economy, Alabama lawmakers should support this bill.
In addition to being a sensible business practice, banning the box will also make our communities safer. Alabama has approximately 21,000 people in its prisons, and another 11,000 in its jails. The vast majority of those individuals will be released and return to their communities. To reduce the recidivism rate, the Department of Justice has identified three key elements to successful re-entry into our communities. One of these key elements is helping these individuals find and keep a job. This legislation is a first step toward realizing a key element to reducing recidivism and making our communities safer.
It will also make our communities more fair. Under current law, an otherwise fully qualified applicant can be denied employment long after that applicant has completed their sentence. This practice places counterproductive hurdles in front of individuals seeking to rebuild their lives and provide for their families. Denying a person’s application without considering their qualifications or rehabilitation prevents people who have completed their sentences from getting a fair chance at a fresh start.
Because African Americans are disproportionately caught up in our criminal justice system, they are disproportionately affected when seeking employment. For example, while African Americans and whites use marijuana at roughly equal rates, in 2016 African Americans were over 4.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in Alabama. Those individuals will be disproportionately impacted when filling out a job application that includes a criminal history box. This bill offers an opportunity to begin to address the long-term consequences of a criminal justice system that disproportionately affects African Americans.
To protect government employers (and taxpayers), under this legislation a government employer would be permitted to withdraw the offer of employment after learning of the prospective employee’s criminal conviction background if the prospective employee has a conviction that “is directly related to the position of employment sought.” For example, this provision protects a state employer from being forced to hire a convicted embezzler to keep its books.
Finally, by balancing public safety concerns with a sensible approach to hiring, this legislation may help to insulate government employers from claims of discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a guidance document for entities covered by Title VII, including state and local governments, to help eliminate unlawful discrimination in the employment hiring process. As outlined in the guidance document, an employer must show that the selection criteria use or selection procedures are “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Specifically related to an applicant’s criminal record, the guidance says that the individualized screening process should consider “at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job” or otherwise comply with the EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. This legislation establishes clear criteria for government employers to consider during the screening process when evaluating a person’s prior criminal record, which will better protect government employers from claims of discrimination under Title VII.
SB 198 now heads to the Senate floor.
This legislation is a win-win. It makes us safer, strengthens our economy, better ensures that Alabamians are judged on their merit, not their mistakes, and protects government employers.
Montgomery, AL – The following statement is by Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed, regarding Governor Ivey’s decision to award $1.3 million to establish the Alabama Drug Enforcement Task Force:
“After more than 45 years of the War on Drugs, one thing is clear – we cannot prosecute our way out of drug use. Approximately one in every seven people in Alabama’s already overcrowded prisons are there because of a drug offense, yet drugs remain cheap and widely available. Doubling down on this failed strategy is an expensive and ineffective approach.
Alabamians would be much better served by redirecting money to treatment programs and other public health based responses that have been shown to reduce drug use and save lives. We urge Governor Ivey to reconsider her decision.”
Montgomery, AL – The following statement is by Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed, regarding SB 187.
“Eight times since 1976 Alabama has sent a person to death row and gotten it wrong. Yet, instead of focusing on ways to keep Alabama from making another potentially deadly mistake, the Alabama legislature voted to make Alabama’s death penalty process even less reliable.”
“Opposition to this legislation should have been universal. In the United States, the importance of ensuring a fair and accurate death penalty process should be non-negotiable. The Alabama legislature disagreed.”
“We urge Governor Ivey to veto this bill. This is not about where you stand on the death penalty, it’s about where you stand on the need to ensure a fair and accurate death penalty process.”
SB 187 will now go to Governor Kay Ivey. For additional information regarding SB 187, please read Alabama Appleseed’s fact sheet.
Montgomery, AL – The following statement is by Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed regarding SB 187, which the Alabama House of Representatives passed today:
“Eight times since 1976 Alabama has sent a person to death row and gotten it wrong. Yet, instead of focusing on ways to keep Alabama from making another potentially deadly mistake, the Alabama House voted today to make Alabama’s death penalty process even less reliable.”
“Opposition to this legislation should be universal. In the United States, the importance of ensuring a fair and accurate death penalty process should be non-negotiable. Today, the Alabama House disagreed.”
For additional information regarding SB 187, please read Alabama Appleseed’s fact sheet.