In The News

The following piece was written by ACLU of Massachusetts executive director Carol Rose for WBUR’s Cognoscenti.

When thinking about how to cast your ballot on Question 4, to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana, consider the social justice implications of your vote.

Don’t buy the argument that "no one gets arrested for possession of marijuana” anymore. That’s simply not true. More than 600 people are still arrested for marijuana possession annually in Massachusetts. It matters a lot to them and their families that using pot is still not legal. Arrests generate criminal records, which create barriers to housing, employment, education, adoption and more.

Black people are more than three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though rates of marijuana use are the same across race.

Moreover, criminalizing marijuana disproportionately hurts poor people and folks of color. Black people are more than three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though rates of marijuana use are the same across race. Recent data from the Boston Police Department show that hundreds of people in Boston’s neighborhoods of color are disproportionately stopped by the police for marijuana, while their white suburban neighbors who consume at the same rate do so without concern. Indeed, since voters approved decriminalization of an ounce or less in 2008, racial disparities in marijuana arrests have increased in Massachusetts. Legalization will reduce those disparities. ...

The marijuana business already exists, it’s just in the shadows where exploitation takes place. It is time to bring the underground economy into the light, where we can regulate it and address it as a public health matter, with education and controls. Remember the "Let's make smoking history" education campaign? That did far more than prohibition to make once-ubiquitous cigarettes uncool.

We can’t wait for the legislature to fix the law. They have had multiple opportunities to do so and failed to act. Despite widespread calls for public health approaches to substance abuse, most politicians still fear being labeled “soft on crime” at reelection time.

Criminalizing marijuana has failed, because criminal law is too blunt a cudgel for an issue that calls for a public health education approach. A yes vote on Question 4 is a vote for public health and social justice.

To read the full article, please click here. To learn more about Question 4, visit aclum.org/question4.

Date

Wednesday, November 2, 2016 - 12:00pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Criminal Law Reform Racial Justice

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar


The following piece was written by ACLU of Massachusetts executive director Carol Rose for WBUR’s Cognoscenti.

In a victory for justice, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court this week unanimously ruled that black people who walk away from police officers may be justified in trying to avoid the “recurring indignity of being racially profiled.”

The decision is historic, both as a matter of law and as a matter of justice. It could protect people in Massachusetts from undue police violence, and influence court decisions across the nation.

In theory, all of us have the right to “not engage” with law enforcement if police officers do not have reasonable suspicion to stop us. The problem is that, too often, when a person refuses to engage, the police may decide that such a refusal is, itself, suspicious behavior. That logic effectively entraps people into engaging with police — or it did, until this ruling.

Legally, the opinion addressed the question of how judges should interpret a defendant’s actions when they choose not to interact with a police officer. Does such refusal indicate “consciousness of guilt”? If not, and a judge deems that the lack of interaction is an innocent act, then prosecutors cannot use such a refusal against a defendant.

The SJC ruling went even further, pointing to valid reasons that black men might refuse to interact with the police. The court cited both a 2015 Boston Police Department-commissioned study and a 2014 ACLU report, based on the same data. Both studies explored racial disparities in BPD “Field, Interrogation and Observation (FIO) encounters” — more commonly referred to as “stop and frisk.”

To continue reading, please click here.

Date

Friday, September 23, 2016 - 8:00pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Police Accountability Racial Justice

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

To Make Black Lives Matter, We Must Tear Down the Case Law that Gave Police the Power to Stop, Search, and Abuse

By Matthew Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. This piece originally appeared at The Guardian.
Something is missing from the debate over police reform. Though police killings of Black men have sparked a nationwide movement to stop police violence, the police can fairly ask whether they deserve all of the blame.
That’s not because current levels of police violence are warranted (they aren’t), or because policing is race neutral (it isn’t). It’s because the chief architects of American policing are not police departments; they’re courts. The movement for police reform should be joined by an equally ambitious movement for court reform.
Courts have shaped American policing by defanging the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Because the term “unreasonable” is unclear, courts have had to decide which police intrusions, beyond the blatantly arbitrary, go too far. And the U.S. Supreme Court’s consistent answer has been that scarcely anything goes too far.
Perhaps most important, the court held in Whren v. United States that the Fourth Amendment permits officers to use any violation, like a broken tail light, as a pretext to stop people they deem suspicious. This decision, which just reached its 20th anniversary, helped cement modern-day racial profiling.

Date

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - 7:15pm

Featured image

Matthew Segal Plain Headshot

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Police Accountability Racial Justice

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - In The News