Blogs

This piece was originally published on the What a Difference a DA Makes campaign website. View it here.

Before we launched this public education campaign, we polled voters to find out how much they knew about district attorneys. The results were informative: Half of the registered voters believed district attorneys have only a minor or insignificant impact on the functioning of the criminal justice system – and nearly four-in-ten didn’t know that district attorneys are elected.

But the results were also promising. After hearing facts about the life-changing impact that district attorneys can have on people and in communities, 81 percent of voters say they are more likely to pay attention to their upcoming local district attorney race.

So, we set out to share the facts with people across Massachusetts to show What a Difference a DA Makes.

We created monthly videos to illustrate all the power district attorneys wield. We led court watch trainings to empower volunteers to go into courts and watch firsthand what’s being done in their names. We were in Dorchester, Springfield, and Lexington for public education forums, collaborating with our partner organizations to share the important role district attorneys play in determining the fairness and effectiveness of our criminal legal system. In contested districts like Suffolk County and Middlesex County, we hosted candidate debates and forums.

Now, we’re knocking on doors and calling registered voters to let people know that they are the ones who can redefine the role of a prosecutor. For far too long, DAs have contributed to mass incarceration, gross racial disparities, and a criminal legal system that criminalizes addiction. This September 4 and November 6, voters have the opportunity to choose a district attorney who instead redefines justice as something that’s rooted in restoration, transformation, and healing.

District attorneys are accountable only to us – the public and voters. There’s a lot we can do to hold them accountable to the values that matter to us: we can court watch, write letters to the editor, demand transparency, request community meetings, and engage our neighbors in action. But most importantly, a fairer criminal legal system begins with our vote for district attorney.

This fall, voters in five contested races have the opportunity to choose the right candidate who would help restore and strengthen our communities.

This is big, because 77 percent of district attorneys races in Massachusetts have been uncontested for the last 20 years. In fact, the last time there were six contested races for DA was in 1982 – the beginning of the war on drugs. That means – for the first time in over three decades – residents in a majority of the DA districts in Massachusetts are involved in a public discussion about where candidates stand on issues of over-incarceration, racial disparities, mandatory minimums, cash bail, transparency, and more.

It’s extremely important to vote in these elections. There’s a lot on the line this fall. District attorneys have the power to change the system, and you have the power to change district attorneys.

To find your polling location or learn more about your ballot, visit the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website.

 

Written by Rahsaan Hall, director of the Racial Justice Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts and campaign manager for What a Difference a DA Makes.

Date

Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - 8:00pm

Featured image

Rahsaan Hall, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts' Racial Justice Program and What a Difference a DA Makes campaign manager in front of a gray background

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Criminal Law Reform Racial Justice Economic Justice Government Transparency

Show related content

Pinned related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

Recently unsealed documents and depositions show the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses its own regulations – which were designed to protect the families of noncitizens from unnecessary separation during the legalization process – to target individuals for detention and deportation. The documents show U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) actively coordinated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to schedule and facilitate arrests at USCIS offices.

The court filing – which was made under seal on August 1, 2018 and released nearly two weeks later – is part of our class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s pattern of separating married couples and families pursuing lawful immigration status. The class action lawsuit was filed in April on behalf of five immigrants and their U.S. citizen spouses; the couples are trying to avail themselves of 2016 regulations that allowed certain noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens to pursue lawful immigration status while remaining in the United States with their families. The lawsuit alleges that the government has unlawfully arrested, detained, and deported people pursuing the process set out in these regulations.

It was a setup. New documents show USCIS and ICE collaborated to separate families and arrest people pursuing legal immigration status.

According to the recent filing, documents obtained in discovery reveal the “stunning extent” to which DHS in New England transformed the 2016 regulations into a trap calculated to cause unnecessary separation of married couples and families.  These documents and depositions show USCIS and ICE have worked hand-in-hand to bring individuals in for interviews so that ICE could arrest and deport them: USCIS sends ICE a full list of pending interviews designed to confirm marriage, the first step in the process of seeking to become a lawful permanent resident. ICE would then tell CIS which noncitizens it wanted to arrest, and USCIS would schedule interviews for those individuals, doing so at a time convenient for local ICE officials to arrest them.

Two of the petitioners in the case, Lilian Calderon and Lucimar de Souza, were among the seventeen individuals detained at USCIS after appearing for marriage interviews in 2018.

In January, Lilian Calderon appeared at a Rhode Island USCIS office with her U.S. citizen husband for an interview designed to confirm their marriage. Immediately after the interview, she was abruptly detained by ICE and taken to a detention facility in Boston where she was held – separated from her husband and two young children – for nearly a month.

That same month, Lucimar de Souza and her husband together attended an interview to confirm their marriage for her lawful immigration status. Immediately after the interview, and despite the approval of the marriage petition, she was detained and remained separated from her husband and 10-year-old son for three months.

Calderon and de Souza were both released from detention following ACLU legal action. In May, ICE officials testified in hearings held by U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf designed to determine what happened to Calderon, de Souza, and other similarly situated immigrants in New England. In July, top ICE officials in Boston were deposed as part of the lawsuit.

We’re in court again this month, fighting the government’s motion to dismiss this lawsuit, and requesting class certification and temporary relief for class members while the case continues.

MEDIA ROUNDUP: 

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CASE

Photo: Lilian Calderon and her husband Luis Gordillo

Date

Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - 3:30pm

Featured image

Lilian Calderon and her husband Luis Gordillo

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Immigrants' Rights

Show related content

Pinned related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

This piece was originally published on the What a Difference a DA Makes campaign website. View it here.

Suffering from addiction is not a crime. Yet, the Boston Globe recently reported that “a high percentage of people suffering from addiction end up incarcerated, and about two thirds of [people who are incarcerated] have a substance use disorder.”

First and foremost, addiction is a public health issue that requires health-based treatment, not punishment. But too many people spend time in jail instead of spending time in treatment.

Often, this is because district attorneys contribute to the criminalization of addiction under the false promise of public safety. When the police arrest someone and charge them with a crime, district attorneys drive the next steps: they can choose to prosecute the case, divert the accused to a program or drug treatment, or dismiss the case altogether. Helping people overcome substance use disorders creates safer communities. Punishing them in cages without treatment only makes things worse.

The evidence is clear: the criminal legal system is not only a harmful way to address substance abuse, but an ineffective one, too. When district attorneys choose incarceration over treatment, they hurt individuals, families, and communities. Incarceration often forces withdrawal, which can be dangerous or deadly. Recent research from the Massachusetts Department of Health shows that compared to the rest of the adult population, the opioid-related overdose death rate is 120 times higher for people released from Massachusetts prisons and jails. Moreover, having a criminal record can prevent people from finding work, applying for housing, and getting loans.

We can’t undo the war on drugs, but we can elect district attorneys who believe the solution to drug addiction is treatment, not incarceration.

Prosecutors who support reforms – like repealing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, increasing opportunities for diversion to treatment, and not prosecuting simple drug possession cases – can be a powerful force for making long-overdue changes to laws that would reduce mass incarceration and racial disparities.

Last month, at a first-of-its-kind candidates forum at the South Bay House of Correction, the six candidates running for Suffolk County District Attorney were asked questions by people most directly impacted by the policies and decisions made by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. Among the questions asked: “What is your plan to deal with the opioid epidemic? Do you feel diversion programs are the way out, or do you feel you can punish addicts out of it?”

All of the candidates agreed district attorneys should not punish people for addiction.

Candidates for district attorney – and sitting district attorneys – are accountable only to the voters.

We must continue asking candidates questions on where they stand on issues like the criminalization of addiction, and we must demand elected district attorneys commit to using their power responsibly, fairly, and justly. For three-in-five Massachusetts voters, that means prioritizing treatment over incarceration.

This summer, in advance of the primary election on September 4, we will be canvassing communities and neighborhoods across Massachusetts, educating the public, and discussing the need to support candidates who will do right by the people. To get involved, sign up to volunteer.

Want to learn more about where the candidates stand on this issue? Find out at DAdifference.org

 
Written by Rahsaan Hall, director of the Racial Justice Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts and campaign manager for the What a Difference a DA Makes campaign.

 

Date

Monday, July 30, 2018 - 2:45pm

Featured image

WADADAM DA Email Banner Burgundy

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Override site-wide featured content

Related issues

Criminal Law Reform Police Accountability Racial Justice

Show related content

Pinned related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Blogs