Hot News!
• RALLY FOR SAFE JOBS AT CINTAS ON OCTOBER 14!
• Proportional Representation: Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Vera Institute’s Preliminary 2006 Analysis & Marijuana
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
Photo courtesy of here.
The Vera Institute released a preliminary analysis today of the 2006 jail data. The full report will be in January.
There’s lot of stuff in the analysis, but I thought I would say a few words about the city’s marijuana ordinance since that is a controversial issue and hard data on incarcerations have been difficult to find.
According to the analysis, there were 1,262 instances where people were arrested and jailed because of the city’s marijuana ordinance. This is defined as being the most serious charge if there were multiple charges involved. So if one is arrested for robbery and marijuana possession, the possession charge is not included in the above number.
Possession of marijuna made up 3.6% of the total admissions to the jail for 2006 even though the law was not in effect for the first few months. The average length of stay was 1.63 days, for a total of about 2,057 jail bed days. This is about 0.3% of the total jail bed days used.
Even though the city’s law was not in effect the first few months it was still the 5th most common reason for sending someone to jail. If the law had been in effect for the full year it probably would have been the 3rd most common reason for sending someone to jail, which is all the more remarkable since the law only pertains to less than half of Hamilton County.
The city’s marijuana ordinance is therefore a major contributor to the numbers of people sent to jail but, due to the low average number of days incarcerated, is not a major contributor to “overcrowding” as defined as jail bed capacity. In the area of intake capacity, though, it is clearly a major contributor. And there is the question of basic fairness of a law that tags thousands with a criminal drug conviction, yet is considered so minor that the average time served is less than 2 days.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
19 Dec 2007 at 08:34 am | #
Thanks MEP, I was feeling a little down when I woke up this morning; and this little piece of comedy picked me right up!
MEP: “In the area of intake capacity, though, it is clearly a major contributor.”
At 3.6% of admissions, and 0.3% of jail bed days, it’s not a major or even a minor contributer of anything that has to do with conditions at the jail. Let’s call it an insignificant blip, OK?
19 Dec 2007 at 04:06 pm | #
No matter how you interpret the numbers - it’s never an insignificant blimp if you are the person hauled off to jail for a day or two, incur the expense and time to answer to the charges, and have it on your record for the rest of your life. Never a blimp - and I just don’t understand why they had to make it a higher level offense in order to justify the search that begets the guns.
Isn’t there anyway to have probable cause to search without tying it to a higher level offense to justify it?
19 Dec 2007 at 07:14 pm | #
Yes—and one does not need probable cause. It’s called a Terry stop. A police officer may frisk a person for weapons if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be carrying a weapon that could put the officer in danger.
This was pointed out during the testimony against the marijuana ordinance but was ignored by the majority of council.
19 Dec 2007 at 07:56 pm | #
The claim is the system is over capacity. As such the fifth highest cause for going to jail is significant for any solution. Or is one going to solve the capacity problem by looking at the 456th highest cause for going to jail?
19 Dec 2007 at 10:22 pm | #
I need to read the report but I am familiar w/overcrowding issues. One factor getting less attention is the bail decision: is the person a flight risk, or a danger? Having strong community ties, for example, may well count against being a flight risk. Having strong mob ties, on the other hand, may make one a prime candidate for high bail.
I once worked with a jurisdiction (not in Ohio) with an overcrowding problem. They did, in fact, have many simple possession cases. Many of the arrestees spoke little English. I commented that they must use a lot of interpreters. “Oh...” um, no, they did not! They did not even know about the statewide interpreter office (Ohio has one, too). Could make a big difference during bail decision-making time!
***
Blow your mind by voting Team Lachey!
http://www.nbc.com/Clash_of_the_Choirs/
19 Dec 2007 at 10:26 pm | #
So, MEP, the question is does simple possession of a joint give a cop a reasonable suspicion that, in and of that fact alone, the person may have a weapon.
I would guess that the answer is no.
Personally, I think if someone made a constitutional challenge to this law - it would drop
20 Dec 2007 at 12:37 am | #
#4 MEP: “As such the fifth highest cause for going to jail is significant for any solution. Or is one going to solve the capacity problem by looking at the 456th highest cause for going to jail?”
Not if it’s fifth out of five; you didn’t mention how many other rankings were included. One should maybe, be careful, I think 456th is right around where torture of numerical entities ranks. One thing is certain, the Pot Ord is not the cause of the overcrowding.
20 Dec 2007 at 06:58 am | #
On the subject of overcrowding:
If 220 people try to get on a plane that has only 200 seats, there is no room for 20 people. If 3.6% of the passengers didn’t have to take that flight, that translates into 8 people. That is 40% of the problem right there. I’d call that significant.
20 Dec 2007 at 07:25 am | #
What constitutes a reasonable suspicion? Color? Neighborhood? Dress?
21 Dec 2007 at 08:47 am | #
CincySuz, from my experience “fitting the description” and “wrong place, wrong time” seem to be pretty common reasons to constitute reasonable suspicion.
It’s amazing how just getting older decreases one’s frequency of police stops.
There certainly is a lot of stuff in that report (that looks like a slapped together powerpoint)
The notion that the jails are full of homeless people busted for urinating in public appears to be a complete pile of pooh.
http://news.enquirer.com/assets/AB945201218.PDF
22 Dec 2007 at 12:50 am | #
Anybody notice that almost 2000 cases involve juvenile offenses? what the hell are we doing sending young adults to adult jail for an offense a judicated when he was a minor? Have they received notice after becoming an adult (because all notices are sent to the parents before turning 18). Are these offenses, offenses charged as adult offenses or were they charged as “incorrigible” type offenses. Were they subject to jail time and noticed of this --- ever?
MEP?
22 Dec 2007 at 07:41 am | #
#11. Bingo. Something that begs for further investigation.
22 Dec 2007 at 01:25 pm | #
No, I didn’t notice that and I do not have my copy of the presentation with me, so I can’t comment further.
I had asked the commissioners if the information would be available at the county’s website and I was told no, that we would have to wait until January. If the information is on-line somewhere, please let me know.
22 Dec 2007 at 03:08 pm | #
I got a copy of the report again, quicker than I thought. I think this is a reference to the table on page 15 which states that there were 1,969 inmates with a “hold” on them from juvenile court. A “hold,” as it was explained, amounted to a warrent or court order to keep a person incarcerated for a reason different than the one for which they were locked up. Sometimes it comes from a different county, sometimes the feds, sometimes another state, sometimes another court in Hamilton County. It may be as simple as a demand for a blood test or it may be a warrent for a felony or a misdemeanor.
I don’t know any other details about this. Anon asked a good set of questions.
The Vera Institute noticed that there was a huge difference in jail time served between those with “holds” and those without. There is apparently some time spent just communicating with the other jurisdiction as to whether or not they still want the person with the “hold.” They want to understand the process better in such cases.
On a related subject, last week I was observing in Judge Ralph Winkler’s courtroom and there was a drug sale case from 1989. The person apparently was now in custody somewhere and the prosecutors and police were trying to find their witnesses. They couldn’t find a single one, including the officer who had made the arrest, so the judge dismissed the case.
Many jurisdictions have a set of guidelines that act as a time limit for prosecution. For serious crimes such as murder there is, of course, no limit, but when cases get as old as this one it often becomes impossible to prosecute unless the state spent a lot of time tracking down witnesses. And, unless it were an incident that impressed itself on the memory, witnesses often forget. Something like an alleged drug sale, for instance, after 18 years would likely be forgotten.