One night in 2015, several teenagers got together and burglarized two homes in Millbrook, Alabama. After being confronted by police, one of the teenagers, A’Donte Washington, engaged in a shootout with an officer and was killed during the gunfire. Lakeith Smith, another one of the teenagers, participated in the burglary. He did not have a gun and did not shoot at anyone, yet he was charged with the death of his friend.

After rejecting a plea offer for 25 years and going to trial, he received 30 years for felony murder, a 15-year sentence for burglary, and two 10-year sentences for theft. In total, Smith was sentenced to 65 years in prison. He was 15 years old.

The travesty in Smith’s case is at the intersection of a number of different issues targeted by criminal justice reformers.

Prosecutors make choices that can mean the difference between a few years or a life in prison.

Prosecutors are among the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system. And while prosecutorial discretion can be wielded for good, Smith’s case illustrates the problems with prosecutors abusing that discretion. Prosecutors have the power to decide what crimes to charge people with, and in this case, prosecutors did not have to charge Smith with felony murder.

Prosecutors also have discretion to charge people as juveniles or to transfer them to the adult system. Courts have long accepted that juveniles are not fully mature and lack control and adequate decision-making skills, which is reflected in the immature decision of the teenagers to partake in a burglary. However, courts have also recognized the greater likelihood of rehabilitation of juveniles.

Since Smith was under 16 when the alleged offense was committed, the case could have taken place within the juvenile justice system where there is a greater consideration of alternatives to incarceration and the ability to be rehabilitated. However, the prosecutor used his discretion to prosecute Smith as an adult. And, unfortunately, under Alabama law, once a person is transferred to the adult court, they are permanently outside of the juvenile court jurisdiction.

These discretionary decisions have detrimental consequences. Transferring Smith to the adult system foreclosed his eligibility for diversionary programs that would have kept him out of prison. Charging Smith with felony murder ensures that he will spend the majority of his life — if not all of it — in prison, foregoing any chance of meaningful rehabilitation.

The loss of one teenager is tragic enough, but the prosecutor's decisions in charging and sentencing Smith — who did not possess a gun and never shot at police — exacerbates this loss by throwing his life away, too. It is not justice when the punishment so clearly does not fit the crime.

People should not be punished for using their right to a trial by jury.

It is no secret that sentences after trial are much harsher than those given to people who accept plea bargains. It is often called a “trial tax” or “trial penalty” because it refers to criminal defendants receiving a more severe sentence because they decided to exercise their constitutional right to a trial and reject the prosecution’s plea agreement.

Smith was within his rights to demand a trial, and his lack of success should not lead to a longer sentence. Rather, the sentence should be in line with what was offered as a plea bargain and should be appropriate for the crime. A sentencing scheme that imposes a trial tax sends the message that only those who will be acquitted at trial are deserving of the chance to exercise their constitutional rights. This is contrary to this country's fundamental beliefs in due process, fair trials, and an impartial justice system.

Prosecutors are crucial for the administration of justice, and we need to hold them accountable for their actions.

The job of the prosecutor is to advance justice, yet all too often they have focused on punishment at any cost. This focus on punishment fuels our state’s mass incarceration crisis and disproportionately affects people of color and people with fewer resources.

However, these prosecutors are elected. Alabama’s district attorneys are accountable to the voters of Alabama. Ask your DA, and any candidates running for the position this election season, where they stand on criminal justice reform.

How do they stand on the prosecution of juveniles as adults? What are their positions on police accountability and oversight? Have they encouraged participation in diversionary programs for people accused of crimes? Do they believe that people can be rehabilitated?

Last year, the ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice announced a new, multi-year initiative to make sure that prosecutors are held accountable, while those who obey the law and support their communities are lifted up. The public demands it. A recent ACLU national poll found that 95 percent of respondents support the idea that a prosecutor engaged in misconduct should be held accountable.

A district attorney who is committed to criminal justice reform, decreasing reliance on incarceration, and using their power for the fair and smart administration of justice can go a long way to making sure that a story like Smith’s never happens in Alabama again.

Last week, Maryland joined eleven other states and the District of Columbia in adopting automatic voter registration. Because of The Secure and Accessible Registration Act, eligible Maryland residents will be automatically registered to vote when they apply for or renew a driver’s license at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or interact with other state agencies such as the state’s health insurance exchange.

Automatic voter registration is not only critical step to reaching hundreds of thousands unregistered Marylanders, it’s a national trend: states advancing voting rights in the face of an administration hostile to the ballot box.

Just two days before Maryland made its gains, Donald Trump took the stage in the neighboring state of West Virginia to repeat — without proof —false claims that millions of people vote illegally in California. These comments come on the tail of the ACLU’s voting rights trial in Kansas, where Kris Kobach, one of Trump’s top lieutenants in the fight to spread the voter fraud lie, was exposed in court for a total lack of evidence.

In March, Washington adopted automatic voter registration along with other critical measures to make voting more accessible, and starting July 1st, Illinois will automatically register residents to vote when they request or update a driver’s license or state ID card. The twelve states with automatic voter registration may soon be joined by New Jersey, which will vote on a bill on Thursday, and Michigan, where a coalition of voting rights advocates is collecting petitions to have a state constitutional amendment that includes automatic voter registration to appear on the ballot this November.

There is also growing support for an automatic voter registration bill in Massachusetts, where a majority of lawmakers in both houses of the General Court have cosponsored the legislation.

Automatic voter registration has proven successful in expanding the voter rolls to make sure that every eligible American has an opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

Vermont, for instance, saw major gains in voter registration when it implemented automatic voter registration last year. “From January 1st to June 30th of 2017, 12,344 voter registrations were processed or updated by town clerks based on data sent by the DMV,” according to the secretary of state’s office. “This is in comparison to 7,626 registrations processed during the same time without AVR the prior year. This is particularly impressive because 2016 was an election year and 2017 is not.”

Automatic voter registration is a common-sense way for states to expand access to the ballot. The growing push for it is proof that activists’ work on the state and local level, like that of the voting coalition including the ACLU of Maryland, Common Cause Maryland, and Indivisible MD, is paying off. Other states should take notice and embrace policies that provide greater access to the ballot.

Fifty years ago today, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, which at long last protected Americans from discrimination when purchasing or renting a home.

At least that was the plan. But for too many people, the fight for fair housing is not over.

Ongoing bias against African-Americans at the hands of banks, landlords, and local governments is well-documented half a century later. Women, including women of color, also continue to grapple with unequal treatment. They are frequently subjected to sexual harassment while trying to keep a roof over their heads, a violation of the FHA that flies under the radar.

Sexual harassment by landlords, superintendents, and other housing staff plays out in many ways in communities across the country. They have demanded sex in exchange for rent reductions or repairs, entered tenants’ homes without permission or notice, sexually groped them, and moved to evict tenants who rejected their sexual advances. Property managers have also refused to approve housing applicants unless they complied with sexual demands. Harassment in housing affects all types of people, but it disproportionately harms low-income women of color.

While there has been limited research done on the prevalence of sexual harassment in housing, a recent pilot study released disturbing results. Professor Rigel Oliveri surveyed low-income women in Columbia, Missouri, and found that 10 percent had experienced significant sexual harassment by landlords. Most were young women of color. The harassment ranged from a landlord who entered a tenant’s bedroom at night to masturbate while she was sleeping to a landlord’s persistent demands for sex.

The study also revealed that low-income women who had not obtained a housing subsidy were more vulnerable to sexual harassment compared to those that did. The women with rental assistance could refuse their landlords’ sexual demands and still afford to pay their rent. Those without subsidies, who were also economically struggling, were usually forced to move when they rejected the harassment.

Housing managers who sexually harass one tenant frequently target many more. For example, Yolanda Boswell’s real estate manager in Montgomery, Alabama, repeatedly tried to coerce her into having sex with him and then raised her rent when she refused. After the ACLU, Legal Services Alabama, and the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center filed a lawsuit on Ms. Boswell’s behalf, we learned that the manager had also sexually harassed several other women, leading the Department of Justice to pursue an additional case. Ultimately, a federal judge called out the Montgomery Housing Authority, noting that several of the victims had informed their housing counselors but that “in every case, the women’s concerns were ignored.”

The judge’s rebuke points to a broader issue: Tenants and housing applicants too often face pressure to remain silent about sexual harassment, and they encounter hostility or dismissal when they do report it.

Part of the problem is that protections against sexual harassment in housing generally have lagged behind those in the workplace. While most large employers have taken some measures to address sexual harassment on the job, far fewer real estate management companies and other housing providers have acknowledged the issue. In fact, public housing authorities and other agencies that administer housing programs are not required to record or report on sexual harassment complaints.

There is legal recourse, however.

The Fair Housing Act and similar state laws provide applicants and tenants who are harassed with the ability to seek compensation and reforms in housing management. They can seek representation to file their own lawsuit in court or assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Department of Justice. Notably, the Justice Department recently launched a major initiative encouraging people to come forward with their reports of sexual harassment in housing. This builds on an important regulation issued by HUD in 2016 to explain how the FHA bars harassment in housing.

Housing providers should take these basic steps to protect applicants and tenants from sexual harassment and to prevent themselves from getting sued:

Adopt and publicize a policy prohibiting sexual harassment and violence. The policy should identify the forms that sexual abuse can take, how the housing provider will respond to complaints, and the resources available in the community for those seeking help.

Partner with local groups that promote fair housing and support survivors of sexual violence to implement best practices and provide education to residents and staff.

Provide all staff members with training on the policy and the resources available to those who report sexual harassment.

Thoroughly investigate any complaint of sexual harassment and take appropriate action. This includes providing accommodations for those who have experienced harassment and disciplining or firing employees who commit sexual abuse against applicants or tenants.

The FHA guarantees Americans the right to access housing without being subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or assault. If you have been sexually harassed by your landlord or housing staff, share your story with us here. The information you provide will be kept confidential unless we obtain your permission to share it with others.

READ MORE IN OUR SERIES, "DISMANTLING SEXUAL HARASSMENT"