by Alanah Odoms Hebert, ACLU of Louisiana Executive Director

Last month, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to review the life sentence of Fair Wayne Bryant, who was sentenced to life in prison for attempting to steal a pair of hedge clippers more than 20 years ago. Bryant’s sentence was the result of Louisiana’s extreme “habitual offender” law, which allows people to spend life in prison for minor offenses. While the court should have reviewed the sentence, the legislature should abolish this law, and until then, Orleans prosecutors should refuse to seek it.

Habitual offender statutes, known in some states as “three strikes” laws, are a relic of failed “tough on crime” policies that have had devastating consequences for families and communities across the country. Both racist and punitive in their nature, these enhancements drive out of control prison populations in states that have some of the highest incarceration rates in the world, Oklahoma and Louisiana among them. 

Under these statutes, a person who is convicted of more than one felony crime faces longer and longer sentences for each subsequent conviction — no matter how minor or how much time has passed since. Not only are these laws racist, they are also ineffective and unnecessary from a public safety perspective. The majority (64 percent) of people serving time in Louisiana prisons under the law are there for nonviolent crimes, and Black people represent nearly 80 percent of those convicted as habitual offenders.

The sheer cruelty and unfairness of Mr. Bryant’s sentence is enraging and inexcusable, but it is no anomaly: It is part and parcel of a system designed to perpetuate racial injustice and white supremacy. 

Louisiana’s extreme sentencing law has condemned thousands of Louisianans to life imprisonment for minor offenses, helping make Louisiana the world’s leading incarcerator. And its longevity is a prime example of how our legal system continues to oppress, brutalize, and imprison Black and Brown people.

In a scathing dissent to the decision, Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson traced the law to the Black codes and “Pig Laws” during the post-Civil War era, which attempted to re-enslave newly-freed Black people. 

“These laws remained on the books of most Southern states for decades,” Justice Johnson wrote. “And this case demonstrates their modern manifestation: harsh habitual offender laws that permit a life sentence for a Black man convicted of property crimes.” 

Bryant’s outrageous and unjust sentence is a reminder of the urgent need for state legislators to repeal this extreme sentencing law before it needlessly destroys more people’s lives. Ballot initiatives like Oklahoma’s Yes On 805 campaign seek to put an end to the destructive power of habitual sentencing enhancements through the electoral process. Fortunately for Louisiana, our district attorneys don’t have to wait. 

Prosecutors — right now — have the discretion to stop seeking enhanced penalties under the habitual offender law, and all of us have a responsibility to hold them to it. 

There are dozens of district attorneys on the ballot across Louisiana this year — including in Orleans Parish, where District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro is stepping down after 12 years of pushing ineffective “tough on crime” policies. 

The ACLU of Louisiana is proud to be among more than 30 organizations in the People’s DA Coalition, which, among other reforms, is calling on Orleans Parish District Attorney candidates to commit to ending all use of the habitual offender law.

Prosecutors have a vital role to play in helping ensure Louisiana finally sheds its title as the prison capital of the world, and declining to seek harsher sentences under this unjust law would be one important step in that direction. 

This editorial was first published in the Nevada Current. 

The Nevada Department of Corrections is garnishing as much as 80 percent of some inmate accounts funds, and Nevada families are paying the price.

While more and more incarcerated individuals are trying to avoid chow halls because of the pandemic, many families are trying to keep their loved ones safe in an environment ripe for the spread of COVID-19 by sending extra money for commissary items.

But with NDOC taking up to 80 percent of account funds, families would need to send just under $15 to buy a 4- ounce can of tuna for someone affected by this garnishment policy.

In April of this year, right before my birthday, my only uncle went to prison, likely for life. I remember playing basketball with him on our front yard basketball hoop. At 6 feet, 7 inches, he towered over my younger brother and I and would block all our shots without having to move.

Now that he’s in prison, I believe I’ll never see him again with COVID-19 ravaging prison communities across the country. Thinking of my uncle is just one reason why hearing of inmate trust accounts being garnished up to 80 percent makes me so furious.

For an individual who is unable to work while they are incarcerated, like my uncle, all of the money in their trust account would come from the pockets of their family and friends. Families just want to provide essential items for their loved ones, but based on our estimates, families will have to put much more money on the books to secure them. As much as:

• $23 for 7 ounces of diced ham
• $18 for 20 ounces of strawberry or grape jelly
• $39 for denture grip paste
• $18 for four rolls of toils paper
• $92 for three pairs of cotton boxer briefs

The reason for raiding 80 cents on the dollar from trust accounts? A misleading law approved by voters in 2018 known as “Marsy’s Law.” The ACLU of Nevada and other defenders of the paramount constitutional rights of the accused fought to prevent Marsy’s Law from reaching the ballot, but the billionaire-backed initiative ultimately passed.

Not only does this misleading law fail to actually protect victims of crime, it is also vague and convoluted. The Department of Corrections’ conclusion that they must raid trust accounts at this high level demonstrates how vague the law really is. Marsy’s Law states that a victim is entitled to “full and timely restitution.” But even the proponents of Marsy’s Law made it clear in legislative testimony that if a person lacks the ability to pay, they cannot be forced to do so.

It is wholly unreasonable to conclude that the NDOC can raid almost all of an incarcerated person’s books without an individualized determination of ability to pay.

The ACLU of Nevada is hearing from affected families and individuals throughout the state, and we’re going to keep fighting for fairness and justice.

There must be clear guidelines regarding the determination of an incarcerated individual’s ability to pay. If legislation is required to put a cap on deductions or to ensure there is a public process for determining deduction levels, then the Legislature needs to act with urgency in the upcoming session.