Why Youthful Indiscretions Shouldn’t Result in Jail Sentences, How to Save Babies Born with Opioid Addictions and More

 
A Prosecutor’s Vision For A Better Justice System, TED
Adam Foss, a prosecutor with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Boston, recently asked a group of TED participants how many had ever drank underage, tried an illegal drug, shoplifted or gotten into a physical fight. While viewed by most as youthful indiscretions, these same offenses often land black and brown youth in criminal court, viewed as being dangerous to society. Which is why Foss is using prosecutorial discretion to dismiss minor cases that aren’t worthy of a criminal record.
Tiny Opioid Patients Need Help Easing Into Life, Kaiser Health News and NPR
In this country, addiction to heroin and prescription painkillers like hydrocodone, oxycodone or morphine continues to rise, even afflicting new moms. During pregnancy, these mothers must decide between getting clean and risking a miscarriage or delivering a baby that’s likely to experience drug withdrawal. With about 21,000 infants suffering from withdrawal each year, doctors in Rhode Island, nurses in Connecticut, researchers in Pennsylvania and public health officials in Ohio are all working on solutions to help these new families.

Website Seeks to Make Government Data Easier to Sift Through, New York Times
Just because the government releases endless pages of data to the public doesn’t mean it’s easy to turn those statistics into something that you can actually comprehend and use. DataUSA, an open source brainchild coming from the M.I.T. Media Lab, organizes and visualizes the information, presenting it in charts, graphs and written synopses. Thanks to this project, instead of just hearing a statistic of how many people in Flint, Mich., live in poverty, for example,  you can see it visually represented on a map.

How a Classic Denim Company Is Greening up the Fashion Industry, Why One Judge Went out of His Way for a Convicted Criminal and More

 
In Its Quest to Decrease Water Use, Levi’s Is Open Sourcing Production Methods, FastCo.Exist
3,781: The number of liters of water required to produce a pair of jeans and grow the cotton they’re made with. To reduce its H2O usage, Levi’s developed a process that consumes 96 percent less water (think: transitioning from roomy boyfriend to super skinny cut). Even better? Instead of sequestering its eco-friendly methods in a top-secret lab, the producer of the classic 501 is sharing its techniques with industry competitors.
A Federal Judge’s New Model for Forgiveness, New York Times
Checking the conviction history question on a job application can make it next to impossible for the formerly incarcerated to gain employment. When issuing a 15-month-long prison sentence to a woman for faking an auto accident in order to collect insurance money, New York judge John Gleeson didn’t mean to issue the lifelong punishment of unemployment. Which is why, 13 years later, he handed her something unusual: a federal certificate for rehabilitation.
The Powerful, Young Gallery Owner Shaping L.A.’s Art Scene, OZY
The Leimert Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, which boasts the city’s second highest property crime rate, is also the unlikely home of Michelle Papillion’s art gallery. Showcasing the works of emerging African-American artists, Papillion is out to do more than just bring awareness to creatives that aren’t widely recognized and celebrated; she’s working to beautify the community around her.
MORE: To Reduce Drug Abuse, These Members of the Criminal Justice Community Advocate for Legalization, Not Criminalization
 
 

A Better Way to Register New Voters, A Talking Cure for Homicide and More

 

Here’s What Happened When Oregon Automatically Registered Its New Voters, Washington Post

When you apply for a drivers license in Oregon, you’re now automatically registered to vote. State officials say the DMV program — the nation’s first opt-out law — is the simplest way to bolster voter rolls and keep addresses up-to-date — important in a state that votes by mail. So far, in the first week, four times as many new voters signed up as the Beaver State used to register in a month. It remains to be seen whether they actually cast a ballot.

This Police Department Stops Disputes Before They Turn Deadly, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

It’s a rule of thumb for criminologists that crime spikes in the summer: not only are more people outside, but heated arguments also sometimes lead to violence. In Rochester, N.Y., beat cops now track tiffs across the city and send a summary of the dispute to a central database, where analysts can predict which are most likely to escalate. While this predictive policing may sound like a real-life “Minority Report,” law enforcement’s seven-month-old strategy appears promising and is being looked at by other departments nationally, including Milwaukee.

After Rehab, This Valuable App Keeps Drinkers and Drug Abusers Sober, New York Times

A former addict walks out of rehab and is suddenly bombarded by temptations: old drinking buddies, familiar haunts, relief from stress and anxiety. A mobile app, A-Chess, checks in throughout the day to help alcoholics avoid the bottle. It’s pre-loaded with high-risk locations like bars and liquor stores the person frequented. When nearby, the app automatically sends a message, “Are you sure you want to be here?” and alerts other contacts the patient has pre-programmed, like his sponsor or a family member. Along with virtual counseling and other smartphone apps, these modern tools are helping with the hardest part of getting clean: staying that way.

Former New York Times Executive Editor Says Our Courts and Prisons Are Failing Us

It takes a lot to lure a longtime New York Times journalist and former executive editor away from The Grey Lady. But the “pressing national need for excellent journalism about the U.S. court and prison systems” and a belief that the time has come to launch a national conversation on how to reform our criminal justice system drew Bill Keller to The Marshall Project, where he now serves as editor in chief.
In an email interview ahead of the NationSwell Council event “Reforming the American Prison System,” which Keller will join as a panelist, he discusses the “vicious cycle” of the system, the “lack of public urgency” around the issues and the one question not enough people are asking.
Why do you believe this country needs a media outlet like The Marshall Project focused exclusively on our criminal justice system?
Three reasons. First, there is a pretty broad consensus, across the political spectrum, that the criminal justice system is wasteful, inhumane and largely unsuccessful at its primary mission, which is making us safer. Second, the economic trauma of the media industry has meant cutbacks in the staff, space, airtime and commitment devoted to investigative journalism and to reporting on complicated policy issues like criminal justice. And, third, this feels like a moment when the conventional wisdom about these issues can be moved, from a lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key mentality to something more thoughtful and strategic. This opportunity is created in part by a surge of conservative support for reform and the coming of age of a generation that was not raised on high crime rates and fear-mongering.
You’ve made it very clear that The Marshall Project is a journalistic organization — not an advocacy group. But it does have a mission. So how will that shape the stories you tell?
Our mission is to create public awareness and a sense of urgency about the dysfunctions of the [criminal justice] system and to test the potential of various reforms. It will guide our choice of targets — an emphasis on stories that have been under-reported or misunderstood and a preference for stories that will have an impact. Our reporting will be shaped by the traditional standards of high-quality journalism: accuracy, fairness, independence and impartiality. I hope our work will combine eye-opening reporting with engaging writing.
Why is now the appropriate time to launch The Marshall Project, and how does the 2016 presidential campaign play into your plans to participate in a national conversation?
The political climate has shifted, with a growing conservative discontent with the status quo and a millennial generation that seems to have a less fearful, less instinctively punitive mindset. Neil Barsky, the founder and chairman of our venture, likes to say that in 2016 every serious candidate should feel obliged to have a criminal justice plank in his or her platform. Just as candidates are expected to have positions on taxes or the Middle East, they should be expected to have views on policing, courts and incarceration. We’d like to help push these issues into the 2016 spotlight.
When you look at the host of systemic problems facing our courts and prisons, which ones really stand out to you?
There are so many problems in the system — from policing to prosecution to incarceration to parole and reentry, that it’s hard for me to choose one or two. What stands out to me above all is the vicious cycle of it — the way the system scoops up young (mostly) men (mostly) from distressed communities, uproots them from family and community, does little to prepare them for a non-criminal life, and then deposits them back in those same communities.
More broadly, what do you see as the most innovative solutions in this country when it comes to prison reform or criminal justice?
We plan to take a hard look at programs that claim to work, so I won’t attempt to prejudge. The largest share of creative energy seems to be focused on diverting non-threatening people from the path to prison (drug courts, mental health treatment, etc.) and assisting reentry of those who leave prison.
What are some of the challenges that stand in the way of local solutions for criminal justice scaling across the country?
A lack of public urgency, in large part because the Americans with the most political influence are less likely to be exposed to the system in any direct way, and a system of incentives (political and financial) that tends to protect the status quo. And — although this, I believe, is beginning to change where criminal justice is concerned — a polarization of American politics that makes it extremely hard to enact reforms.
What question is no one asking with regards to criminal justice in this country?
Not enough people are asking: What is the criminal justice system for? My answer would be, first and foremost, it’s to keep us safe, and if you proceed from that answer, you have to judge the system severely wanting.

Do Trees Actually Cause Climate Change?

There’s probably nothing more symbolic of the green movement than a tall, leafy tree. Along with protecting our forests, planting a tree to offset one’s carbon footprint has now become de rigueur in fighting climate change.
However, in the recent New York Times op-ed, “To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees,” Yale professor Nadine Unger smacks several holes in conventional green wisdom. And to no one’s surprise, it’s causing some backlash in the scientific community.
Unger’s article boils down to three (controversial) points about trees and forests:
1. Trees give off harmful pollution. “Trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health…As these compounds mix with fossil-fuel pollution from cars and industry, an even more harmful cocktail of airborne toxic chemicals is created.”
2. Planting forests in colder places might cause the planet to bake. “The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature….Planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.”
3. Stopping deforestation is not the best way to mitigate global warming. “The science says that spending precious dollars for climate change mitigation on forestry is high-risk: We don’t know that it would cool the planet, and we have good reason to fear it might have precisely the opposite effect. More funding for forestry might seem like a tempting easy win for the world leaders at the United Nations, but it’s a bad bet.”
If your head is spinning, you’re not alone. After the article came out, a slew of top scientists came out to strongly rebuke Unger’s article.
MORE: 3 Reasons Why Sunday’s Historic Climate March Could Be the Start of Something Huge
“Nadine Unger argues that reducing deforestation and planting trees won’t help fix climate change but will rather make it worse,” Steve Schwartzman, Director of Tropical Forest Policy writes. “One might ask how the 2,000-plus scientists and experts on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) got this one wrong — they found tropical deforestation a major source that must be reduced to control climate change – but in fact it’s Unger who’s way out on a limb here.”
And in another response called “Dr. Unger’s Four Scientific Fouls,” Michael Wolosin of Climate Advisers picks apart each of Unger’s points and concludes, “Normally, this type of scientific debate would take place in specialist journals with lengthy peer review processes to ensure accuracy. And for good reason – it is a process that keeps scientists from jumping to conclusions that aren’t implied by their work, and that should not be cited as fact by others.”
There’s also this piece that was signed by 30 scientists, including six members of the National Academy and four members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Unger has since defended herself where she lists all of the sources that she points to in the Times op-ed. She also points out, “The primary key to solving the global climate problem is the transformation of our energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump for our greenhouse gas pollution.”
Well, it appears Unger does have a point there. Simply put, we can’t treat our planet like a trash can. As we’ve previously reported, there are multiple ways to preventing climate change, including leaving our precious forests alone. But really, according to near scientific consensus, the best way to stop climate change is by cutting carbon pollution through conserving energy and curbing our reliance on fossil fuels.
Hopefully this is something we can all agree on.
DON’T MISS: The Top 5 Ways to Fight Global Warming

Could Making Salaries Public End the Gender Pay Gap?

Journalism circles are abuzz with speculation about why the first woman to take arguably the most prominent role in the industry was, by all accounts, fired with little fanfare last Wednesday for her two-and-a-half years of service.
One of the possible reasons provided for this unexpected dismissal: Jill Abramson may have asked too many questions about pay parity. But one writer has a possible solution to this troubling situation facing females — more salary transparency.
The oft-studied gender pay gap has become a touchstone in the modern workplace. As more women graduate college and demand job parity, they want (and deserve) equal pay, too. It’s not just a philosophical debate, but one that impacts families, poverty rates, and a host of socio-economic issues.
More: Ask the Experts: The Pay Gap Explained
Experts have suggested that flexible work schedules and pay scales that depend on output — not hours logged at a desk — could rewrite the pay equity debate. Publicizing salaries also has the potential to change salary inequalities. As the Quartz column notes, staying mum on salary information helps employers, not employees. “Making pay more transparent won’t close the gap on its own, but it puts a burden on companies to at least explain any disparity, and begin to resolve them,” writer Max Nisen notes.
Some firms have started posting salary information on the web. And the salaries of most government employees are public record. The Gray Lady may not be that agile, nor so inclined. But as the fallout from a story that turned a glass ceiling into a glass cliff continues, perhaps it’s time to revisit our assumptions about who knows what when it comes to salary equality.