Afternoon everyone. Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the fourth and final session of the public policy and institutional discrimination discussion series for today's topic is lobbying and mass incarceration, or those who may not know me. I am Stephanie Sanders, support schools Diversity Officer, and also a lecturer. And for starters, I'd like to just take a few minutes to talk about the goal of the series and also the format of today's event. The goal of this series is to one, create opportunities for engagement. And this gives faculty, staff and students, of course, an opportunity to get to know faculty in their policy engagement interest and also their research beyond the classroom. A second goal of this series is to foster dialogue on important issues of public policy, which is why we're here today. Our faculty to discuss for today is Mr. Broderick Johnson, who we are excited to join us today. And he will lead today's discussion and he will speak about the topic of lobbying and mass incarceration for the first 30 minutes of today's session. And the last 20 minutes of today's discussion will be reserved for questions and answers. So we hope it to be a very engaging and interactive session today. And during this time, participants are surely invited to make use of the chat box. We're also use the raise hand feature and wait to be recognized so that you can pose questions directly to Mr. Johnson. And without further ado, I'd like to take this time to introduce Mr. Johnson, who afford school, tells me the policymaker in residence at the Ford School. Uh, Mr. Johnson has an extensive resume, but I'll try to capture what important elements of it for today's purposes. So Mr. Johnson is a public policy and political strategists with more than three decades of leadership at the highest levels of government and the legal profession. He provides strategic leadership advice and counsel to clients on legislative, regulatory, legal, and political issues. Mr. Johnson has the distinction of having been appointed to senior posts under two US Presidents. He served as assistant to the president and cabinet secretary under President Barack Obama. And in that role, he was the President's primary liaison to members of the cabinet, where he directed a team that helped coordinate policy and communication strategies between the West Wing and federal agencies. President Obama also appointed Mr. Johnson the chairman the White House's My Brother's Keeper Task Force. So this is an interagency initiative designed to identify and address the disparities that hamper the success of boys and young men of color and to improve the lives of all youth. And in the Clinton White House, Mr. Johnson was the Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. Finally, Mr. Johnson has also served on a number of senior positions on Capitol Hill, beginning in the House Office of Legislative Council, where he drafted such landmark legislation as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. So please help me. Welcome Kathy, policymaker and resident is to project counseling at this time. Mr. Johnson, you can please share your screen and unmute your microphone. Thank you very much. And Stephanie, you can see my screen. Yes. Because he my slot. All right. There you go. Thank you very much. Step made for that very generous introduction and for the opportunity to, to again, be in the presence of wolverines. Really miss being in Ann Arbor. It's been way too long. I mean, we're all being so affected, of course by this pandemic in so many ways, things that we love to do, people we love to see, but, um, you know, things now certainly are getting better. And I look forward to the opportunity to be in Ann Arbor and on campus, hopefully no later than this ball release to come to the big house and visit the Ford School than the law school as well. And look, I'm delighted that I see some friends, friends of, of, I won't say many years because she might shape at this, but Cindy banks, Citibank, I see you're here and it's great to see you Sunday. And a lot of love your way. She's a great friend. And I also notice that there's a, one of my former students from the Ford School course I taught last semester is here as well. So See you there. Maybe, maybe others as well. And it's great that they're here. And Ben's case because it means he really look forward to seeing me and it's not great dependent at easier, so doesn't add to is class participation. You did very well nonetheless. So again, it's, it's real honor to be here and Eve, by the way, of our NC double a for a big tent tournament starting tomorrow. So it's all very exciting and I look forward to that as a nice diversion from what otherwise has been a long time not being able to have the have sports Michigan sports B, something that can bring great joy or sometimes disappointment, way. So rare to talk about mass incarceration and lobbying efforts. And let me, let me start here with sort of an introduction slide. I teach courses here at the Ford School and at the law school from time to time that examine the intersection between effective lobbying. That is the tools that are used by lobbyists, the limits that are on lobbying, the ethics. Those are both legal and moral considerations. How all that intersects with the crisis of mass incarceration in the United States. As you all know, criminal justice reform, especially concerning how we address specifically mass incarceration, has become one of the dominant domestic policy issues at both the federal and state levels. It has, it has emerged somewhat surprisingly, I think, as a, an issue or bi-partisan concern. We've seen Democrats and Republicans work on these issues as well as independence in ways that is lacking with respect to many other public, public policy issues. One of the key dividing line has been drawn over whether or not incremental change is a better strategy for addressing criminal justice reform and mass incarceration. Versus a more comprehensive approach that would necessitate really ripping out the system from its roots. So this dichotomy, that dynamic is a conflict that continues to rage outrage at the federal level and also at state and local levels. So let's begin with this undeniable thesis. And it has a very regrettable one and is presented great challenges and has caused great harm. The United States by far, leads the world in incarcerating its citizens. Mass incarceration has destroyed many lives, ripped apart many families and communities, done terrible harm to our economy and further undermine, undermined faith in our justice system. We know there are double and triple standards. The impact of mass incarceration on individuals and communities of color has been especially pernicious. So we look at these particular critical questions. When did we begin to get here to the system of mass incarceration? What are the origins? I'm sure some of you, if not all of you have read The New Jim Crow Michelle Alexander's incredible book that traces I'm mass incarceration all the way back in her view to the origins and slavery and the emergence and reemergence of racial class system. So after racial classism, after racial class system, which was further fueled by the so-called War of drugs that began in earnest in his country and in 1970s and accelerated through the 80s and 90s and continued through beginning of this century and even continues today. In her thesis is that at its core, this system has been driven by race and racial animus. It's been directed by politicians who have insisted on harsh sentences, like three-strikes, three-strikes laws and XLS, excessively long sentences. Mandatory minimums, and even death penalties are all very much associated with the so-called war on drugs. And many of these politicians over the course of time and through these different racial caste systems, have been able to come up with sort of a race-neutral approach or race-neutral messaging. And yet, the results of this system have hardly bend. Race-neutral by, by anyone's, I think by anyone's understanding. So we have this also irrefutable fact that hard data, cold data tells us the impact of this system, especially with regard to people of color. Just to highlight a few things here. And again, these, these are shocking numbers. This is data that nevertheless is irrefutable. So here we are. The United States were home to 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners are incarceration is four times higher than that of China. In 980, there were 500000 people behind bars in America. 0.5 million people, that is 980. Today there are 2.2 million people and there's been some, somewhat of a reduction over the past year, but the numbers are still staggering and well above 2 million. It has quadrupled them since 980. Every year we spend $80 billion to keep people incarcerated at the federal level. Again, put that in perspective. $80 billion, roughly a third of the justice department's budget goes toward incarceration of people. And in terms of racial disparities, African-Americans and Latinos make up 30 percent of our population, but 60 percent of our incarcerated population. About one in every 35 African American men, one in every 88 Latino men serving time. Right now. Quite a disparity relative to white men where the number is 1214. Although interestingly enough, that number, that ratio has been increasing. A couple of other things that are not on a slide in terms of the numbers that go again to the disparities. 1 million dads are in prison. And one out of every nine African American kids has a father in prison. Again, 1 million fathers are in prison, and one out of every nine African American kids have a dad in prison. So you have to, you know, even now, especially you have to say how did so many political leaders and other leaders, even religious leaders in many of the African American community allow this to develop. Couldn't see the handwriting on the wall when they were supporting laws in the seventies and eighties and nineties. That a tough, tough and sentencing that took away the ability of prosecutors and judges to be somewhat lenient released to better understand the circumstances of people they were indicting or that they were sending to prison? Was it naivete? Was it uncaring? Sort of heart in the cases of, of many of these leaders. That's certainly one side of the argument that some people project. I think though it's also important from the standpoint of looking at the reality of what was happening in these communities during these times, especially in the seventies, eighties, and nineties. When because of the explosion of crack cocaine and so-called angel dust, we saw we saw violet fueled drug activity, drug trades in many of these communities of color and for many of these leaders, and they were so deeply concerned about the impact of drugs and violence in their own communities that they were willing to, to propose and also to support some pretty harsh sentencing. Though that has led to, again, mass incarceration that's disproportionately affected communities of color and men of color and African American men even more specifically, the system of mass incarceration. Let's talk a little bit about who has benefited from the system. Sadly. But there's no question that there had been beneficiaries of it. Politicians. There are many politicians who, because of being able to exploit the conditions in many communities, especially in many urban communities, have been able to ride political success based on their cause for law and order. And they'd been able then to exploit fears about race and class for their own benefit. For many law enforcement entities. As a result of the tools available for mass, fought for incarcerating people, that they've been able to benefit from. The power and resources for purposes of personnel and equipment. As a result of this system. Communities where prisoners are located, jobs and economic stability of come to many of those communities had been maintained in many of those communities. And also, another way to look at this though, is that there are many communities. There are many communities and urban parts of this country that have become more safe, certainly as a result of this massive locking up of people. Now there's bad, of course, a tremendous price to pay with, say, the absence of many men of color in those communities as a result of this, there's no question there are communities in this country that are, that have been set there now safer than they were. Before we saw many of these policies put into place. The private prison industry has certainly seen over the last several decades. It's been a bit of a roller coaster though, depending on who's in office. But increases in contracts for federal and state procurement agreements. And those have certainly in where those contracts have certainly been been put in place. We've seen benefits for their executives, their employees, and their investors. But again, it really can depend largely on which party is as an office don't Obama years. It was certainly tougher for private, the private prison industry because we essentially put a, a barn place with regard to the use of private prisons in many instances, something that was lifted during the Trump years and will be different under the abide the administration and other industries. I would just point out here, the phone, phone companies are among, some phone companies are among those that have benefited from the system in as much as they've been able to get away with charging really high rates for phone communications between incarcerated and their families. Families that certainly in many situations could by no means be able to afford being able to communicate that way. And there have been efforts at the FCC to address this, but again, it has been a bit of a partisan issue. So this is not to say that in some of these instance, for example, the communities where people have jobs as a result of prisons being in their communities that there's something evil or nefarious here. It's just to say that there are those communities and those groups that have benefited as a result of the system of mass incarceration and the locking up of so many people want to go to those that had been harmed most by mass incarceration. Some of this is quite obvious when you look at the statistics in terms of the increases incarceration rates for adults and juveniles. Certainly what's happened with respect to men of color and women of color. And the families of those incarcerated. The impact of mass incarceration on children is clear and shameful, an undeniable. The lasting effects on those children can't be understated. As well as the economic impact of our system of mass incarceration. Locking up of the breadwinners, men and women, who would otherwise be in a position to support their families certainly better than they otherwise are able to do without question when there just during their incarceration, but even afterwards. One way to think about mass incarceration, by the way, is it also leads to sort of, I'd call it lasting incarceration. The impact of someone being being incarcerated can of course impact them for their entire lives. Whether it had to do with jobs, economic opportunities, the, the, the stature to last, the lack of stature, um, all the stigmas that are associated as well. Also clearly communities, especially urban communities where the loss of many people, whether it be the, the sons and their husbands, and the alcohols, and the grandfathers and grandmothers and many other people who are important in those communities. And perhaps because of drug related issues ended up not because they were dealing drugs, but perhaps because they had drug problems, ended up no longer being in those communities. And it's ADA, of course, a horrible impact as well for judges and prosecutors. Certainly by losing their discretion and their ability to be able to discern whether or not someone should face this kind of punishment for what they did versus that kind of punishment. Rehabilitation rather than punishment at all. It's pretty tremendous burden on judges and prosecutors. And they have overstaffed prison administrators and prison staff as well. For employers who struggled to try to find it, particularly if they're based in urban areas, trying to find employees to help them run their business 6 successfully. Then finally, taxpayers, the incredible amounts of money the taxpayers see put into a system to lock people up rather than them being in a position of seeing their friends and their neighbors in their community members, being able to contribute to the local economy. But also I'm national economy. With respect to the issue of who drove mass incarceration. I just want to make this point. I mentioned the Michelle Alexander book. There's another book that I've actually embed is aware of this that I've used in my classes as well, because it gives a different perspective in terms of sort of the, the Michelle Alexander approach or analysis with regard to who drove mass incarceration. Professor James Foreman has written a book that's been out for several years called locking up our own. It's a book that looks at what happened in Washington DC through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and Nineties and really into the turn of the century. With respect to the policies, the police practices, the approach of, of politicians in a city that over time, certainly throughout those decades, became a city with, with more black leadership, with dominant black leadership. And yet we saw incredible rise in incarceration rates during those times. And the title of his book is so suggestive of this notion when answering this question of who drove mass incarceration. Because he points to the fact again that many African-American leaders in DC, we're for policies that have led to mass incarceration, particularly of African-American men in Washington DC. And so again, going back to what I said before, what what drove that? Was it I gave it a was it was it just kind of for political expedience. Having been in DC through these periods and knowing some of the people who were involved in and these policies. And there's prosecutions. Thinking about the conditions that were that we faced in DC at the time that led to search and violence in DC, we became close to the murder capital of the country. A lot of that driven By the, the impact of crack cocaine and other drugs in the nation's capital. And then of course, the inflex, the tragic influx of guns in the nation's capital. All of that contributed to this notion of, of black folks, black leaders, driving mass incarceration and locking up a URL, so to speak, I would certainly recommend came formance, but as well for that analysis, because it does frame that how one should think about what it will take to turn around the system of mass incarceration. Who do we need to appeal to? And what do we need to lead with in terms of kind of the thesis or the theory of what do you have to think about in terms of which leadership you need to turn around on these issues or who you need to be helping to lead these efforts. If you start with sort of a notion that this is also based in racism, which in many fundamental ways, of course it is. Does it make it tougher to be able to appeal though, to certain groups, especially on the right, are especially in the Republican Party, are especially perhaps among conservative Democrats in order to make a difference. And then just thinking about the general public and how the general public sees things as well. So that affects again, how you lobby on these issues and thinking about how you appeal to different people get involved in it is a moral argument, is a legalistic argument, is an argument that's based kind of event on the notion of black folks making sure we are better taken care of our own, of our own children and families. As we address these issues. All this data, all the data's, what I point to earlier is of course very important. And data fuels debates and discussions, but is also so important to get it from the standpoint of how you effectively lobbying on these issues, to think about how you can project individual stories that will move public policymakers and move the general public in terms of how they think about the necessity to. Thanks. This is sort of what we referred to in Washington. Oftentimes when we're talking about a public policy campaign is who are the real people here, so to speak, that you can bring into the debate that you can talk about. Again, that can convince the public and convince policymakers, convince politicians that they should care about addressing an issue, especially an issue as difficult as this one can be. And that's very, very tricky because, you know, it's very hard to bring a degree of sympathy to people who are, who have been incarcerated for, for crimes that many people would say, you know, kinda, kinda get it. But you really didn't need to do you. And you should pay a price for the, for the crimes that you commit. So I want to talk about a specific example here of something that I've struggled with. This young man and his photograph spent five years in federal prison for Douglass distribution. Back in the mid to late nineties, he got a mandatory minimum sentence. He had no prior record before he was arrested. He had lived in a homeless shelter throughout high school and the District of Columbia with his mom, his mom and had drug related problems. And that's how they ended up in in a homeless shelter. He was a student at Howard University. When he was arrested. He was a junior at Howard University when he when he was arrested. I don't personally. This photograph that you see here, which is quite compelling to seal their president behind, has nothing to do with a photograph. That's kinda the way I guess it must have been taken for purposes of this unless I handed him a memo office because there's a personal element, strong personal element to the story for me. This young man was a mentee of mine. I met him when he was in the shelter and I was a leader of a program that that reached out to, to young people who lived in homeless shelters to try to help them with their with their educational and social needs. He was the oldest of the kids who were living in a shelter. These this was a big family shelter in Washington DC. So I was a mentor to him and he became very close to my family. So close to my family. The reason he's wearing a tuxedo and the photograph is that this is actually at our wedding in 990 three, he was one of the, one of the ashes at our wedding. He was very close to us. If you read the description of what happened to him. Again, he had never been involved in any drug-related crime. In fact, I remember him saying on a number of occasions because of the impact of drugs on on his family life and when his mother that he thought drug dealers should get the death penalty. And so what was shocking then, and I had no idea that he would ever do anything that would involve either drug use or distribution. So with shocking, when I got the news that he had been arrested and that he was facing a mandatory minimum sentence. He was walking through an airport in Cincinnati and He was profiled and some officers followed him and they suspected him of having drugs in his knapsack. And to make a long story short, he was arrested after he landed back in Washington DC and they've gone through to his package back in Cincinnati. And the DA arrested on, um, he's been on prison for number of years now, but he was not able to finish getting his degree that he was so close to obtaining and his life has been affected considerably. Now, if you're trying to DOE project a story of someone for for issues around mass incarceration and the impact of mass incarceration. The story, you know, you want to be able to tell. But one of the challenges is whether or not this story, for example, having this young man be a witness at a hearing or taking him around on Capitol Hill to meetings with, with members of Congress who talk about the need for for sentencing reform, for prison reform, for criminal justice reform. Is this going to be the story that is going to draw the kind of empathy you need. Or instead is it going to be sort of the story of say, a white woman who committed a similar offense, who was caught carrying opioids illegally. Those are some of the calculations at you that you have to make if you're trying to lobby on these issues. But you would hope that a story is compelling, is this young man story would be able to move public opinion as well. And that's one of the real challenges that we, that we face when we're trying to work on issues as difficult as as as the issue of criminal justice reform and mass incarceration. I want to end with something that happened that door 2017 and 2018. That was, was a good story. Some people would say that it wasn't enough that Congress and the White House, the Trump administration, work together in order to be able to get the first step Act passed. But there was a debate and a successful debate to 2017 in 2018, US House of Representatives and the US Senate passed the first step Act and that became law. And it's had an impact on thousands of people who are incarcerated and their families. Again, some people would say it didn't go nearly enough that there are lots of issues that have to do with what happens after someone has been released from prison. And also issues that have to do with preventing people from being in those circumstances in the first place. Well, we saw this incredible army, so to speak, of advocacy groups, both business groups, including even that, even Koch Industries, I got very involved in the push for, for criminal justice reform. No surprise present or prisoners rights groups got very involved. Even many law enforcement organizations got involved. Civil and human rights groups got involved in religious organizations, of course, making more, more a moral argument are religiously based moral argument. And he saw many coalitions of these organizations getting together to work on these issues. And they were successful and being able to move the needle considerably and getting something done. That again, took a lot of effort, but has had a real impact. And it shows that there are ways to build center-right, center-left coalitions, business groups working with civil and human rights organizations from time to time on these issues in a very surprising way. There's a lot left to be done after this. And so one of the big questions is, what comes next? The Biden administration has made clear it wants to continue to further criminal justice reform. Along. There are members of both parties who continue. Certainly talk about the need for it. We will see though, when you look at the stack of major initiatives, whether it's the passage of the COVID relief bill that will be signed into law tomorrow. And you look at infrastructure, which is a major next initiative out of this administration, as well as issues around climate change and the like, where it's criminal justice reform rank among the priorities. At what point can we see really further change, further momentum for more changes on criminal justice reform at the federal level. So last thing I would say here is perhaps we shouldn't look at the federal level anyway in terms of where the major changes need to be made, there have been a lot of reform, successful reform efforts done at the state level, and those will continue. Some are driven by state budgets. For example, at least in the minds of some who were pushing for changes at the state level because of the impact of mass incarceration on their budgets. And businesses in many states have gotten very involved to around the issues of, of people with that are available to supply their workforce. And the overwhelming number of people incarcerated in this, in this society are incarcerated in state and local institutions as well. So even if the, the priorities that otherwise exist sort of get an a way of federal changes in the short-term. Anyway, we can look to more changes as the state level and a lot of resources put into that as well. So I'll end with that and I'm glad to entertain any questions that you all have. But that's, that's why I like 33 minute course on criminal justice reform and there's a much longer one that I teach. Thank you, Stephanie. Glad to take any questions. Thank you so much, Mr. Johnson for sharing your thoughts on lobbying and mass incarceration and for linking mass incarceration to the historical context of slavery, race-neutral laws and policies that you mentioned, as well as providing us with reasonable versus on Michelle Alexander's in John James performance analysis of incarceration. So at this time, I'd like to for the remainder of the session, I'd like to open it up for you. And as a reminder, participants are invited to make use of the chat box or the raise hand feature. Recognize so that you can post questions directly to Mr. Johnson. I think there's a question. Hand raise area. It looks like Ben Levine's hand is raised in oh, yes. Thanks, Ethan, am I going to come off mute? Speak? Yes. Great. Hello, Professor Johnson. Pay them in YouTube. I'd love to just learn a little bit more here about like efforts or strategies and the legal side to about conditions within conditions inside prisons. So there's me kinda mention movements, coalitions, efforts to limit mass incarceration or the return of incarcerated people. But what about what's happening inside of jails and prisons? Is that also being addressed? Well, yeah, it certainly has been addressed and some of the legislation Ben, at the federal level, but especially at the state level, there have been a number of number of efforts to address conditions inside of prisons. That can be very tough though, to make reforms era because sort of the jet, there's kind of a general view that you have to breakthrough, which is that people who are incarcerated didn't feel that the conditions under which they are incarcerated are comfortable in a sense and that, that, that that's a short sighted view. I mean, conditions in prisons should be such that they help lead peak people toward rehabilitation and successful rehabilitation, which would involve say, workforce training, for example. So some, certainly many jurisdictions I would say that are forward-looking address those kinds of reforms. But again, they're somewhat atypical. And many other places as well, you just don't hear a lot of people sort of talking about those situations. All right? Sure. They suggest that there's a question in the chat box and I'll read from so this question is for Julie, so what would your top priority for changing federal policy to reduce incarceration levels? What would be your top priority? And can you discuss any promising policies that could be persuaded to reduce recidivism beyond workforce training? Yeah, I think those two are, are associated questions. Because a major reason that we have the system of mass incarceration is because of the pernicious nature of of the way we, we fail to give people opportunities and what they need when they get released. Sort of this notion I mentioned of lasting incarceration, right? That you, that you get out of prison. And in many jurisdictions, UK, you if you are in for felony, which certainly the case with most people, can't vote, or you can't get public housing. And until very recently, you couldn't get access to a Pell Grant. Perhaps get a GED, but you couldn't get a Pell Grant to allow you to pursue higher education. And then issues, of course, around employment that have led to many jurisdictions efforts to ban the box or among many employers to ban the box as well. So I think that solid, I guess I would answer that question that it's really important to look at the back-end, like what happens to people after they are released from these, from institutions important to have training, workforce training and other opportunities for people when they're in, but for people to have support systems and to take away the barriers that not just stigmatize them when they get released for the long haul, but also they get in the way of them again, being able to take care of themselves economically, be able to house themselves and their families in, in healthy environments. Healthy from both a physical and emotional standpoint. And then also to be rehabilitated to the point where they can vote and have an impact on what's happening in public policy in their communities. So I think a lot of that really is, again, that back-end set of issues be to prevent as much as we can people being incarcerated in the first place. But let's stop this, this cycle over recidivism in this country which feeds this, these numbers. So terribly. 70. Can I go throw out a question to this group here? This is, Ben knows this. I'll treat this like this is in the classroom. Absolutely. Are people hopeful about the possibility of criminal justice reform being further along? For example, in your state, imagine that most of you even on the Zoom call or in state of Michigan, the people who are politicians talking about it. There are things happening at the legislative level, the state of Michigan. Brad Cindy, hey, Cindy Gaia or hey, I think I think it's sort of a mixed bag. As far as feeling hopeful. I think we've got, especially at the local level, certain things happening like our local like Eli saw that who is getting rid of cash bail. And we're starting to see some things. I think the night, I think at the national level happens, the administration as you were talking about before, you know, I mean, it's certainly we've got better chances now, although there was some success last during the last administration, which I'm really glad you touched on that piece to it. Especially talking about the lobbying effort and maybe even address more. If you could address even more on not only the state level, because so many of our issues by state sort of advocacy policies. I mean, you look at the right to life, folks who have been going state-by-state. And now we're seeing it in voter suppression. And I'm sure for criminal justice, that this also is starting at the local and state level. Angela. Moving up to the federal, as well as not always, we'll lighten what the perfectionist, but realizing that you need to take the steps to get there, right? Yeah, yeah, It's interesting when you think about lobbying tactics, Cindy, around something like this, right? Because I mean, one of the, I think the important successful tactics in any kind of a campaign where you've got people who are working on and successfully made reforms happened on whatever the issue at the state level or who are committed to change on the state level is to have them sort of intercede, to lobby. At the federal level. You know, if you're going to move a lawmaker, federal law maker, from a state of Michigan on an issue like mass incarceration. It certainly does help if that lawmaker and his or her staff is being approached as being lobbied by people from the local level who can say, as a result of these measures that we put in place, it does state bubble. We've seen these kinds of reductions in prison populations, in jail populations in arrests in our jurisdiction. That that is that had a big role to play, certainly. And what happened in 2017 and 2018. And moving lawmakers from pretty conservative states and districts to a point where they would also support criminal justice reform. Event tremendous reforms made in the state of Texas, for example. And Texas has been moving or toward perhaps being a purple state, sort of, but still pretty conservative state. And yet we saw it. We certainly saw texas lawmakers, federal Texas lawmaker supporting criminal justice reform. Same with Georgia as well, where congressmen Collins, former congressman Collins worked with Congressman Jeffreys from New York on the first step act as major champions. A lot of that I'm sure was driven by what was happening in Georgia, had impressed him. Thank you. Sure. It's going to so windy Hawkins has her hand up and she has a question for you, Mr. Johnson. Yeah. Hi. I was actually going to answer sorry. That's my dog barking. Answer a question about hope and the State of Virginia and around criminal justice reform. Sure. So I think what I struggle with a lot as someone who's interested in criminal justice reform. An abolition really is that like ending cash bail is really great for people moving forward. But what I want to know is, how do we go back and help the people that are still being harmed and incarcerated? And so something that find myself to be a hopeful person, but something that's hard for me in the state of Michigan is the truth in sentencing laws and how people are forced to serve just indeterminant Lee long sentences. And I wonder if you know any sort of legislative actions or if you find hope and like letting people out after 25 or 30 years because there's so much hope in reducing jail populations or an ending cash bail. But then there's all these people that had been suffering for so long that are often left out of like legislation and moves towards justice. Sure. Show yes, there are many efforts or your states. On, on the addressing these indeterminate sentences are these sentences that are so excessive that people just will languish in jail for 30, 40 years. And Ben will recall this incredible film that actually showed last semester. And I would encourage all of you. It's available on it. I think it's still available on Amazon Prime. But it's a film called simply time. That's the title of them. And it's a documentary. And it chronicles the 20 year effort by by family husband and wife. Husband incarcerated 45-year sentence for an armed robbery that that the two of them committed when they were in their early 20s. She served three years in prison. She was pregnant when she went into prison. They but he's he had a 45-year sentence and it looked like he was going to serve all of that sentence. But she got very involved in efforts to get clemency for him. And I won't I guess I shouldn't say how the documentary ends. Because when I watched a documentary actually for the first time, I expected a very different ending. Honestly, I didn't know how it would end. I thought that really because they re six children by the way, I could say that 26 sons while he was in prison all this time. And several of those sons have now gone onto professional careers. One's a dentists and other one's a lawyer. It's really quite a story. But the most important thing when you to go to your question is that that they have gotten involved in efforts to address these indeterminate an excessively long sentences in the state of Louisiana to at least get clemency consideration for many people. But that's an example of what, what has been happening. And there's certainly been legislative efforts and there's an adult. So the first step back, people got released from prisons who weren't going to get released anytime before their sentences were over. So you're right though, to pinpoint that there are so many people who spend so much time up to the end of their sentences and their lives are over once they end up in prison. Because so reduce the population by, but again, without the support on the other side of when people get released, they'll end up, they'll end up in many cases anyway. Back in prison again. Where in many cases homeless. Just languishing in our society. And that's obviously deeply tragic. I think I see a hand raised there. I I'm not John. No. No. Yeah. Sure. What? Marcia. Marcia. Hi. You asked about hope and I work out at the women's prison here in Michigan with pregnant women in prison. And we chest, the state just decided not to shackle women to their labor and delivery bad. Year ago. That's a long way from hope to have just that they don't have. They can have a support person but only one. A lot of things that make it difficult and then they have to be returned to prison within 24 hours. And not with their baby after they give birth. After they give birth. So they have 24 hours. Or if the mother has had some sort of birthing problem, like if she had a C-section, she gets to stay an extra day. And so it poses enormous hardships. Well, first of all, on the mother who therefore it can nurse her baby or see that child until God knows when. But sometimes the families lives, you know, they might live in the UP and the state doesn't notify them that the woman has gone into labor so somebody can begin to make the drive down so that child There's either in the hospital, it goes to foster care until somebody can pick it up. I mean, it's just it's a very dysfunctional, unhelpful situation. And the reason I bring it up is largely that the organizations who do this kind of work find that if they challenge the system in any way, they can be descend by two. The prison, Massachusetts did that fairly recently. Did watch stopped. Stopped. Oh, grandma, heavy. So what is it? They're doulas who go in. So women who are trained to be a support person in birth. And this is just because nobody else was allowed to go in with these women. Well, and so I guess something happened in Massachusetts where the organization challenged the prison system in such a way that they said, That's okay, we don't need to hear them. And I think that's a that's a maybe a hesitation that a lot of well intentioned nonprofits working with prisoners have there's ensure roles as I'm sure you know, when you do an end to her president. Yeah. No question. You know, this issue about chuckling pregnant women who are incarcerated was was part of the of the step back at the federal level anyway, and prohibiting that practice anymore, at least at the federal level. So as barbaric anyway, you know, it's, it's great when you see progress. But let's not delude ourselves that we've got barbaric, things that we have that just shouldn't be, have to be subject to a change in the law is dead. Morality should keep us from every joint in the first place, but progress is progress in it. I think that just goes back to sort of I'm sorry. Go ahead. No. I was just nodding my head in agreement. And this is something a bit and embed can attest to this. This is as i'd, I'd start off with saying that there's the there's this bright line. It seems between whether we need to take a wholesale approach or whether continuing to make an incremental change is good and or enough because, you know, better, as good as my old boss used to say. And yet is that always the case? If you've got something that is so fundamentally kind of rotten at the core. Suppose to Michelle Alexander's approach, this making incremental changes, perhaps it makes some people feel a little better in some people on the margins do better and some lives are changed. These aren't all just about statistics. And yet does it keep us from being able to do something more significant because of all the political capital that is exercised in trying to make incremental change. You'll get an a first step back done was not a small thing. And yet could we have gotten larger? And among the people who argued for much bolder approach was Eric Holder. And if you read James Norman's book, Eric is pretty is pretty critical of what Eric Holder did when he was US Attorney in DC. Thank you. Of course. Thank everyone. We are over time. Thanks for for attending today's session for posing questions to Mr. Johnson on the importance of lobbying and mass incarceration. So we can see that there is a lot of tensions between the beneficiaries and who benefits from a system like that in the far reaching consequences of a family's in their lives. So this concludes our E dance. Thank you so much for joining us and state in 20 twenty one, twenty two, twenty two, public policy and institutional discrimination discussion series. Go blue. Blue.