Political Climate in Louisiana under John Bel Edwards: A Focus on Criminal Justice Reform

Louisiana’s political climate under Governor John Bel Edwards has been marked by a focus on criminal justice reform. In 2017, Edwards signed into law a bipartisan package of ten bills known as the “Justice Reinvestment Initiative” (JRI). This legislation made sweeping changes to the state’s criminal justice system, including: 

• Reduced sentences for some nonviolent offenses

• Increased parole eligibility

• Overhauled drug sentencing guidelines

• Invested savings from reduced incarceration into re-entry programs and crime prevention initiatives

These reforms were praised by criminal justice reform advocates and credited with helping to reduce Louisiana’s incarceration rate, which was the highest in the nation. However, the JRI has also faced criticism from some Republicans who argue that it has been too lenient on criminals and has led to an increase in crime.

The Threat Posed by Jeff Landry’s Election

In October 2023, Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican who has been a vocal critic of the JRI, was elected governor of Louisiana. Landry has pledged to roll back many of the reforms implemented by Edwards, arguing that they have been “a disaster for the state.” He has specifically targeted the provisions of the JRI that reduced sentences and increased parole eligibility, arguing that these changes have made it easier for criminals to re-offend.
Landry’s election has been met with alarm by criminal justice reform advocates, who fear that it will lead to a reversal of the progress made in recent years. They argue that Landry’s policies will only serve to increase incarceration rates and harm communities without making them safer.

Landry’s Expected Policies and Potential Impact on Criminal Justice Reform

Landry has outlined several specific policies that he intends to implement as governor, including:

• Repealing the JRI’s provisions that reduced sentences and increased parole eligibility

• Imposing harsher sentences for violent crimes

• Expanding the state’s prison system

• Reducing funding for re-entry programs      

These policies would likely have a significant negative impact on criminal justice reform in Louisiana. They would lead to an increase in incarceration rates, which would disproportionately affect Black and Brown communities. Additionally, the cuts to re-entry programs would make it more difficult for individuals to successfully reintegrate into society after they are released from prison, increasing the likelihood of recidivism.

It is important to note that Landry has not yet taken office (he takes office on January 8, 2024) and it is possible that he will not be able to implement all of his proposed policies. However, his election represents a significant threat to the progress that has been made on criminal justice reform in Louisiana in recent years. It will be important for advocates to continue to fight for policies that promote public safety, racial justice, and rehabilitation.

With cuts to funding of important programs such as re-entry, it will be even more vital for community-based organizations to strengthen their bonds with donors, and continue to build bridges with the legislature and departmental entities.

Landry’s Expansion Plans for the Louisiana Prison System

Jeff Landry’s plans for expanding the Louisiana prison system are still evolving, but based on his statements and past actions, we can anticipate the following:

New prison construction: Landry has explicitly stated his intention to build new prisons in Louisiana. He currently faces opposition from some lawmakers and residents who argue it’s an expensive and ineffective solution to crime.

Private prisons: Landry has also expressed support for utilizing private prisons to alleviate prison overcrowding. This approach raises concerns about potential profiteering and reduced accountability compared to public prisons.

Increased incarceration: Landry’s policies aimed at harsher sentences and reduced parole eligibility are likely to lead to a significant increase in the number of individuals incarcerated in Louisiana, further straining the existing system and necessitating expansion.

Limited focus on rehabilitation: Landry’s emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation suggests that any expansion of the prison system might prioritize infrastructure and security over programs designed to reduce recidivism.

Impact on specific populations: Landry’s focus on “violent crimes” and his past support for the “three-strikes” law suggests that the expansion could disproportionately impact Black and Brown communities, who are already overrepresented in the prison system.

Funding challenges: The costs of expanding the prison system are substantial and could divert resources away from other important areas like education, healthcare, and social services. Landry may need to propose significant budget increases or find alternative funding sources to support his plans.

Political and legal challenges: Landry’s plans face potential legal challenges from civil rights groups and other organizations concerned about the impact on vulnerable communities and the potential violation of constitutional rights. Additionally, political opposition from lawmakers who disagree with his approach could delay or even derail his plans.

Public opinion: Landry’s plans are likely to face public scrutiny and debate. While some citizens may support expansion as a solution to crime, others may voice concerns about its cost, effectiveness, and potential negative consequences for communities.

Uncertainty and evolving plans: Landry’s specific plans for expanding the prison system are still under development and may evolve over time. It is important to monitor his actions and statements for further details and potential changes in direction.

While the specifics of Landry’s expansion plans are still unfolding, it is clear that he intends to significantly increase the size of the Louisiana prison system. His approach raises a number of concerns about its effectiveness, cost, and potential negative consequences for communities and individuals. It will be crucial to closely monitor the development and implementation of his plans and advocate for policies that prioritize public safety, racial justice, and rehabilitation.

WHAT ARE ARGUMENTS TO GIVE THE LEGISLATURE TO CURB PRIVATE PRISONS?

Private prisons face a number of drawbacks that the public and civic organizations can leverage to organize against their use:

Reduced accountability and transparency: Private prisons are not subject to the same level of public scrutiny and oversight as public prisons. This can lead to problems such as:

    • Increased abuse and neglect of inmates: Lack of transparency makes it harder to hold private prisons accountable for mistreating inmates.

    • Poor living conditions: Private prisons may cut corners on food, medical care, and other essential services to maximize profits.

    • Understaffing and inadequate training: Private prisons often pay lower wages and provide less training than public prisons, leading to higher staff turnover and potentially unsafe conditions.      Profit motive incentivizes longer sentences and higher incarceration rates: Private prison companies profit from having more inmates, which creates an incentive to lobby for harsher sentencing laws and policies that increase incarceration rates. This can lead to:

    • Mass incarceration: The United States already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and private prisons contribute to this problem.

    • Racial disparities: Black and Brown people are disproportionately incarcerated, and private prisons exacerbate this racial injustice.

    • Undermining rehabilitation: The focus on profit incentivizes private prisons to prioritize security and control over rehabilitation programs, hindering inmates’ chances of successfully reintegrating into society.      

• Higher costs: Despite claims of cost-effectiveness, studies have shown that private prisons are often not cheaper than public prisons. This is because:

    • Hidden costs: Private prison contracts often include hidden fees and costs that are not initially apparent.
    • Inefficiencies: Private prisons may be less efficient than public prisons due to their profit-driven nature.
    • Long-term costs: The long-term costs of mass incarceration, including increased social service costs and lost productivity, are significant and outweigh any potential savings from private prisons. 

    • Negative impact on communities: Private prisons can have a negative impact on the communities in which they are located, such as:
    • Job displacement: Private prisons often hire local workers at lower wages and with fewer benefits than public prison employees.
    • Strain on resources: Private prisons can compete with local communities for resources such as water, electricity, and infrastructure.
    • Increased crime: Some studies have shown that private prisons are located in areas with higher crime rates, which can negatively impact the surrounding community.

Public opposition: Public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans oppose the use of private prisons. This public opposition can be a powerful tool for advocacy and organizing against private prisons.
Civic organizations can use these drawbacks to organize against private prisons in a variety of ways, such as:

    • Raising public awareness: Educating the public about the problems with private prisons can help build support for reform.

    • Lobbying for legislation: Civic organizations can lobby state and federal legislators to pass laws that restrict or ban the use of private prisons.

    • Filing lawsuits: Civic organizations can file lawsuits against private prisons that are violating the law or abusing inmates.

    • Supporting community campaigns: Civic organizations can work with local communities to organize protests, rallies, and other actions against private prisons.

    • Partnering with other organizations: Working with other organizations that share similar goals can amplify their collective impact.  By using these and other strategies, the public and civic organizations can effectively organize against the use of private prisons and promote more humane and just criminal justice policies.

Conclusion

    Under Governor John Bel Edwards, Louisiana has made significant progress on criminal justice reform. However, the election of Jeff Landry as governor threatens to undo this progress. Landry has pledged to roll back many of the reforms implemented by Edwards, and his policies are likely to have a negative impact on criminal justice in the state. It will be important for advocates to continue to fight for policies that promote public safety, racial justice, and rehabilitation.