Research & Publications

The executive summary, findings, and conclusion of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s landmark torture report.

The number of Catholic acute-care hospitals has been increasing rapidly, threatening women’s access to reproductive health care, according to a report released by the American Civil Liberties Union and The MergerWatch Project. The report finds that:

Between 2001 and 2011 the number of Catholic-sponsored or -affiliated hospitals increased by 16 percent, while the overall number of hospitals nationwide declined.
In 2011, one in ten acute-care hospitals were Catholic-sponsored or -affiliated.
That same year, 10 of the 25 largest hospital systems in the country were Catholic-sponsored.

With the rise of Catholic hospitals has come the increasing danger that women’s reproductive health care will be compromised by religious restrictions. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the Directives), issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), govern care at these facilities. The Directives prohibit a range of reproductive health services, including contraception, sterilization, many infertility treatments, and abortion care, even when a woman’s health or life is in danger. Moreover, they often restrict even the ability of hospital staff to provide patients with full information and referrals for care that conflict with religious teachings.

The report also shows that Catholic hospitals do not provide more charity care or care to the poor than the average hospital. The report includes recommendations about how to ensure Catholic restrictions do not interfere with patients’ rights and to protect access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

For 3,278 people, it was nonviolent offenses like stealing a $159 jacket or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana. An estimated 65% of them are Black. Many of them were struggling with mental illness, drug dependency or financial desperation when they committed their crimes. None of them will ever come home to their parents and children. And taxpayers are spending billions to keep them behind bars.

READ STORIES FROM A LIVING DEATH

Explore the Report:

1. Executive Summary
2. Recommendations
3. Methodology
   1. Defining “Life without Parole”
   2. Defining “Nonviolent”
4. Findings: The Use of Life without Parole for Nonviolent Crimes
   1. Rise in Life without Parole Sentences
   2. Nonviolent Crimes that Result in Life without Parole Sentences
   3. Who is Serving Life without Parole for Nonviolent Crimes: The Numbers
   4. Racial Disparity in Life without Parole Sentencing
5. How We Got Here: Skyrocketing Extreme Sentences and Mass Incarceration
   1. The “War on Drugs” and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws
   2. Three-Strikes and Other Habitual Offender Laws
   3. Changes to Parole Laws and Other Limitations on Release
6. Case Studies: 110 Offenders Sentenced to Die in Prison for Nonviolent Crimes
   1. First-Time Nonviolent Offenders
   2. Nonviolent Teenage Offenders
   3. Tying Judges’ Hands: Mandatory Life without Parole
   4. Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses under Habitual Offender Laws
      1. State Habitual Offenders
      2. Federal Habitual Offenders
   5. Life without Parole for Marijuana
   6. Life without Parole Due to Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity
   7. Aging and Elderly Nonviolent Prisoners
   8. Terminally Ill Nonviolent Prisoners
7. The Reality of Serving Life without Parole
   1. What it Means to be Sentenced to Life without Parole
      1. Hopelessness, Depression, and Suicidal Thoughts and Attempts
      2. Isolation from Family
   2. Prison Conditions
      1. Violence
      2. Solitary Confinement
      3. Restricted Access to Drug Treatment, Vocational, and Educational Programs
   3. Limited Judicial Review of Death-in-Prison Sentences
   4. Virtually No Chance of Clemency or Compassionate Release
8. The Financial Cost of Sentencing Nonviolent Offenders to Life without Parole
   1. Methodology
   2. Fiscal Cost-Savings Estimates
9. Comparative International Practice and Fundamental Rights to Humane Treatment, Proportionate Sentence, and Rehabilitation
   1. Out of Step with the World
   2. Disproportionate Sentences Violate International Law
   3. Right to Rehabilitation Under International Law
   4. U.S. Constitutional Law

In June 2010, hundreds of thousands of Canadians took to the streets of Toronto to peacefully protest the G20 Summit, which was taking place behind a fortified fence that walled off much of the city’s downtown core. On the Saturday evening during the Summit weekend, a senior Toronto Police Commander sent out an order – “take back the streets.” Within a span of 36 hours, over 1000 people – peaceful protesters, journalists, human rights monitors and downtown residents – were arrested and placed in detention.

The title of this publication is taken from that initial police order. It is emblematic of a very concerning pattern of government conduct: the tendency to transform individuals exercising a fundamental democratic right – the right to protest – into a perceived threat that requires a forceful government response. The case studies detailed in this report, each written by a different domestic civil liberties and human rights organization, provide contemporary examples of different governments’ reactions to peaceful protests. They document instances of unnecessary legal restrictions, discriminatory responses, criminalization of leaders, and unjustifiable – at times deadly – force.

Most death row prisoners in the United States are locked alone in small cells for 22 to 24 hours a day with little human contact or interaction; reduced or no natural light; and severe constraints on visitation, including the inability to ever touch friends or loved ones.

This stark reality endures at a time when the United States’ experiment with the death penalty is at a crossroads. On one hand, in 2013, another state repealed the death penalty – Maryland. That makes six states in the last six years – Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey, and New York – that have repealed the death penalty, bringing the number of states without it to 18. Today, more than half of the states have either eliminated the death penalty completely or have not executed anyone for at least 10 years. Thirty states, plus federal and military jurisdictions, have not executed anyone in at least 5 years. This steady march toward repeal seems to indicate that it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will declare the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment and bar its use nationwide.