to tonight's special Brennan Center for Justice event. For those of you joining us for the first time, the Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy Institute that works to repair, revitalize and defend our systems of democracy and justice. So they work for all Americans. I am LB Eisen senior director of the Brennan Center Justice Program. Before we get started, there are just a few housekeeping notes. The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan organization. While we cannot support or oppose any candidate for office, we can and today we will vigorously debate the policies and positions that matter are our democracy. Civility is important to all of us. Those who pose rude or intemperate language in our message streams here, on YouTube and Facebook will be removed from the conversation. Live closed captioning will be provided. Follow along with the conversation on social media with the hashtag Brennan Center life. Now to today's program. A few weeks ago, the Columbia University press published Excessive Punishment: how the justice system creates mass incarceration. A book of essays that unpack why the US criminal legal system is so punitive. We are excited to feature some of the authors here today. The essays focus on the United States inability to reign in the punitive excess of the criminal legal system. Covering a range of issues from policing to prosecution to a lack of resources for public defense to prison conditions to life after prison. These essays explore whether these systems could have evolved differently and how we can learn from the failed experiments of mass incarceration.To advance reforms that respect human dignity, do not exacerbate conditions of poverty and promote healing and racial justice. Excessive Punishment contains 38 essays from over 40 experts . These are practitioners, activists, academics and thought leaders who all contributed their critical voices to highlight the harms of the status quo and provide valuable insight into how we can move toward a criminal legal system that is smaller, more effective and more humane. Now I'd like to introduce you to our panelists . Each of whom contributed a beautiful essay to this book. Jeremy Travis is a senior fellow at the Columbia Justice Lab . Jeremy works on the role of values in the future of justice reform and has been a critical thought partner in developing this book. Jeremy also co-authored the book's conclusion with Columbia University sociologist Bruce Western where they write how does the era of punitive excess come to an end? Khalil Cumberbatch is a nationally recognized formally incarcerated advocate for criminal justice and deportation policy reform. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and DEL at Edovo, an online curriculum aiming to help educate incarcerated individuals and others in corrections. And Nkechi Taifa is president of a social enterprise firm whose mission is to advance justice. Author of the memoir black power, black lawyer: my audacious quest for justice because she is also founder and convener emeritus of the justice Roundtable, broad network of advocacy groups advancing progressive justice system reform. Nkechi is joining us today from Geneva, Switzerland where she's participating in meetings with the United Nations . Thank you all for contributing to this book and for joining us today for this important conversation. Jeremy, I'd like to start with you. Back in 2020 and 2021 when the series was first conceived, we had dozens of conversations with you and Columbia University professor Bruce Western to plan out this series of essays . You urged us to ask contributors about the lack of guardrails that we as people, as a nation have failed to prevent the terrible harms that people suffer at the hands of our justice system. Can you explain this concept and why this concept of guardrails was so important to this series? >> JEREMY TRAVIS: Happy to do so. First of all, let me tell you how wonderful it is to be with my colleagues over many years with Nkechi and Khalil and congratulations to you LB on the Brennan Center for publishing this really important volume at an important time. And thanks to my colleague Bruce Western for working with me on the chapter and being general advisor. The title of this book is Excessive Punishment, and that's thought-provoking. The word excessive just suggests that we've gone too far. And this is more than some other world would have us in terms of use of punishment. Lurking behind that question as you suggest is how do we're only reign it in so we don't punish so severely in the future, but what are the limiting principles or institutions or concepts or political realities that would make sure that we don't do this again in the future? Yes, I have thought a lot about the issue of guardrails and it's both a historical question -- how did we get here -- but it's also a future oriented question. How do we make sure we're never ever hear again? Thinking about how we got here requires we think about the politics of punishment, about the tough on crime era that we've come through that we're still in for some extent. The ways race has been weaponized as part of our discussion about crime . Playing into some of the deepest and darkest parts of the American character.o it's a political process on one level. But it's also very much a cultural question is how how did we come here as a country? Why are we so punitive? What can we do to unravel that part of our national character? I think we have to recognize that the guardrails that don't exist could exist elsewhere like our Constitution provides very few guardrails. Cruel and unusual -- the 8th Amendment is not employed very much by our courts. The politics of crime means that people get elected on the tough on crime platform. That's a winning political combination. Has been at least historically.o that's not a very strong guardrail at least. And our courts administered trust and have less discretion. We have less discretion in parole boards and clemency proceeding so we've constrained the ways in which we could limit the reach of punishment. As we think about where we're headed from here, we need to go back to the politics. Think about the organizing issues. Think about the ways that we can actually elected officials are committed to reducing the footprint of the system . And most importantly in my view, Inc. about something very different to offer the public as a response to crime and the harm committed by individuals who should be held accountable and the experience of crime victims. As Bruce and I put in our chapter, we need to really reimagine the response to crime and justice for the future in order to have a more deeply embedded limitation on the use of punishment as a response to crime. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you, Jeremy. You mentioned punitiveness as part of our national character. I think that is certainly a theme of the book, and every essay highlights that statement. Khalil, in your essay in the book, you highlight through the lens of your own experiences and the devastating immigration related consequences that a criminal conviction can have. In your essay, you wrote about how ICE officers came to your house after years after a conviction that was in fact a decade old at that point . Even though you were a legal permanent resident or about to get your master's degree . Can you tell us about that experience and how it has shaped your advocacy and work in this field?>> KHALIL CUMBERBATCH: Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question. And again thank you for the opportunity to submit a chapter to a book that I think is going to be pivotal at this moment in the country's history. To echo Jeremy's sentiment if I can to just say how honored I am to have time with him and Nkechi of course -- two absolute killers in our field and to be alongside them is truly an honor. My experience with the criminal justice system has been one that unfortunately did not end the day that I left prison. I think most people, when they leave prison, would like to put that expense behind them . And I know that the ones who are able to do that and go on and live productive lives still every now and then have to think about some experience that they had during an incarceration. For me I had to remove a very, very traumatic experience of being taken away from community. Being taken away from family . Having your liberties taken away . But this time, and this time being within the context of immigration when immigration officers came to my home in 2014 and removed me from my home, I woke up that day with the intention of going to work, going to class that evening, dropping my kids off to school, being able to be a contributing member of my household alongside my wife . Woke up in a two parent household and by the end of the day my wife was a single parent to two young children. That trauma is directly linked to the premise of the book, which is excessive punishment . And my vision for how I see my advocacy work and the legacy that I want to leave when folks think about the work I've done around advocacy is undoubtedly talking about the traumatic experience of incarceration. Talking about the punitive nature in which a person has to face every single minute of their incarceration. But also discussing how that excessive punishment, how the notion that serving a prison sentence is not enough, the notion that a person is somehow deserving of perpetual punishment, even after they've served a court assigned punishment, most of the times in the form of a prison sentence, really linking not notion between mass incarceration and mass deportation. And of course, this was in 2014 a very different administration whose goals were very different in terms of immigration and who they were targeting for detention and deportation. At that time, I think -- fit right at the top of that and yet still I was treated with complete disregard for who I was as an individual. Although as you said that my conviction up until that point was more than a decade ago. Although I was working. I was a taxpayer. I was a contributing member of my society . I was a father of two young children as I said. And really just went about completing every single goal that the system had stipulated that I needed to complete and then went further. As mentioned, I was one week away from the master's, goal I had drummed for myself during my incarceration. Came home four years later I was one week away from that and had all that snatched away from me. Even to this day I haven't -- I never got a chance to actually walk and accept my degree. For me, the experience of being taken by immigration was not only traumatic. It forced me to have to relive all of the entire tumultuous process of trying to forgive yourself for decisions that you've made, decisions that you regret, and really trying to heal while you're being dragged through a process that is very traumatic. And then of course, having two young children at the time, having a young family at the time was also very traumatic for them.t that time, my wife and I had two children. Now we have four but the two oldest ones still to this day suffer from a level of residual trauma that shows up every now and then. I travel quite frequently for work, and every time that I leave, my second oldest daughter who is now 13 who is two years old at the time were still worries. Will I come home? The reason why is because when immigration took me, my wife did the best thing that she could do to a 2 1/2-year-old, which is to tell them something that just wasn't plainly the truth. Was to tell her that your dad had to go on a work trip . The same way that she viewed my voluntary leaving to go on a work trip, she just couldn't understand in a two-year-old's mind why I could not decide to come back and why it was taking me so long to come back home. Similarly now when I travel for work, she has that level of worry. Because it is a residual effect of my experience. So I hope that the way that I've been able to talk about my experience is again being able to bridge the gap between mass incarceration, mass deportation and really say that this notion of excessive punishment, it plays out in many different ways for someone with a criminal conviction. But within the immigration context unfortunately for many people, the consequence of being departed is all too often greater than the original punishment they were assigned to by the court. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you for that Khalil. You use this phrase perpetual punishment. Which really resonates I think with all of our listeners here today. Nkechi you have spent your career as a civil rights lawyer fighting for less and punishment, advocating for an end on the war on drugs, fighting for bills that would if passed reduce racial disparities in our prisons and jails. You have raised awareness around the inhumanity of our justice system, and your essay in this book details on number of federal bills that drove mass incarceration, that drove and perpetuated racial disparities in our criminal legal system. Can you speak to some of the more significant policies and bills that you wrote about that really drove these disparities and what we see today, which is 2 million people behind bars, whether in our local jails, state prisons or our federal persons? >> NKECHI TAIFA: Yes indeed and thank you so very much LB for your phenomenal work in terms of pulling everything together for this very critical book. Thank you Jeremy for your decades upon decades upon decades work with respect to this ill which actually resulted in large numbers of people knowing that there are nearly 2 million people behind bars and Khalil your lived experience and what you've done with that has opened so many peoples lives. As we know, most people know as a result of the work of the people on this screen that the United States has the world's highest rate of incarceration with nearly 2 million people behind bars . But what the general public might not know is that this mass incarceration was indeed the gradual progeny of a number of congressional bills, all of which led to the mass incarceration that we see today, which is essentially flooded the federal system with people convicted of low-level and largely nonviolent drug offenses. Some of these include the comprehensive crime control safe streets act of 1984, which eliminated parole in the federal system . Essentially resulting in an upsurge of geriatric prisoners. Folks pushing their walkers around prison yards . We have the intact drug abuse act of 1986 which established mandatory minimum sentencing schemes including the infamous 100 to one ratio between crack and powder cocaine. We have the anti-drug abuse act of 1980 which added overly broad interpretations of conspiracy to the mix. All of these bills were during the 1980s. During the early 1990s, I was literally walking the halls of Congress lobbying against the various Omnibus bills that culminated with what I always call the granddaddy of them all, the crime bill of 1994. Officially known as the violence crime control and safe streets act. What did this bill do? It basically featured the largest expansion of the federal death penalty in modern times. The gutting of habeas corpus, the evisceration of the exclusionary move. Charging 13-year-olds as adults. It included the stripping away of educational grants to prisoners. The implementation of the federal three strikes law, the refusal to equalize the crack- powder disparity. It authorized funding for 100,000 new cops on the streets with explosion in racial profiling that followed. Again thank you LB for your essay in the book which really detailed the federal funding aspects of many of these bills. If all of that were not enough, we talked about in that 1994 crime bill money money money money . Monetary incentives to states to enact so-called sentencing laws that locked up more and more people for longer and longer periods of time . Essentially solidifying what I call a mentality of meanness . These were the times of proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences that were essentially robotically meted out with shockingly severe punishments of 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, life imprisonment for non- violent drug offenses. ust an conclusion, these federal bills not only led to mass incarceration, but they also fueled racial disparities with unequal treatment meted out basically faced by Black people at every stage of the criminal punishment continuum from racially discriminatory profiling and wealth-based bail discrimination to nondiverse juries, partially severe sentencing laws. It all has been a total and complete travesty of justice. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you Nkechi. Nkechi just listed a number of bills that drove higher incarceration rates and racial disparities. And in Jeremy I have the book behind me on my bookshelf . You chaired the national research Council's consensus panel on mass incarceration and co-edited the report on the growth of incarceration in the United States. Truly a seminal project and undertaking. The report discussed the need for new normative values that can help reorient our system of justice. Normative principles can act to either limit or justify the use of incarceration is response to crime. For example the report discussed the principle of parsimony . That criminal sanction should be sufficient but not greater than the punishment necessary to achieve sentencing goals. Many of the essays in this book really grapple with proportionality . We all agree we want safe communities. We all want our kids to feel safe walking to school . We all want public safety . But public safety can be achieved without doubling down on these punitive policies like three strikes laws that we know don't make us safer . This is report that you ere involved in was so tremendous because of the work that you and your colleagues did to highlight normative values and how we as a country want to create proportionality in our justice system. Why is it so important to include these principles in our vision of justice? When we talk about proportionality, sometimes the broader public doesn't really know that someone might go to prison for decades upon decades, that they may not get released in their parole hearing because of things that happened in prison that may be people on the outside don't actually think are dangerous . That people are being sent back to prison based on technical violation such as missing a court date, missing a drug treatment appointment. This is that disproportionality of our justice system that just scratches the surface. Why is it so important that we focus on proportionality and these normative values? >> JEREMY TRAVIS: Thank you for that question, LB. The report that you referenced is this big picture view of how we got here as a country, and it's a reminder that before the 1970s, the level of incarceration in America was quite constant through the preceding 50 years at levels that look similar to what we would see in your brain now. The panel concluded very importantly I think that where we are now is unprecedented in American history. And it's unique internationally. We stand alone far apart from other democracies which again raises the discussion of why is America so punitive? The report goes through the politics and the data and the ways in which the mass incarceration reality became a reality . But there's a chapter that has gotten a lot of attention in that report that talked about values. This is -- too many Pullizzi folks this is an odd way to talk about punishment policy. Because we think about this as a matter of law and practice and sociology. But it really was important for us to highlight that over this period of time when we lost our way as a country and our punitive impulse was unchecked, no guardrails, not sufficient guardrails, we also lost focus on core values that have always -- better not knew and have always been part of the discussion about the use of state power. The use of state power to limit people's autonomy in the name of criminal law. That's what punishment is. We called out that departure from a long tradition and called on the readers and the country to return to some poor normative values. One of wouldn't mention disproportionality but another one is human dignity. It's not that these have always been the dominant values but it used to be the people talked about rehabilitation. That was a goal. It used to be a goal of punishment. We thought a lot about the ways in which people interacted with the systems of justice. Human dignity is important. Social justice is important. How do we look at the operations of the criminal justice system in the context of our democracy? But my favorite principal and value that we've lost track of is parsimony. There's a book that came out of the square one project called parsimony and other radical ideas about justice . Darrell Atkinson and I wrote the introductory chapter of parsimony and it's important because it helps the mind focus on some key questions that I think are relevant to this discussion today. And parsimony puts the concept of liberty at the center of every discussion. When we talk about parsimony, we ask what justifies the state taking our liberty, limiting our liberty, limiting our Arab tonic me in the greater good and to what extent is that justified in terms of the values that are advanced? The formulation of parsimony is the status not authorized in our name to impose limits on liberty greater than those absolutely necessary to achieve a social beneficial purpose. hat formulation allows us to challenge everything about the criminal justice system. We talk a lot about prisons and I've talked a lot about incarceration here today but the punishment is not just through prison, not even through prison and jail. It's also supervision . Our colleague has a cold mass supervision where Khalil referenced of windows the punishment and and how does the state use its power over people's lives through parole and probation? It also applies to policing. Parsimony principle allows you to challenge every aspect of the exercise of state power to ask whether it's reasonably necessary to limit liberty in order to achieve a social good. We could challenge stop and frisk, execution of warrants. We could challenge solitary confinement. Anyway that the state operates to limit our liberty can be viewed through, critiqued through and analyzed through the lens of parsimony. What the parsimony principle does also is to force a discussion about what might be a better way to achieve that socially desirable end? Our mind tends to default to punishment or state power or liberty deprivations us the way to respond to the crime that occurred. But let's be more creative. Let's think about other ways to address the harm, to heal, to bring evil together to resolve conflicts and think about accountability as something that's more than a prison cell and more than probation . More than state power. Think about accountability as something that's very internal and moral questions people ask each other. What can I do to make up in a restorative way the harm that I caused? Parsimony is a way to bring values and it's a type of guardrail back to your first question LB -- it doesn't have self executed power but it's a way for all of us as citizens of this country, people subject to the laws, to ask whether with the way state exercises its power in our name is something we think is appropriate and affirms day-to-day, solves problems, produces safety and has the lightest touch of the state power. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you for that. To that point, this country the United States has over 40,000 laws, rules, regulations that make it nearly impossible for people with a criminal conviction to rejoin their communities, Public housing, find jobs, vote . When we talk about this proportionality, this perpetual punishment, this punitive access, we really need to think about to Khalil's point, there is a sentence that a judge hands down. >> JEREMY TRAVIS: Can I add one thing if I might LB? The parsimony principle also holds that anything in excess of that which is reasonably required is an illegitimate, gratuitous exercise of state power. Fines and fees is a good example. Why do we make it so difficult for people to get about their daily lives by imposing a fine on them when they are likely already struggling in the name of the criminal law and they have to decide between paying that and feeding their kids?hat's a cool exercise of state power so it's a way of challenging all of these collateral sanctions that you mentioned. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Right. Inability to vote . So many people serving probation are facing and that's what happens in this country to so many people with a criminal conviction. Khalil, we have a question from another contributor of the book . Hernandez Stroud Senior Counsel in the Brennan Center Co. wrote an essay with. [name?] Focused on ways to make the justice system less punitive. Such as increasing restorative justice practices and the need to redirect funding to address the root causes of crime including housing and job insecurity. Hernandez has a question for you. >> SPEAKER: Having experienced both the criminal justice system and civil detention system in America, how has that shaped your advocacy efforts over the last few decades? >> KHALIL CUMBERBATCH: Yeah. Thank you so much for the question. One, I'd say there's a number of ways. One is that the need to highlight the fact that we're not talking about two separate systems is critical to that point. The reason why is because it's very easy to discuss immigration, and I use that term very broadly because that is a topic not only being discussed nationally right now but it's one that is pivotal to what happens in the national presidential election, but to also highlight the fact that the detention part of that and the deportation apparatus of that particular for people who are permanent residents who have criminal convictions is really an extension or it's another head of a multi-headed Hydra . One of those other heads is mass incarceration and it's because of some of the points that Jeremy and to some extent Nkechi mentioned which is the underlying root of that is this notion of excessiveness especially as it relates to punitive NISS. That's the first thing is to highlight that we are not talking about two separate systems . It's easy to get confused in that but it's critical that we absolutely understand that they all share a root . Particularly in the way that it's easy to other the people who fall within those systems. That's the first point. The second point I would say is around language. I view this is a two-way street. I know that there has been a number of pushes by a number f advocates to be more conscious of the language that's used as we describe people who have criminal justice involvement. That's absolutely critical. On the other side of that in terms of the immigration piece, number of years ago there were a number of media outlets who actually committed to stop using the term immigrant. Because they felt that it wasn't fully descriptive of who it is we were talking about. Gave a ton of negative connotation to who it is we were talking about and many of them committed to not use the term -- I'm sorry. I said the word immigrant. I meant illegal. To move away from that and to start to begin to humanize the conversation. I see that parallel, and I think that highlighting what happening on the immigration side and highlighting how important that is for media outlets to take a bold stance on what it is we're talking about and to use humanizing language on that as well. That's the second point around language. The third one is really to acknowledge the shared traumatic experiences that exist in both . I mentioned there were a number of overlapping experiences that were not new to me when I went into the immigration detention system. The whole process of removing any clothing that you have that relates to anything on the outside, being given a uniform, being given a number and referred to by that number, being moved in a way that does not give you any autonomy . All that are shared traumatic experiences that exist. The ultimate one which is going into a courtroom and being judged for something that you may have done a number of years ago. Then the last point is just that the immigration consequence, the collateral consequence of a conviction for someone who is not a naturalized citizen is one of many . LB, you mentioned or referenced the more than 40,000 legal ways that it is to discriminate against someone or someone to face a collateral consequence for criminal conviction. It falls directly into that. Yes, things like fair chance hiring, fair chance housing, gainful employment, being able to access benefits, being able to reenter society as smoothly as possible are absolutely critical . Ed has shown me as an advocate that we also need to attach to that the ability for someone who is a noncitizen and has a criminal conviction to be able to return to a society that they view as home . If I was to be deported in 2014 when I was in immigration, I would've not been welcomed back in my birth country as a citizen of that country. I would've been welcomed back very much as an outsider, as an American who just so happened to have been born in Guiana . I would've not been welcomed back as a national and the traumatic experience of being ostracized even after being deported is one that falls directly into the camp of ongoing traumatic and collateral consequences. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you for that Khalil. Nkechi we have a question from another contributor of the book. The Brennan Center Justice Program who wrote an essay for the book on the collateral consequences we were just speaking about that impacts people with a conviction. Ames has a question for you. >> SPEAKER: I was struck by some of the threads of optimism in your essay. You wrote about several causes for celebration or encouragement. When the Miller V Alabama ruling was handed down when holder and outsmarted crime policies and the Genesis of zero performing corrections which as we know turned into the first step back. Are you optimistic about the future of reform in Congress and the country writ large? >> NKECHI TAIFA: Am I optimistic about the future of reform in Congress and in this country? Ames, thank you for that question. I think I'm going to give a nuanced response to that. When I started working on criminal legal system reform during the 1980s, all of these advances that you mention that were in my essay, they were unthinkable. There were few distinctions between the political parties when it came to these issues. Both Democrats and Republicans were horrible on criminal justice issues. I remember vividly candidate Bill Clinton leaving the presidential campaign trail to oversee the execution of the mentally challenged person in Arkansas . Over time however, we began to see some bipartisan support for change fueled largely by conservative politicians who themselves were becoming proximate due to their incarcerations . One in particular Pat Nolan who was a leader in the California legislature and got caught up in a sting operation. We worked very closely with Pat Nolan after he got out of prison . Later on you even had Bernie Keurig who was of former police commissioner in New York who started talking about reform. So the threads of hope and optimism that I spoke of in my essay are important because criminal legal system reform is not only an uphill battle . It really is a protracted struggle. It is important, in my humble opinion, to celebrate gains along the way even though they may be small because each celebration provides fuel for the journey ahead. And they hopefully will compound over time into much bigger wins . Whether we're talking about reentry or reducing the crack-powder disparity or talking about crime policies or stopping mandatory life for children, focus on clemency etc. We really must celebrate along the way because often times these gains our few and far in between. Yes, while I am optimistic and believe in celebration, we must not be lulled into complacency when we see the backlash, which almost inevitably is going to appear whenever we make strides or advancements . There's a tough on crime backlash . There is a backlash against progressive prosecutors. There's backlash against Bill reform laws and many other backlashes across the country. Books being banned. The list appears endless so what does this all mean?It means that we must forever keep our eyes on the prize as we continue to struggle unceasingly towards justice. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you Nkechi. We are now going to turn questions from the audience. I appreciate your positivity . One of the first questions from the audience I'm going to ask for Jeremy to answer that's very related to what Nkechi just spoke about in terms of we are now in this time where we're seeing a lot of regression on some of the great strides we've made on criminal justice reform over the past many decades . Jeremy, can you envision a time when policymakers, decision-makers, elected officials won't react with punitive measures the second we start to see a rise in crime? >> JEREMY TRAVIS: I first have to say it's just heartwarming and invigorating to hear Nkechi as I have over many decades. Listen to that voice . She more than most people I know has been right in the thick of it and has seen the ugliness and the dark times . To hear her with this note of optimism was just heartwarming. But I think I'll just draw upon our experience over a long time to answer the question from the audience. Yes, we are right now in a period of backlash. There's a lot of pushback . We've seen some really dramatic reversals . Louisiana is the most recent example. We've seen some attempts to roll back some of the reforms, and those attempts have often been resisted by pretty strong coalitions. This may not sit well with the audience, but it's not as bad right now as it was in the 80s. And in the 90s. When there was no -it was really hard to resist that drive to punish. More and d more severely that led to mass incarceration and mass supervision and punitive excess. We should take some solace from the fact that the coalitions have emerged actually pretty strong right now. To resist the change, resist the pushback. But the question coming from the audience is a different one. And asks us to imagine a different time. This is where I am optimistic . I think that for a variety of reasons, and I would credit the Black Lives Matter movement and the reaction to the murder of George Floyd. I would credit the broad right and left coalition that has held pretty strong over these years for reducing mass incarceration . Lots of reasons to think that the politics will change. That they are changing and that there will be a time not immediately been in the not too distant future when people are elected with a much more nuanced understanding of how to respond to crime that does not include just more and more punishment. That's been the answer. Crime, more punishment, crime, punishment. We have to find ways to disassociate the criminal justice system and its punitive power from our response to crime and think more creatively about how to respond to crime. Elected officials who run on not platform and there are lots of people doing message testing and pulling on different messages . Vieira is leading the way there. That's the future. And the coalitions that have arisen, young people, people of color, justice impacted populations. That's going to hold their feet to the fire so that when the crime rises again, which it will, they are not going to engage in that knee-jerk response towards more and more punishment. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: That leads to another audience question, which is about this bipartisan justice coalition that you mentioned that has been so strong for decades. We know that you can have public safety without the harms of mass incarceration. Public safety and reduce crime and a fair and just criminal legal system certainly go hand-in-hand, and we all know that. There's a bipartisan criminal justice reform coalition that has been working for decades to pass legislation to educate policymakers, voters on the need to have a more fair, more equitable criminal legal system and how that can also go along with protecting our communities. There has been some worry that given the politics and given the 2024 election year that in highly politicized eras like now that that bipartisan coalition is not as strong. Khalil and Nkechi, I'd love to know your thoughts about that work and how we can continue to work across party lines to protect our communities without doubling down on the punitive policies of the past that we know didn't make us safer. You. >> KHALIL CUMBERBATCH: If it's me or Nkechi going first, I'm going to give deference to Nkechi so please. >> NKECHI TAIFA: Actually, I was going to give deference to you Khalil. Coalitions at this particular time. But I will say we were effective in the past . If it were not for the left and right talking together, the second chance act of 2008 would not have past. First of all, the prison rate elimination act earlier than that wouldn't have past. Definitely the fair sentencing act which reduces despair as see in crack and powder cocaine would not have past. And the second chance act . First step act excuse me would not have past as well. Bipartisan coalitions of very important and very pertinent. It has worked in the past and maybe you could talk about what's happening with respect to that. >> KHALIL CUMBERBATCH: Nkechi you touched on all of the points that I would've said around what's currently happening. Look, right now -- I was in DC yesterday and it was the 15th anniversary of the second chance act, which again was a bipartisan supported bill at a very different time in the country's history. And it was done underneath the president that I think many people were pleasantly to some extent surprised that he was supportive of that. If we look at what's happening now with reform bills that are being passed across the country, they're happening and what would be considered to be red states. How do we keep that up? One is that we have to -- to Nkechi's point, we have to acknowledge the wins . Sometimes that may mean acknowledging something that we as advocates may feel like it's not the best piece of legislation that could've passed around criminal justice reform. I know there are a number of people that are pro and against the first step act but irregardless of how you feel about that and irregardless about whatever administration it passed under and how you may feel about that administration, we cannot discredit the fact that that happened. And the reason why it leads to the second point. Because it is an iterative process. If we do not acknowledge the bipartisan support for legislation, it will not be bipartisan support. Because whether we admit it or not or like to admit it or not, elected officials are open to criticism. And they sometimes buckle to that criticism. And they have to see the support coming from communities particularly the advocacy community when they are actually able to sit down and agree on something. You're right. At a very divisive time in our country's history, criminal justice reform justice one of those issues that irregardless of where you sit on the spectrum of political ideology, the reality is that it works for everyone. Yes, you can achieve public safety and achieve accountability for people who do commit crimes. Yes, you can do things like cut savings and increase the level of community that a person faces when they are being detained or incarcerated. It doesn't mean the entire system is perfect but the reality is that we have to acknowledge the wins because it is an iterative process. Then lastly, which I think this is a hard part for some advocates, is crediting success to the person that again may not be someone that you agree with on all issues. Again I was in DC yesterday and I heard an elected effect official after that elected official acknowledge each other and the willingness that they had to come to the table and say yes, we agree on this issue. I think that's pivotal. Again irregardless of how you feel about whoever signed it or whatever governor signed it or whatever mayor signed it, whatever president signed it and say yes, regardless of how I feel about that person, they disagree on a million things with that person but when it came to this particular bill they signed it and I have to acknowledge that and I have to show elected officials acknowledge that because we need them to pass bills. So we can't pass any piece of legislation unless there is bipartisan support. Again with criminal justice, it continuously shows that bipartisan support is there . If we don't acknowledge the wins and encourage elected officials, bipartisan support will show up but it'll show up in more punitive pieces of legislation. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you for that Khalil and Nkechi. We have another audience question that I think is really important. We have a lot of students watching today. Not everyone in the audience is sitting in Congress and many of them want to know what can they do as individuals? What can they do to encourage their communities, faith-based institutions to push for change in the criminal legal system? Can people make phone calls? Can they write letters? Can they write op-eds? What have you seen in terms of just individual and community support that can be critical to making criminal legal change in this country? This is a question for anyone. >> NKECHI TAIFA: People can get this book. It lays it all out right there. People need to become educated almost like this is one aspect of helping that to happen. Doing stuff on social media. Bite-size this thing up for the younger generation. They might not pick up the book but in ways they can understand. And that will motivate them to go on and write those letters or make those phone calls and do those sort of things. I just wanted to pipe that in. >> KHALIL CUMBERBATCH: No, that's an excellent point Nkechi. Yes, read the book . To that point, do some historical analysis . I think that trying to re-create the wheel is sometimes arduous and it's very difficult to find out that you actually are trying to re-create the wheel once you've already started down the process. I would say yes, read this book . Do a ton of research. There are number of books out there that can give not only full historical breakdown of how we got to this thing called mass incarceration, but how that road is not all that different from some of the other atrocities that has happened in this country. To place it in historical context. I think that's important. I don't think it should be done in a way that is deterrent, but really in a way to acknowledge the past so we aren't doomed to repeat it as the saying goes. >> JEREMY TRAVIS: The only thing I would add to that is everybody and young people in particular should organize . Just figure out how to get something going on your campus or within your reference group. Talk to your elected officials . Particular your state officials. Mostly what we're talking about here is not Congress. It's state legislatures that have passed the laws that have driven so much of the rise in incarceration. Connect with groups that are doing the advocacy. Figure out your place in it. What is your role? But don't be a bystander . Don't let this happen. If this is too important and it goes right to the core of our democracy and our aspirations for racial justice. If we don't get this right, the country is not going to be what we would like it to be. >> NKECHI TAIFA: Can I say one more thing really quick? That is we really need to avoid repetition of how -- maybe will intention and sound really good. Yes, it results in over criminalization and racial application of those policies. We've been down the slippery slopes in the past. We need to really guard against that. Sounding good stuff isn't necessarily good in the system. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Advice for -- from our panelists . We only have five more minutes. I'd like to ask each of you wake question and it's incredibly important given the polarization in this country right now and the need to ensure fair and equitable criminal legal system . So I'm hoping we can end on a positive note and in a couple of sentences, what gives each of you hope that we can make real progress towards a more fair, just and equitable criminal legal system? And I'll start with you, Jeremy. >> JEREMY TRAVIS: Well, I like ending on an optimistic note . By nature, I'm an optimist. And it may be hard to be optimistic in the current moment because we've seen some pretty strong resistance to reform movement. But taking a big step back in the way we've talked about today, there have been lots of wins, lots of really important wins. The coalition that has come together is an historically important reality . It's fueled a lot by the voices of formerly incarcerated people and justice impacted individuals and communities and that voice cannot be stifled . The next generation is what gives me a lot of hope that having done this work for a long time, I'm very optimistic that we will end up in a better place. Not immediately but we are on our weigh in we have to keep -- as Nkechi said, keep our eye on that prize. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Do you have a couple sentences about what gives you hope that we can make progress towards a more fair, just and equitable criminal legal system? >> KHALIL CUMBERBATCH: I'll go next if I can so I don't have all the pressure of responding after Nkechi and Jeremy. I'll just say the one thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that we have so many young people on this platform right now . That young generation now is really, really inquisitive about why certain things are the way that they are, and they will --as cliche as it sounds, they are the future and the reality is they are reading books like the ones that we've got published . It is going to be a beautiful future because many of them have a level of inquisitiveness that forces society to answer questions that has been too easy to avoid. >> NKECHI TAIFA: I just want to add in and it's really a conglomeration of what Jeremy said and what Khalil is all about is one primary thing that makes me feel hope about the future of criminal justice reform is there are formerly incarcerated people at the forefront of the efforts to reform the system. When I first started working on the issues not only were there not formally incarcerated people at the table. I was one of an xtremely few black people period at the table talking about issues that directly impact Black and Brown Brown ities. Thing fully things have dramatically changed and I'm so very glad that I'm still around to witness it. >> LAUREN-BROOKE EISEN: Thank you Jeremy, Khalil and Nkechi for all your incredible work to improve our system of justice in this country. Thank you for your beautiful essays . Thank you to our audience for all of your questions . I wish we had time to answer them all. The Brennan Center looks forward to seeing you at future events and to be the first to know when events are announced, but be sure to sign up for the events newsletter@Brennan Center.org/events. My name is LB Eisen and thank you all for coming in joining us today.
