The below text transcription was is intended for audience reference and search purposes. Because it is generated automatically by computer, please forgive mis-translations, spelling and the lack of really any structured grammar.
[00:00:00] Meghan Sacks: This podcast contains sensitive topics and discussions. Listener discretion is advised,
[00:00:06] Amy Shlosberg: A woman’s life sentence over a nonviolent drug offense would lead to new policies and a celebrity intervention. This is the Alice Marie Johnson story.
[00:00:39] Hey Megan. Hi Amy. How are you doing today?
[00:00:41] Meghan Sacks: I’ve got a pounding headache for seven days, but other than that, I’m great.
[00:00:46] Amy Shlosberg: Okay, good. Well, I hope you are enjoying. We are in the middle of summer. I hope you’re enjoying your time. We’ve been flying through episodes, which is
[00:00:54] Meghan Sacks: awesome. We have been, we’ve been like more productive.
[00:00:57] I think it’s just because we have time, but we’re [00:01:00] like really productive right now. I’m pretty impressed with us. Just wanna say that I’m, I’m impressed with us right now because there are times where I’m thoroughly unimpressed with our. Productivity. So this is a good moment for us right
[00:01:10] Amy Shlosberg: now. Yes it is.
[00:01:12] Megan, you know about this case. Have you heard of Alice Murray Johnson?
[00:01:15] Meghan Sacks: Only because, and I hate to say it, but because I know who the intervention, the celebrity who intervened was, but that’s also part of using your celebrity in a positive way, so, yep. Yes, I know of it
[00:01:26] Amy Shlosberg: because of that. Yeah, so a lot of you may have heard her name before because she was all over the news back in 2018, but I personally did not know the specifics of the case.
[00:01:35] I just knew about, as you mentioned, Megan, the celebrity intervention. Right. So I’m excited to dive into this one because I learned a ton in my research for this case. Oh, I’ll bet. Well, before we get into the big stuff about this case, let’s take a minute to meet Alice. Alice Marie Johnson was born May 30th, 1955 in Mississippi.
[00:01:56] She was the sixth of nine children. There were eight [00:02:00] girls and one boy in this family. Could you imagine being that boy with eight sisters? No,
[00:02:06] Meghan Sacks: it’s a lot of sisters, a lot of females in the house.
[00:02:09] Amy Shlosberg: The family had very little means. They had 14 people living in a small home on the property of a landowner.
[00:02:16] Now their house was basically a shack. They had no running water and they had to use an outhouse. And inside the little house, there were several people to a bed. Alice’s parents were sharecroppers along with many of their older children. Sharecropping is very controversial, and it’s an extremely harmful practice because it would be used to keep poor people in extended poverty.
[00:02:38] So basically, this is a system where the land owner, also known as the planter, allows the tenant to use their land in exchange for a share of the crop. Now this would encourage tenants to work to produce the biggest harvest that they could, and it would also ensure that they would remain tied to the land and unlikely to leave for other opportunities.
[00:02:56] But this is where the issue comes in, because while tenants were supposed [00:03:00] to be able to pay off their rent, through their share of the harvest, Land owners would often raise the debt ceiling. So basically every year a family had to provide more and more shares to cover the cost of their rent, and if they couldn’t grow enough, the debts were increased even more often at the expense of the sharecroppers being able to provide for their family since all of their shares went to the land owner.
[00:03:23] I’m
[00:03:23] Meghan Sacks: sorry, but isn’t sharecropping viewed as, uh, an extended form of slavery? That’s how I understand it.
[00:03:28] Amy Shlosberg: Yep. This practice grew outta slavery, and in fact was used as a way to keep freed black people of the south in a level of subjugation a whole century after the Civil War. And while it was predominantly black people who became sharecroppers, there were also some poor white southerners who worked in this capacity as well.
[00:03:48] But luckily, Alice’s family was able to leave this situation and leave behind this impoverished lifestyle when her father got a job as a welder and her mother began cooking at a local country club, and [00:04:00] eventually she would leave to open her own restaurant. So the family was doing quite well for themselves, okay?
[00:04:05] And with these new opportunities, they were able to move their large family into a home with more space, plumbing and running water. So this was the first time in Alice’s life that she had a real bathroom, and the family was finally comfortable. Now the family was very active in the local church, and the children were enrolled in school.
[00:04:23] And Alice was doing well in school and she even was playing an instrument in the band. So life was good for young Alice, but when she was 14 years old, things started to change for her. You see, she started dating a 16 year old boy named Charles, and much to her distress, she found out that she was pregnant only a few months later.
[00:04:42] She was absolutely terrified. She was afraid that she would be kicked out of the church, kicked out of school, and kicked out of her home. I’m sorry,
[00:04:49] Meghan Sacks: how old did you say she was? And he was, you said he was 16. How old was she at this time? She was
[00:04:54] Amy Shlosberg: 14. Okay. And although a family friend had offered to help Alice get an abortion, she knew that she could not go [00:05:00] through with that.
[00:05:01] And this could have been due to her personal religious beliefs, or maybe because she felt that her parents would never approve. But regardless, she told her parents about the pregnancy, and Megan, without her knowledge, they started planning her wedding to Charles. They were very religious again, and to them, there was simply no other option but to marry the father of her child.
[00:05:21] When you
[00:05:21] Meghan Sacks: also mentioned that she wanted to keep her child, I also thought you said religious beliefs. Her family, maybe she just felt a bond with her child though, as well and just felt like she could not let a part of herself go. You know, even at that young age, I
[00:05:33] Amy Shlosberg: think that’s a valid point. So the way Alice found out about this is her mother had asked her to help with a, with a chore in the home, and this chore was licking some envelopes that needed to be mailed out and she was actually licking the envelopes to her.
[00:05:46] Own wedding. Unbeknownst to her now, this wedding would be held at the family home and Alice would not know anything about it until three days before the event.
[00:05:56] Meghan Sacks: Wow. I assume Charles and his family were well
[00:05:59] Amy Shlosberg: [00:06:00] aware. Oh yeah. They absolutely were. And I’m not sure if they also felt that. I don’t know if they, what their beliefs were.
[00:06:07] Maybe they felt the same way. Mm-hmm. But Alice was shocked. She did not wanna be married at this point. She was 15, but still a child. And while she says she loved Charles, she did not wanna be forced into marriage at some point. She tried to run away, but she was ultimately caught and brought back for the ceremony.
[00:06:25] So she was married to Charles in a backyard wedding. Oh. Just sounds
[00:06:30] Meghan Sacks: like a hostage situation.
[00:06:32] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah, and things would get worse because after the wedding, she was kicked out of school because of her pregnancy, and she was forced to move in with Charles and his family. So
[00:06:42] Meghan Sacks: she was kicked outta school. This was the sixties, is that right?
[00:06:45] Yeah. This
[00:06:45] Amy Shlosberg: was 1970 and Megan, luckily today there are some better options for young mothers and they, as far as I know, when teenagers get pregnant, they are not kicked out of school. They’re welcome to stay enrolled, in fact, encouraged to do so. Yeah. [00:07:00] On December 20th, 1970, Alice gave birth to a baby girl and she was then allowed back in school, but they made her repeat a grade.
[00:07:08] Even though she had proven to them that she was capable of moving up with her class, that’s a shame. Yeah, and while Alice worked really hard balancing caring for her daughter and finishing high school, Charles went out partying and he was unfaithful to his wife. But Alice felt stuck because about a year later, she gave birth to a second child.
[00:07:27] Even with two small children and no help from the children’s father, she managed to graduate high school and secure a job as a secretary. She also had two more children within the next few years. When Alice was pregnant with her fifth child, she decided that she could no longer deal with Charles and his indiscretions.
[00:07:45] And in 1979, she left him. Oh wow. You have to give her credit. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been to make that decision with five children to leave her husband. But she was working hard to provide for these children. Yeah, and she was doing very well. She was [00:08:00] now working at FedEx and she was promoted several times in her job, and at one point she did try to amend things with Charles, but it turns out they were not a good fit for each other and they were not able to make it work.
[00:08:12] But everything would change after she meets a man named Ted. Now, Ted is someone that she worked with at FedEx, and although he was married, the two started seeing each other and he introduced her to gambling. And unfortunately Alice became addicted to it pretty quickly. Really. And as we know Ken often happen, this would lead her to make some pretty bad decisions.
[00:08:32] Yeah. Now the first of many bad decisions started when she had been given a cash advance from FedEx for a work trip. It turned out that she did not go on this trip. It had gotten canceled, but Ted had asked her for money and the only money she had at the time was the money from the cash advance. And now she trusted Ted and Ted promised that he would pay her back, but unfortunately he never did.
[00:08:56] And FedEx went looking for the cash advance to be [00:09:00] returned. It was a couple of thousands of dollars. Oh, she
[00:09:02] Meghan Sacks: lost her job, huh? Is that what you’re gonna tell me next?
[00:09:05] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah. Unfortunately Alice did not have the money to pay them back. She was fired immediately, but this is embezzlement, so I think she’s lucky that they didn’t press charges.
[00:09:15] Absolutely not great that she was fired, but situation could have been much worse. Absolutely. But this would have a domino effect because without a job with no income and five children, Alice was forced to foreclose on her home. Her car got repossessed and she also had to declare bankruptcy. And at the same time, Charles had stopped paying her child support.
[00:09:37] She was in a pretty bad situation. Sounds terrible. And we know what happens when people get desperate. It’s
[00:09:43] Meghan Sacks: really, it’s such, it’s so sad cuz she was doing so well. And of course that is the demon of addictions. It takes you so quickly, um, on such a downward spiral. And it can just, it can take everything.
[00:09:54] And I think we both know people that that’s happened to. Yeah.
[00:09:57] Amy Shlosberg: And as I said, you know, she was [00:10:00] desperate. So when Ted made an offer to her for a way to make money, she really could not resist it. Now, she agreed to set up drug deals for Ted, and she essentially became the appointment maker between Ted and the clients, the people he sold drugs to.
[00:10:15] Right. Alice was making money quick and she didn’t have any ethical qualms because she wasn’t actually handling the drugs and. Importantly for her, she felt protected because her role in the operation was very hands-off. She was not dealing with any actual drugs. She was just setting up appointments.
[00:10:33] Megan, I’m not condoning this type of behavior, but this is how Alice felt at the time. Sure.
[00:10:37] Meghan Sacks: I understand that. I don’t think, okay. Either one of us would. Condone drug distribution. But yes, I have a feeling that we also are gonna have strong feelings about the type of, uh, punishment one should receive if caught and involved in this type of activity.
[00:10:52] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah. And that will be the majority of our discussion, for sure. Oh, I figured. Yeah. And this was kind of the push she needed because instead of getting, instead of getting [00:11:00] further involved in illegal activity, she used the money to start her own cleaning service business. It seemed like she was getting control back over her life.
[00:11:09] She was making money, although some of it was coming from an illegal source. She did have this business that was growing also.
[00:11:15] Meghan Sacks: Seems like she had a plan, like her plan wasn’t just to stay in in the drug trade. It seems like this was a temporary thing for her because she had to somehow. You know, pull herself back up, so.
[00:11:26] Mm-hmm. Does seem like she was motivated towards pro-social earnings? Yes. And
[00:11:31] careers
[00:11:31] Amy Shlosberg: tragedy would strike for Alices in the early nineties when her youngest son died in a scooter accident. And as a result of this tragedy, she would plunge into a deep despair. And not long after that, the drug operation turned sour, so everything would come crashing down.
[00:11:48] In 1993, Ted got arrested and then as expected, what do you think happened? He turned
[00:11:55] Meghan Sacks: on her. He pointed them towards her so he
[00:11:56] Amy Shlosberg: could cut a deal. Yep. The police came for Alice and they [00:12:00] also came for one of her daughters who it would turn out was completely innocent and had no to do with anything, but she was just, I guess we could say guilty by association.
[00:12:09] Oh, because when Alice was arrested, she was with her daughter. Okay. Now, both women got out on bail and the charges against her daughter Katina were dropped. But Alice was considered a co-conspirator in the Houston, Memphis drug ring. Alice was charged with a attempted possession of drugs. Money laundering, which automatically came with a drug charge and money structuring, and this was because she had purchased a home and they were arguing that it was purchased with the drug money.
[00:12:35] This is rough. Ellis wasn’t feeling hopeless though because she felt that the charges would be dropped or at least significantly lessened given that all she had done was passed along messages and she had never actually touched the drugs or the money.
[00:12:49] Meghan Sacks: Well, unfortunately, Amy, it sounds like Alice didn’t really understand the way drug laws work if you’re an accomplice, and how the punishments aren’t significantly different.
[00:12:59] Amy Shlosberg: And I think that’s [00:13:00] true for a lot of people that found themselves in a very similar situation in the nineties because of drug laws. Yeah, Alice was offered a plea deal of three to five years in exchange for her cooperation, and maybe in hindsight she should have taken it, but she refused it at the advice of her attorney because he agreed with her.
[00:13:18] The case against her was really weak, so they should take this to trial. I’m
[00:13:21] Meghan Sacks: surprised. I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but I’m surprised because most attorneys at the time would’ve probably urged her to take that because they would’ve thought That’s a great deal and you’ll be out in a couple years.
[00:13:31] Without like, you know, advising people about the collateral consequences as well of having a felony drug conviction. Mm-hmm. Following you for life, but, okay.
[00:13:38] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah, and I think once you hear what happens next, I think you’ll agree that maybe this was the situation where a plea deal would’ve been more appropriate.
[00:13:45] Right. Or a plea deal maybe would’ve been a better idea for her. Right. In September of 1996, the trial began and Alice was hopeful that she would be acquitted of all charges. As we see in many of these types of cases, there were over a dozen people [00:14:00] indicted for this drug ring. Mm-hmm. And most took a plea.
[00:14:02] However, the few who opted to go to trial, there were the ones who would end up taking the fall for everyone. Right. This also, this reminds me of, what was that case? Uh, Regina Kelly, American Violet.
[00:14:14] Meghan Sacks: Yes. I completely thought of the Regina Kelly. I’m completely thinking of the Regina Kelly Case as you’re telling this.
[00:14:19] It really is a very similar story in terms of how this
[00:14:21] Amy Shlosberg: happened. Yep. The few people who opted to go to trial were charged with cocaine conspiracy and money laundering. They were suspected of hiding over $1 million in what were referred to as load cars. In other words, they hid money in secret compartments in these cars.
[00:14:37] Mm-hmm. Have you ever heard of Ghost Dope? No. So neither have I. And that was the, this was the first time I had come across it. But Ghost Dope was a phrase used by defense attorneys to describe drug quantities based on testimony of incentivized witnesses, even if the drugs were never recovered. In this case, ghost Dope played a huge part because they never recovered any drugs.
[00:14:59] [00:15:00] So
[00:15:00] Meghan Sacks: you’re saying a witness comes in and says, like, I saw, you know, a kilo, but they never recovered that kilo. But the, that’s evidence because the witness testified to it.
[00:15:08] Amy Shlosberg: Wow. Yes. And I couldn’t believe I’d never heard of that. That is, Shocking. I’ve never
[00:15:13] Meghan Sacks: heard of that phrase before. Okay.
[00:15:15] Amy Shlosberg: Alice was so shocked at these accusations.
[00:15:17] You know, she admitted that she should not have been involved by passing along information, but she was no leader of a major drug ring the way they were making it out to seem. And several of the people who took plea deals were of course willing to testify against Alice. In fact, the prosecution used many known drug dealers to testify against her, and although Alice’s defense attorney attempted to discredit what he called a parade of liars, who would sell out their own mothers for 30 pieces of silver, wow, okay.
[00:15:48] So what’s interesting is that everyone’s saying that Alice was the kingpin of this whole operation, but when these. Incentivized witnesses were asked if they could point out the kingpin. They pointed at the wrong [00:16:00] people in court. I failed to mention she was tried with one other woman and they pointed out her co-defendant as Alice.
[00:16:06] So clearly they had no idea who Alice even was. In addition,
[00:16:11] Meghan Sacks: hold on really quickly. So you’re saying during the testimony, one of the witnesses, one or more of the witnesses pointed to her? Co-defendant as her and identified her incorrectly as Alice, correct. I mean, correct in, in itself that it should have just destroyed so much credibility, but
[00:16:27] Amy Shlosberg: okay, wait and listen to this.
[00:16:28] A few of them claim that they were at her home several times in drug exchanges, but they wrongly identified the area she lived in. They had a map of the city, and it was actually the other side of the city that they were saying that she lived in and so on cross, it became very clear, at least to some people in the courtroom, that these accounts were false.
[00:16:47] Meghan Sacks: Sure. Seems like it. Yeah, it’s, it’s interesting that jurors latch onto this, you know, and we’ll, we’ll definitely talk about that in discussion, but I just wanna hold onto that thought because, you know, I. It seems very obvious to [00:17:00] me, like, wow, this case is like flawed in every single way. Yet it didn’t work out well for her.
[00:17:04] So anyway. Okay. Well, you
[00:17:05] Amy Shlosberg: don’t know yet, but I guess you do. Well, I do know actually, but Okay, go ahead. Okay. And the kingpin narrative didn’t even really make sense because Alice wasn’t living a lavish lifestyle by any means, and this operation was said to be worth more than 2 million, but yet you had Alice who was struggling to pay off her bills, so it didn’t really fit with this kingpin narrative.
[00:17:25] Right.
[00:17:26] Meghan Sacks: What? What was the def? What did the defense had to say? Did they put on a defense? How did they, I mean, it sounds like they were going
[00:17:31] Amy Shlosberg: to. Good question. Basically, the strategy was to discredit the witnesses who were testifying, and they did a pretty good job on cross. The credibility seemed to be destroyed, and that testimonies seemed to be strong.
[00:17:42] So they felt that by discrediting these witnesses, then their job would be done. They didn’t really have their own case, and this happens sometimes. In fact, Megan, in some cases, the defense just completely rests. Such as what case?
[00:17:56] Meghan Sacks: Well, I don’t understand how or why this happened, but it just happened. In the [00:18:00] Lori Vallow case, the defense put on no witnesses and no evidence.
[00:18:03] They just
[00:18:03] Amy Shlosberg: rested. Yeah. So sometimes we see, if the defense believes that the prosecution did not establish the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then they don’t even need to put on a case at all. But. We know that juries like to hear a counter narrative, so it doesn’t always work in favor of the defense.
[00:18:20] No. Anyway, so, so Alice’s trial lasted six weeks, and deliberations lasted less than a week. And during deliberations, one juror was dismissed because he had his house broken into, and they said it was a traumatic event. So it turns out only 11 jurors
[00:18:34] Meghan Sacks: deliberated. I didn’t even know that was allowed. I would think they had an alternate.
[00:18:39] That doesn’t make sense to me. They usually have alternates come in. I was surprised
[00:18:42] Amy Shlosberg: too. I was trying to look into more information on that, but there’s probably, you know, there’s state differences and yeah, perhaps in this state at this time it was allowed. But yes, in most states they have alternates for reasons like that.
[00:18:53] Right. To Alice’s shock, she was found guilty of money laundering and cocaine conspiracy. On [00:19:00] March 21st, 1997, Alice was to be sentenced and she was nervous. Her co-defendant got 19 years and Ted had gotten a life sentence, although, Megan, wait a second. Yeah,
[00:19:12] Meghan Sacks: Ted cooperated, I thought. Ted did cooperate, but Ted got a life sentence.
[00:19:16] Amy Shlosberg: That doesn’t even make sense. It’s a life sentence, but I don’t believe it’s life without parole. Oh. Oh my gosh. I’m not positive, but yes, I was surprised too because I thought he would get a much lighter sentence given that he did testify, but maybe he should have taken a plea because the other individuals who took a plea and testified they got much smaller sentences.
[00:19:36] But nobody could have been prepared for what the judge was about to say, oh god, Alice was sentenced to life plus 25 years. That
[00:19:47] Meghan Sacks: is really shocking. Even though I know, I knew it was coming and I know about these cases. I just can’t fathom how that could have
[00:19:55] Amy Shlosberg: been the sentence. Well, I’ll tell you, Megan, the judge’s hands were bound by mandatory [00:20:00] sentencing cuz this was a federal case.
[00:20:02] Right.
[00:20:02] Meghan Sacks: Okay. All right. So there’s also sentencing guidelines. I bet. What year was this again?
[00:20:07] Amy Shlosberg: 1997.
[00:20:08] Meghan Sacks: Oh, yeah, the, the federal sentencing guidelines were in effect as well. So that was a system I operated under. So the judge’s hands would’ve been effectively,
[00:20:16] Amy Shlosberg: completely tied. Yeah. So mandatory sentencing does not allow for judge discretion and.
[00:20:22] As we’ll see in this case, and as we’ve seen in countless others, this would become a huge problem. Just so you know,
[00:20:28] Meghan Sacks: mandatory minimum sentencing is a little bit different than the sentencing guidelines, but in the federal system, the sentencing guidelines, which establish a sentencing range that a judge really can’t depart from unless there’s extraordinary circumstances, those guidelines were in effect from 1984 to 2006.
[00:20:44] In 2006, the case U S V Booker essentially eliminated the mandatory component of sentencing guidelines and made them advisory. So what happens now is judges can consult with the guidelines, but they can depart from them. And that was a huge thing that [00:21:00] happened right after I left US probation, but at that time, mm-hmm.
[00:21:02] The judge could not have done a
[00:21:03] Amy Shlosberg: thing about it. Yep. And if I understand this correctly, you would know this also is there’s no parole in federal cases or at this time there was no parole. There
[00:21:13] Meghan Sacks: is parole. It’s just not called parole in the federal system. So yes. Okay. It’s called, like we were called US probation officers.
[00:21:20] However you could be released to supervise released. Gotcha. They eliminated parole in, in traditional terms, they eliminated parole in the fact that you couldn’t be granted, there’s no parole board, right? You would never get out. You must serve 85% of your sentence, which is truth and sentencing laws, a little another difference.
[00:21:38] So no one could be released early via discretionary parole. You could, however, be released at 85% of your sentence, and then you would go on a form of supervised release. That is essentially the same as parole. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank I love this episode. Episode. I could thank
[00:21:51] Amy Shlosberg: that up. Just speak out to this stuff all day if you want.
[00:21:53] I know. Okay. Sorry. I figured you would. All right. So Alice was sent to a federal correctional institution, F C I, Dublin in [00:22:00] California. This is problematic cuz her family’s in Tennessee. So this is really far from her family and in fact, this happens to a lot of people and when we look at federal sentences yep, people are on average sentence to prisons that are over 500 miles from home.
[00:22:16] Now we’re talking about at least 14 hours by car. I’m not gonna get fully into it, but if you’ve listened to us, you’ve probably heard us yap about this before, but. It’s very important to remain tied to, you know, social bond. It’s very important to remain bonded to family, but if you’re family, Needs to, first of all, it’s expensive to travel very food, hotel, if you have children.
[00:22:39] It’s difficult with childcare. So like many other federal prisons, Alice was not able to see her family. So it’s, it’s
[00:22:46] Meghan Sacks: unfortunate in the federal system also, there are far fewer prisons. Yes. So oftentimes they’re even more pressed for space. Mm-hmm. So they will relegate people to other parts of the country.
[00:22:56] Yeah. But it’s doubly punitive. To remove people [00:23:00] from any social ties to their family. And as you said, like that’s. To add insult to injury. Mm-hmm. Not being able to maintain any relationship with your children, because Yeah, of location is really very, very
[00:23:11] Amy Shlosberg: punitive. But the Federal Bureau of Prisons has acknowledged this issue and have worked toward reforms, and they do transfer prisoners when they are able to.
[00:23:22] Yes. So I don’t believe that they’re doing this to be punitive, but as you pointed out, There’s just fewer federal facilities and they’re often in rural areas that are hard to get to.
[00:23:32] Meghan Sacks: No, that’s what I meant. It’s not actually meant to be, although it is punitive, they don’t mean to be. Mm-hmm. There’s just so few, uh, so much fewer prisons and so much few, like there’s little that they can do about the space that they have, so.
[00:23:43] Mm-hmm. I definitely know they’re trying to rectify the situation. It just winds up. Being punitive
[00:23:48] Amy Shlosberg: to someone and state inmates have it a little better cuz on average they’re only about a hundred miles from home. Right. But that could still be really difficult for people’s family to, you know, a hundred miles is still not close.
[00:23:59] It’s not close.
[00:23:59] Meghan Sacks: [00:24:00] But if you think about it, like how many prisons does Jersey have? Oh gosh, I’ve looked this up before. I feel like there’s six to
[00:24:05] Amy Shlosberg: eight. But like, yeah, there’s one woman’s facility in New Jersey and. Maybe, you know, six to eight male Yeah. Uh, prison facilities. Yeah. So I’m just saying
[00:24:13] Meghan Sacks: that number becomes a lot bigger.
[00:24:15] So there are so many more options for state prisoners.
[00:24:18] Amy Shlosberg: Yes, there definitely are. Most people would be totally crushed by this turn of events, but Alice became an advocate for herself and other inmates, and one of her first orders of business was getting vocational training for inmates with long sentences, because at the time of her arrival, Inmates in federal correctional institutions who had long sentences were not offered classes for vocational training.
[00:24:41] Those who were closer to release were the ones given more consideration. Mm-hmm. But after Alice advocated to the warden and prison officials, she got the policy changed. And some of those with long sentences were now given the opportunity for programming that they never had before. That’s
[00:24:57] Meghan Sacks: surprising.
[00:24:58] It’s great, but it’s surprising, [00:25:00]
[00:25:00] Amy Shlosberg: Megan, we know the importance of this because the program I teach for is offered to the lifers in Eastern State, and people sometimes ask me, why give education to people who might not ever get out? And I say, well, number one, it keeps institutional behavior in check. Yes, yes.
[00:25:17] Because individuals who. Have strikes against them are not allowed in the program. But more importantly, it increases individual self-esteem, self-worth. It’s a good example for their children and their families, and they could get out early. One of my students was sentenced when he was 14 years old to life, and the law had recently changed in New Jersey that juveniles could no longer be sentenced to life without parole.
[00:25:43] So he got re-sentenced and now he is home. And luckily he was one of the individuals who. He never thought he was gonna be getting out, but he got out with a college degree and
[00:25:52] Meghan Sacks: now he has a road ahead of him and a way to be a productive person. We also know a lot of the men in the Lifers group. Yes. Who, uh, [00:26:00] life had meant for them 30 years they were paroled.
[00:26:02] Mm-hmm. So they did get out and in fact they got out in their fifties. So they’re still, you know, young kind of men in terms of where they are in their life. I also want to just add one last thing there for one of the men that we know that was in that group who’s since been released. I asked him about what the impacts were like when education was introduced into East Jersey Prison, and he said it changed the entire culture of their prison.
[00:26:26] He said, It even changed the way we spoke to each other. He’s like, we were no longer like mm-hmm. Cursing and using like these derogatory terms. He’s like, we elevated our language. Mm-hmm. The way we respected people, he’s like, it transformed us completely from the inside out. I thought that was really
[00:26:43] Amy Shlosberg: powerful.
[00:26:44] Yeah. And. Kind of in line with that. They also tell me instead of on the yard talking about maybe what they’ve done or talking about their relationship, you know, they’re now arguing over what did Merton say versus Durkheim. And you know, they’re having these [00:27:00] educational arguments and they’re really, they’re great example for the newcomers.
[00:27:04] So people who are newly coming to prison, they see all these guys sitting around arguing about philosophy or legal thought, and it’s motivating. Yes. It’s also about their social capital, the social networks they make from being in the program. You know, there’s so many benefits Yes. To offering program and education.
[00:27:23] Actually back to the case, which is relevant to Alice. She also petitioned for loved ones to be able to come to the graduation ceremony for those who obtained their GEDs in prison. Alice was spending a lot of her time advocating for herself and others, but when she wasn’t doing that, she was also singing in the prison’s Church choir.
[00:27:42] She was working as a typist for $3 a day, which actually believe it or not, is a lot more than many people make in prison today. Yep. She also spent a lot of her time volunteering at the prison chapel as a clerk. Her faith was always important to her as a child, and even to [00:28:00] this point as an adult. After a year, she got transferred to a facility in Texas.
[00:28:05] This was actually a medical center for both physical, um, for inmates who had both physical and mental needs. But Alice was sent there because the warden said she would be closer to family. Wow. She would still be hundreds of miles away. I. From where most of her family lived, but she was getting closer, at least she was, you know, from California to Texas.
[00:28:23] She’s making her way back to the East coast. Yeah. So at this facility, again, she made the best of her situation. She would help others like she had done in the last facility. She even became a certified hospice worker, meaning that she would care for inmates who were terminally ill. So she would sit with inmates in their last moments providing comfort.
[00:28:41] This does not
[00:28:42] Meghan Sacks: sound like a woman who let prison even slow her down. I mean, she sounds like someone who. Created her own opportunities was not gonna waste her time. She just sounds like such a productive person.
[00:28:53] Amy Shlosberg: She was. She also led Bible study classes and she was involved in all the religious activities in the prison, but even as she did all of [00:29:00] these things, she never stopped trying to secure her own free.
[00:29:03] Of course, her first appeal was denied in October of 1999, and this would be the first of many. But again, Alice never lost hope, and she said she always knew that she would be going home one day. So the next several years would go on like this with being hopeful and then being let down. But then a new hope came in 2013 when she received a letter from an attorney at the A C L U, Jennifer Turner.
[00:29:28] Now Turner was doing a report on what she termed the quote, living Dead people charged with nonviolent crimes who were sentenced to life without parole. And if you recall, Megan, at this time, the A C L U was launching a huge campaign to try to draw attention to inmates just like Alice. Well, yeah. Alice and Jennifer started corresponding regularly and during this time, Alice got transferred to a facility in Alabama, which was now only three hours from her family.
[00:29:53] So her spirits were high because she’s now closer to her family. She has renewed hope in this A C L U [00:30:00] campaign. And even better, she found out that she was one of six inmates chosen to be featured in ACL U’S campaign. So she was interviewed and she was able to share her particular story. And her and the others stories received national attention and was featured in the Washington Post, the Nation, and other huge media outlets.
[00:30:21] And this would instill more hope in Alice? Yeah. At this time she said that she had hoped that President Obama would read her story and grant her clemency, and she really felt like this was a possibility. I have to tell you,
[00:30:31] Meghan Sacks: she never gives up. This is a woman who is eternally hopeful.
[00:30:35] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah. Tenacious, right?
[00:30:36] Mm-hmm. She is the definition. That’s
[00:30:38] Meghan Sacks: probably what motivated her to keep going. You need to have hope, right? If it becomes a hopeless situation, and we’ve definitely heard other people say that before. If it becomes hopeless, you
[00:30:45] Amy Shlosberg: give up. I also think she was very lucky. She had a huge support system of family that really stuck by her.
[00:30:52] Right. On October 24th, 2014, many inmates had received. News mostly from advocacy organizations that they were working [00:31:00] with. And this was a big buzz in the prison, in the federal prisons, particularly in the federal system because President Obama at this time, about halfway through his final term, had announced a new clemency initiative that encouraged qualified federal prisoners to petition for reduced sentences.
[00:31:18] Now, Alice had already been denied clemency a few years prior in 2011. Megan, let me mention this is among almost 10 unsuccessful appeals, of course, but this is not shocking that she lost all of these federal appeals. Right? I
[00:31:34] Meghan Sacks: mean, unless there was a, a major issue at trial. This was the, the law called for mandatory sentencing and she was an accomplice.
[00:31:40] Yeah. So it’s not shocking.
[00:31:42] Amy Shlosberg: And in order to be granted an appeal, you must demonstrate either an error of law or wrongdoing committed by the courts during the original trial. So the success rate, there’s varying numbers, but it hovers somewhere around 10%. When we talk about state appeals, the number gets closer to 15 to 20%, [00:32:00] but these are low numbers of success.
[00:32:02] To
[00:32:02] Meghan Sacks: be honest, I’m surprised. I thought the the number was lower in all, in all honesty, I thought it was a little like covered around 10% but less than, so I’m surprised to hear it’s even higher in state
[00:32:12] Amy Shlosberg: appeals. Yeah, I’ve seen federal like seven to 10 and then state 15 to 20.
[00:32:17] Meghan Sacks: Right. So how did this change, cuz Ellis was denied clemency the first time.
[00:32:21] So what was the criteria? How was this a little bit different under Obama’s new
[00:32:25] Amy Shlosberg: initiative? Actually Megan, she was denied in 2011 and also in 2013. But as you ask, things were a little bit different because now there were six specific criteria in order to be considered for clemency under the Obama administration.
[00:32:40] The first one is you had to be currently serving a federal sentence. Okay, check. Likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense today. Check to say so. Yep.
[00:32:52] Meghan Sacks: Well, yeah, because the mandatory, also mandatory minimums changed and so did the sentencing guidelines. So yeah, I would say that’s a check on that one.
[00:32:59] Amy Shlosberg: Yep. [00:33:00] Nonviolent low level offenders without significant ties to large scale criminal organizations, gangs or cartels. Check. They had to have served at least 10 years of their prison sentence check. They do not have a significant criminal history check. They have demonstrated good conduct in prison check, and they have no history of violence prior to or during their current term of imprisonment.
[00:33:23] Meghan Sacks: All checks. I just wanna point out really quickly, I feel like that was more than six criteria.
[00:33:28] Amy Shlosberg: You know what, one of them, the first one was a two prong, so Oh, okay. I, I made it sound like seven, but it is actually only six. Okay. I’m like, I’m thanks for calling me on that though. Yeah. As we were saying, as I went through that list, Alice met all of these.
[00:33:41] In fact, she exceeded most of them, so she believed that this was her chance, and people were saying that President Obama was expected to make around 10,000 clemency grants, and she really believed that she would be one of them. I
[00:33:54] Meghan Sacks: mean, she had good reason to be hopeful this time, like really good reason to be hopeful, I would think.
[00:33:58] Amy Shlosberg: Mm-hmm. And she sprung into [00:34:00] action. She sent letters to several attorneys asking for pro bono assistance, and it didn’t take her long to find one who was able to help her. And she also got dozens of letters of support. Again, the publicity from the A C L U campaign was so great that people knew her story and they were on her side and happy to help her.
[00:34:18] In July of 2015, 43 people were released, but to Alice’s surprise and dismay, she was not one of them. A few months later, in December of 2015, another 95 names were released, and Alice was not on that list either. Ooh. But as usual, Alice kept forging ahead and her family was forging ahead as well. Her daughters became very active and they would go to DC to make arguments for their mom’s clemency, and they also started attending rallies and vigils to try to help their mom’s case gain publicity.
[00:34:51] And Alice started doing video forums and once again, she was gaining national audience like she had with the A C L U campaign. What do you mean? She started doing
[00:34:58] Meghan Sacks: video
[00:34:59] Amy Shlosberg: forums? [00:35:00] Yeah, good question. The federal prison system had recently implemented video chats, and she was getting requests to speak about her situation.
[00:35:08] So she would speak to students at universities and colleges around the country. I didn’t even know
[00:35:12] Meghan Sacks: that they did that. That’s
[00:35:13] Amy Shlosberg: awesome. I know, I know. So she spoke at nyu Yale, university of Washington, hunter College in New York City. Wow. She even spoke at corporate events with Google and YouTube. That is so
[00:35:25] Meghan Sacks: cool.
[00:35:26] I had no idea they did that.
[00:35:28] Amy Shlosberg: And Alice’s word was getting out and people were listening and wanting to help her. In August of 2016, another list was released. 214 additional people were being granted clemency, but unfortunately, Alice’s name was still not on the list. Okay? A few months later, in December of 2015, Alice wrote an article for C N n appealing to the president and to the public.
[00:35:53] But come January, another list. No, Alice. Okay. That’s
[00:35:57] Meghan Sacks: January, what, 2016? Are we [00:36:00] at 16?
[00:36:00] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah. And this was worrisome for Alice because in just a few days, Obama would be leaving office and she had no clue if the next administration would continue granting CL clemency at this unprecedented rate. So the final list of clemency grants under President Obama was released in January 19th, 2017.
[00:36:20] But Alice was still not on it. Get out. Really? Yeah. She was devastated and for the first time started to feel a bit hopeless at this point. She had been locked up for 21 years and she felt that her greatest chance at going home was now gone. Yeah. But it wasn’t over yet for Alice.
[00:36:37] Meghan Sacks: Well, I hope not cause I’ve got chills
[00:36:38] Amy Shlosberg: over here.
[00:36:39] Yeah. She was asked to do a video op-ed, which quickly went viral and the video was shared by celebrities and picked up by major media stations, and the video caught the eye of one particular celebrity who would change everything for Alice. Kim Kardashian. As we know now. Kim is very involved in criminal [00:37:00] justice reform and has done some advocacy work, but at the time, she wasn’t yet known for her advocacy and reform work in the criminal justice area.
[00:37:07] I believe this is kind of where it started. On October 28th, 2017. Alice’s new attorney Shawn Holly, who’s a famous attorney and a very close friend and lawyer for the Kardashian family. She introduced Kim to Alice, and Kim became Alice’s benefactor as Shawn led a legal team to fight for Alice’s freedom.
[00:37:27] What an
[00:37:27] Meghan Sacks: ally to have in your corner. I mean, you know, that’s, that’s really significant, I’m sure, for Alice in her fight. And not
[00:37:33] Amy Shlosberg: surprisingly, given Kim’s popularity, TMZ picked up the story and the media was buzzing. Kim Kardashian was on a mission to free a woman from prison, and everyone was watching and Kim used her connections to the new president to make it happen.
[00:37:48] She reached out to her friend who happened to be President Trump’s daughter Ivanka. And Ivanka was sympathetic to the story and shared it with some top White House advisors. Among them, Jared Kushner, Ivanka’s [00:38:00] husband. Now, he was an advisor to the president and had an interest in criminal justice reform.
[00:38:05] If you recall, early on, he began working on the Prison Reform and Redemption Act, which was a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. That aimed to reduce recidivism by supporting reentry. Yeah, I do remember this. The media, again, took great interest once there was word that Kim was working with Jar and Ivanka.
[00:38:23] There was also an online petition supporting Alice’s release that was circulating at the time and had over 200,000 signatures on it. On June 6th, 2018, Alice got a call as she normally did. She was told it was a legal call when she picked up the phone. She expected to hear her lawyer on the other end, however, it was Kim who simply said we did it.
[00:38:45] After two decades in prison, Alice was going home.
[00:38:49] Meghan Sacks: I didn’t know that. I did just get chills. Oh my gosh.
[00:38:53] Amy Shlosberg: Now the media circus continued. Everyone wanted to talk to the woman that Kim Kardashian got outta prison, [00:39:00] and Alice spent her first few days with family, but then she went on to every interview show you could imagine, where she would meet Kim in person and the two of them would do interviews together.
[00:39:10] Seven months later, president Trump signed the First Step Act again, the one proposed by Jared Kushner and it went into law on December 21st, 2018. And he also spoke of Alice’s case publicly. Do you wanna tell the
[00:39:23] Meghan Sacks: listeners a little bit about the First Step Act and the provisions? Because, um, I know a little bit about it.
[00:39:29] My students just presented on it in my policy class. It was a great presentation, but I’m sure not everyone is familiar with it.
[00:39:35] Amy Shlosberg: I will tell you that they are implementing new changes as of very recently, but the act itself, the aim was to reform federal prisons and reduce recidivism. But in addition to that, to develop and evaluate new risk assessment tools.
[00:39:49] Mm-hmm. And most importantly, and this is what really made everyone’s ears perked up, is there would be 54 days of good credit every year. So federal [00:40:00] sentences could be reduced. However, Megan, as you know, like most policies, the implementation is a little different than what was promised, but. I think what was most exciting for people is its potential to promote additional criminal justice reforms because again, it had bipartisan support.
[00:40:15] And very rare do you see a criminal justice reform bill that has bipartisan support. Yeah, of course. Like anything else, it was criticized for ignoring sentencing reforms and racial disparities. But I would say, you know, it can’t do everything. I think it’s a great first step. There’s not really clear direction on the good credits.
[00:40:34] Remember I mentioned that you get the good 54 good credits? Yeah, so right now it’s in what I believe is its third iteration. Because there was a press release in late of 2022 talking about the implementation of new changes in the First Step Act. There is a documentary I’m dying to watch, which I have not watched yet, but it’s called The First Step.
[00:40:54] It’s on Prime. Oh. And it’s actually the whole entire documentary is about the First Step Act and [00:41:00] it’s, uh, van Jones is the person who presents it. It’s supposed to be incredible. So, oh. Um, I didn’t have time to check it out before this episode, but it’s definitely on my list of things to watch and you should show it to your policy class.
[00:41:12] Not
[00:41:12] Meghan Sacks: only would I show it to my policy class, but I know that we also talked with some of the patrons about doing, um, yeah, some documentaries. Cause you know, we do the book club, but also doing some documentary things like, Watching and maybe discussing. So it just kind of popped in my head for that reason too.
[00:41:26] I hadn’t even heard of that. That’s great. Yeah, Amy, really quickly too, the 54 credits, so that’s a little confusing to me. I’d have to look into it because you already have, there’s already days that one can earn, so I wonder if this is in addition to what they had or, you know, I wonder how many days this totals out to.
[00:41:41] Amy Shlosberg: Yeah, it’s my understanding that this is an addition cuz it’s 55 days a year and I’m under the impression that it was significantly less, the potential for good times. Okay. But yeah, Megan, as you know, with a lot of these laws, there’s a lot of details and it’s hundreds of pages to go through, so I [00:42:00] don’t know the details, but,
[00:42:01] Meghan Sacks: uh, you can’t know all the details of every law.
[00:42:03] We’ll, forgive you, I’ll forgive you.
[00:42:05] Amy Shlosberg: Alice was invited as a guest of President Trump at his State of the Union address in February of 2019. Where she received a bipartisan standing ovation from the United States Congress. Now, Alice’s release has been heralded as being a catalyst for the successful bipartisan passage of the First Step Act.
[00:42:25] So many say that it was because of, you know, so really because of Kim’s advocacy efforts, and then leading to Alice’s release leading to help that expands much further than Alice. Besides helping people through her story, she’s also a staunch criminal justice advocate. Who works to end mandatory sentencing and to help people get more support both inside and outside of prison.
[00:42:49] She does a lot of work with an organization called Heal America. Their mission is to elevate inspiring leaders who are removing legal, cultural, and social barriers to [00:43:00] progress and provide the tools and networks for more people to become change makers in their own communities. Lastly, Alice wrote a memoir called Afterlife.
[00:43:09] I know I say this often, Megan, but I absolutely love the memoir. It was beautifully written. Kim Kardashian did write the Forward in the book, which I think people like to hear her perspective as well. But my favorite part of this book, She outlines where each of her loved ones were when they got the news that she was coming home.
[00:43:29] So there’s like a paragraph on each, like her daughter, her son. It’s so powerful because very rarely do you hear that perspective. You know, we hear from the spec, the perspective of Alice who’s coming home from Kim, who’s helping her come home. But then to hear from her loved ones who finally hear after two decades that their mother, their sister, their daughters coming home.
[00:43:51] So I urge you all to check out that memoir again. It’s called Afterlife, written by Alice Marie Johnson. And you’re gonna loan me the book [00:44:00] right? Obviously, so Megan, how did Alice end up in her situation life without parole for a nonviolent drug offense? Now, we hinted at this a little bit in our discussion, but we have to acknowledge the role that the war on drugs played in this case.
[00:44:18] Now, the War on Drugs was declared by Nixon in 1971, and it was a tough on crime agenda that led to harsh consequences for low level drug offender for low level drug offenders. Overwhelmingly people of color and poor people. Megan, you and I could both teach a whole semester on the war on drugs. Mm-hmm.
[00:44:38] So I’m not gonna go into all of the consequences. In fact, my race and crime class almost primarily talks about the war on drugs, which has been blamed as the reason why mass incarceration for people of color has become so out of control in our country. Analysis case in particular, we see the effects of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which had been amended in 1988 [00:45:00] to add conspiracy to its list of offenses where anybody who knew about a criminal activity and or participated could be called a conspirator.
[00:45:09] And it also required that middleman be punished as harshly as kingpins, and almost all federal offenses carry the label of drug trafficking. Yep.
[00:45:20] Meghan Sacks: And also importantly, this was under the Reagan administration. So even though Nixon was the first to declare a war on drugs, he kinda like said it, it’s been revealed publicly by one of his top advisors that it was a way to oppose, you know, war protestors, civil rights protestors.
[00:45:36] He just didn’t have a method and that was kind of the method. But Reagan was the one who took this war to the next level and made it a full on. War on poor inner city, minority based communities.
[00:45:48] Amy Shlosberg: Yes. And then several presidents after continued his legacy, unfortunately, but luckily, at least for the federal system, there was some easing up on these harsh [00:46:00] penalties in the US versus Booker in 2005.
[00:46:03] And you touched on this a little bit earlier, Megan. Yep. I know this is your, your area, so you can go ahead and explain what happened in that landmark decision.
[00:46:11] Meghan Sacks: Well in that decision, as I said earlier, one of the most significant changes was that the US sentencing guidelines, which had been mandatory and required very harsh, mandatory sentencing ranges, instead of mandatory, they were made advisory.
[00:46:25] So really what this meant is that judicial discretion was allowed to come back into play and judges were allowed to, you know, use their own discretion again to, uh, decide sentencing. It
[00:46:36] Amy Shlosberg: also banned the use of Ghost Dope, which also as we talked about, was the estimated drug quantities. So now, after this case, prosecutors had to present actual weight and amount seized.
[00:46:47] They couldn’t just go on the word of incentivize witnesses regarding the
[00:46:51] Meghan Sacks: amount. I didn’t know that cuz I’d never heard that term. I didn’t even know if that was a part of Booker. Yeah, and I, you know, I have taught about Booker, so thank you.
[00:46:58] Amy Shlosberg: Unfortunately, Booker was not [00:47:00] retroactive, so it didn’t apply to Alice’s case.
[00:47:02] But had she been charged at after the Booker case, then there would’ve been a vastly different outcome in her situation. I don’t think we could ignore that. There also probably would’ve been a vastly different outcome. Um, if she had been a different race and a different socioeconomic
[00:47:17] Meghan Sacks: status, I’m just gonna ask what kind of drugs Alice was a part of.
[00:47:20] You know, this conspiracy for, and I’m gonna make a, an assumption that it was probably crack cocaine. Mm-hmm. Um, so the other gaping disparity here, you know, the other elephant in the room is the fact that the punishments. We’re extremely disproportionate for people who are involved in any distribution of crack versus cocaine.
[00:47:40] Something like, you know, the punishments were, uh, a hundred times harsher. And now the interesting thing here is, um, first of all, you need cocaine to make crack. So crack is a derivative of it. So one could argue cocaine should be punished more harshly, but I think the very obvious. Answer here is that cocaine is used by people who have means, um, [00:48:00] money and are usually white.
[00:48:02] Whereas crack cocaine is used by poor, um, minority people who are using this drug, you know? Probably because they couldn’t afford to use cocaine. So I just wanted to make sure that people understand how this came to be and why there were such disparities. And one of the things Obama also did, mm-hmm. Was to reduce the disparity between the punishments of cocaine and crack by a significant amount.
[00:48:26] Still didn’t equal the amount. Mm-hmm. But he did reduce it and, and made it so that, You know, she would not have gotten the same sentence today, I would think.
[00:48:34] Amy Shlosberg: And while we’re talking about Obama, another fun fact, Obama was the first president in history to visit a correctional facility, if you recall, for the Vice Network.
[00:48:43] He sat down with a group of inmates at a federal correctional facility.
[00:48:47] Meghan Sacks: I do recall shocking that we haven’t had a president who thought a pertinent to visit a pr uh, an, you know, a correctional facility. But I was pleased with that.
[00:48:55] Amy Shlosberg: Clearly this case brought up a lot of important areas of discussion. [00:49:00] I think it’s safe to say no, the system did not get it right.
[00:49:03] Eventually it did, but obviously too late. I think it’s important to know about these cases because there are thousands of people just like Alice, who are still in prison who need help, and I don’t think Kim is gonna be able to help everyone. I do wanna
[00:49:18] Meghan Sacks: point out, sorry, before we wrap. Mm-hmm. I agree with you the, the system, way too harsh.
[00:49:23] But I don’t want anyone to think that I would dismiss, you know, the fact that Alice had a role in distributing drugs. Mm-hmm. And I do believe that she should have been punished for that, to be perfectly honest. But I just believe it should have been a much less severe sentence, but, It’s not to say that we would condone, you know, uh, being involved in drug distribution, I just think mm-hmm.
[00:49:44] You know, I think we both just agree that a nonviolent crime, low level offender should not have ever received anything close mm-hmm. To a life sentence.
[00:49:53] Amy Shlosberg: I agree. And that’s why earlier I said she should have taken the plea. Yes. Obviously hindsight is 2020, but I think based on her [00:50:00] involvement, three to six years would’ve been appropriate.
[00:50:02] I
[00:50:02] Meghan Sacks: actually think so too. We, we, when we talk about that, we often fall on the other side, but yeah, no, that seems like it probably cuz really? Mm-hmm. It, I think it was three to five or three to six maybe you said. And with her good behavior, that really would’ve meant probably two years for her. And that does seem like it would’ve been a very.
[00:50:17] Or a much more appropriate sentence for her behavior
[00:50:19] Amy Shlosberg: probably would’ve been time served, given how long she awaited trial. Right. You know, cases like this just highlight the fact that while we have made some really important changes in our criminal justice system, we still have a long way to go. And if you’re interested in learning more, particularly about mandatory minimums, which is.
[00:50:39] What kind of got Alice wrapped up in the system the way she was families against Mandatory minimums.org is a great resource to learn more about the federal system and different states and different organizations and alliances that you can become part of. Actually, speaking of alliances, the Drug Policy Alliance, the leading organization [00:51:00] in the US that promotes alternatives to the war on drugs.
[00:51:03] They have some really excellent resources on this topic, so if you’re interested in learning more about the war on drugs and mandatory minimums, and you could go ahead and check those out. In addition, I mentioned that Alice does a lot of work with Heal America movement.org, so that’s another place you can check
[00:51:18] Meghan Sacks: out.
[00:51:19] Amy, that’s great that you provide everyone with resources. We really like to, especially we get so many requests from listeners who want to learn more or become involved, so thank you for providing those. Today’s case is one that it highlights so many of the inequities in our system and it’s more of the normal type cases in which we find ourselves, uh, you know, involved in cuz we’re not usually involved with, you know, murders and whatnot.
[00:51:43] But this is a consequence of legislation that affects. Mass amounts of Americans. So I think it’s really great that we talked about it today. I appreciate that you brought us all this information and one of course that I could geek out about all day long. So thank
[00:51:58] Amy Shlosberg: you. Well, thank you all [00:52:00] for listening.
[00:52:00] But before we head out today, Megan, we do have a question from one of our supporters. Okay. And Megan, I think I’m gonna push this question to you and you’ll see why. When it comes to women, are there crimes that they commit that are motivated by gender? Specifically, and I know you teach a whole class on women in crime, so that’s why I’m kicking this one over to you.
[00:52:19] I wouldn’t say
[00:52:20] Meghan Sacks: that it’s motivated by gender specific, but there are definitely crimes that women are engaged in much more because of gender. So a lot of the crimes that women are involved in are crimes of what we would call survival. So for example, um, and this depends on the way you look at it, but women are often convicted of crimes that involve theft, theft of services, so monetary, you know, reasons, um, usually because they need money, um, but also women are convicted at disproportionate rates.
[00:52:52] For sex work. And that is largely because these are women who’ve escaped abusive homes, abusive situations, and they are [00:53:00] just trying to survive. And then unfortunately, they become involved in drugs. So there are a lot of also drug convictions as well, because they become involved in drugs due to also surviving sex work and trading this kind of thing.
[00:53:13] So, Females do get caught up a lot more in these types of what I would call crimes of survival.
[00:53:20] Amy Shlosberg: Certainly. Thank you for that question, and thank you all so much for listening today and we will catch you next time on Women in Crime. Women in
[00:53:29] Meghan Sacks: Crime is hosted by Megan Sachs and Amy Schlossberg. Our producer and editor is James Varga.
[00:53:35] Music composition is by Dessert Media. If you enjoy the show, please remember to subscribe and leave a review. You can also support the show through Patreon where you can get access to additional ad-free content, such as virtual, happy hours, and an extra full length episode each month. For more information, visit patreon com slash
[00:53:54] Amy Shlosberg: women Pride.[00:54:00]
[00:54:11] Sources for today’s episode include Afterlife by Alice Marie Johnson. The Ken Do Foundation, Harper’s Bazaar. Heal America, the Urban Institute, the crime report, and C N N.