So many people hype the fear of crime and terrorism as an easy, quick way to rally support for more police with more weapons, tougher laws, and more prisons that they fail to realize that hyping fear means that truth suffers. Some police and sheriff departments, news media and politicians (and others) have been ignoring reports by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Daily Kos 8/15/14) that clearly indicate the number of U.S. law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is the lowest since the 1960s, despite the population of the country doubling.

It is a frenzy of fear that leads police associations and other groups to complain about being outgunned or to talk about a “war on cops” when felony killings of police have been flat since the late ‘90s and have been on a downward trajectory since the ‘70s. It’s true that guns on the street have gotten bigger, but it’s also true that being a police officer today is the safest it’s been since 1964. The most dangerous year in recent decades was 1973, when there were 134 felony killings of police officers in the line of duty. By 2012 that number had dropped to 47. Indeed, violent crime overall is down in the U.S. – it has fallen by nearly half since 1991.

Gun-related homicides and victimization rates in gun crimes, according to data from both the Pew Research Center and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, confirm that both these rates have decreased by about 75% in the last two decades. In fact, the violent crime rate is about to hit a century low. Despite these facts, the public’s perception of the crime problem is that it is still at an all-time high, thanks to the hyping of crime-fear.

According to Daily Kos, there are 137 SWAT raids a day in the U.S. using heavy assault weapons, and nearly 80% of them are deployed for the purpose of executing a search warrant, primarily for drugs. This is at a time when public opinion is clamoring for more treatment centers for drug addicts and less use of punishment for drug offenses. Why is this happening?

As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing” (June 2014) notes, “American policing has become unnecessarily and dangerously militarized, in large part through federal programs that have armed state and local law enforcement agencies with the weapons and tactics of war, with almost no public discussion or oversight.” Data collection, analysis and reporting have been largely nonexistent in the context of SWAT deployments, which utilize most of the military equipment. Let’s examine this issue of police militarization carefully.

In his book The Rise of the Warrior Cop, journalist Radley Balko notes that since the 1960s, “law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier.” This process was strengthened with the so-called “war on drugs” in the 1980s and 1990s, as federal, state and local governments took a hard line on drug trafficking and other crime. During these years, the federal government supplied local and state police forces with some military-grade weaponry, but far worse was to come.

Unfortunately, there are multiple sources of fear operating in our society – fear of crime and fear of terror. Fear-mongering among those who have hyped the terrorist threat since 9/11 has also played a major role in militarizing our communities.

In late October 2014, an article appearing in Mother Jones described one of the largest conferences in the country focusing on the latest weaponry, training and police gear. This major arms expo, known as “Urban Shield” has been held annually since 2007 in various U.S. cities and draws police from around the world. Urban Shield is funded primarily by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but it also has more than 100 corporate sponsors. Outfitting America’s warrior cops is big business and one fueled in part by DHS grants. The money from DHS grants is earmarked for counterterrorism, but DHS specifies that once acquired, the equipment can be used for any other law enforcement purpose, from shutting down protests to serving warrants and executing home searches.

Police departments also have the option of using funds from assets seized in criminal activities so long as they will be used for some aspect of drug enforcement. Forfeiture funds are a huge pot of money – billions of dollars – and they can be (and have been) used to buy firearms.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into counterterrorism and homeland security programs since 2001, often with sparse oversight and management. It is the overflow of these funds that has allowed many local police departments to acquire their arsenals of military weapons and equipment, including armored personnel carriers called mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles, drones, flashbang grenades, M-16’s and many more, along with other more innocuous supplies, like blankets.

The vehicles and military-grade weapons have primarily been supplied through the Pentagon’s 1033 program (a provision in defense budgets that authorizes the Pentagon to transfer surplus military gear to police forces), but many have also been acquired, as we have seen, through DHS grants. Weapons acquired through DHS grants have been particularly lavish for police departments near our southern border, which can use their weapons against “illegal immigrants.”

As the New York Times notes, “The ubiquity of SWAT teams has changed not only the way officers look, but also the way departments view themselves. Recruiting videos feature clips of officers storming into homes with smoke grenades and firing automatic weapons.” That is how we get images like the ones in Ferguson this past August, where police officers were brandishing heavy weapons and acting as an occupying force rather than the protective law enforcement entities that law-abiding citizens respect.

An ACLU article on December 2, 2014 noted that the Pentagon, through its “1033 program,” has sent over $5.2 billion worth of military equipment or about 460,000 pieces of “controlled” military equipment like assault rifles, armored personnel carriers and aircraft — now considered standard police equipment — to police departments around the country cost-free, since the program was created in 1997 (in the fine print of the National Defense Authorization Act). Not only do most of the police departments lack proper training in the use of the equipment, but as long as the warrior mindset pervades, no amount of training would be sufficient to change attitudes and police culture.

Authorities often claim that the Pentagon’s “1033 program” assists local law enforcement agencies while incurring no costs for taxpayers, but that is not entirely true. All repairs, storage and maintenance of the growing stockpile of equipment have been and will continue to be paid for with tax dollars. Not only is the arms race ignited by militarizing the police wasteful and costly but, far worse, the program is dangerous to the communities involved, because of both the killing and maiming of their citizens. Numerous instances of both have been noted over the past two decades, whether in SWAT raids for drugs (where more than half have yielded no drugs, according to the ACLU) or in other instances of police raids. No complete record of police killings in the U.S. is available.

Only when law enforcement officers cease to treat American communities as war zones will they return to the original concept of policing as a “service of protection.” Only then will we have new respect for the police. No one doubts that the police have very dangerous jobs, especially in a country that has more guns than people. But this does not change the fact that law enforcement officers are called upon to protect and serve the people in this country.

It would seem that the paramilitary training necessitated by the use of military-grade equipment as well as an increasing emphasis on officer safety before all else has brought about a change in the culture of law enforcement. If police perceptions of their patrols are those of a battlefield, then citizens have additional reasons to fear for their lives when they encounter law enforcement officers. And many of us ordinary citizens are people of color and some of us are from poor and vulnerable families and need even greater protection.

In the past 15 years, the U.S. has engaged in a series of wars, military occupations, bombings, air strikes and destabilization of other countries, much of it due to a fear of terrorism. These military activities have inured a large part of the population — and of the police — to endless waves of violence. Almost half of our federal budget, one way or another, is devoted to the military. Until our federal budget begins to focus on the real needs of the people, this type of militarization we are decrying will continue.

Articles in The Guardian have pointed out that if we are concerned about helping the police prevent violence, there are better and more cost-effective ways of doing it. We already know that cities and states with higher levels of education, healthcare coverage and economic opportunity, and lower levels of poverty and income inequality have lower levels of violence/ that is where we should be investing taxpayer dollars.

President Obama, on December 1, 2014, gave his aides 120 days to develop an executive order containing recommendations that would halt a “battlefield mentality” among the police, such as requiring local review of police requests for Pentagon equipment and mandating after-action reports for incidents involving local police use of military equipment.

A few months ago, President Obama said that “one of the great things about the United States has been our ability to maintain a distinction between our military and domestic law enforcement.” In fact, our early Founders, including both Washington and Jefferson, worried that a peacetime military force would harm the republican character of our government. Wouldn’t both Washington and Jefferson be appalled if they were able to view many of our law enforcement officers today?

As the ACLU report on police militarization made clear, “Reform must be systemic; the problems of overly aggressive policing are cultural and cannot be solved by merely identifying a few “bad apples” or dismissing the problem as a few isolated incidents.” President Obama’s request of his aides to develop an executive order for his signature that fully addresses the issue of police militarization is an important step in the right direction, but more may be needed. Above all, we all (and that includes the police) need to spurn our fears of crime and terror and not exaggerate their levels. The truth is quite different than our fears, as the facts make clear.

An excessive reliance on overly aggressive approaches to policing will not end until we stop subsidizing police departments and militarizing them through federal funds. Instead, we should encourage law enforcement officers to protect all human rights and use updated, best practices (from around the world) for protecting and serving the people of this country.

NETWORK, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other faith organizations, is an official supporter of the “Statement of Principles” of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth” (CFSY). These principles reflect our strong moral belief in human dignity and rights – as well as the need to respond to those without power. Because we believe in restorative justice, we readily join with CFSY in stating that youth under the age of 18 have the potential to become rehabilitated and should ultimately be reintegrated into society when they are deemed to pose no threat to the common good.

In addition, NETWORK signed on to a January letter to Pope Francis and to the Papal Nuncio requesting that the pope visit Graterford Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania (about an hour northwest of Philadelphia) when he comes to the U.S. in September. Around 500 inmates in this prison were sentenced as juveniles to life without parole (known as JLWOP) – more than anywhere else.

On February 2, CFSY received a response from Archbishop Caput of Philadelphia that he would speak to the Holy Father about the possibility of a visit to the prison. We are optimistic that Pope Francis, who cares devotedly for the young and those at the margins, will respond positively.

The United States is the only country that sentences juveniles to incarceration for life without possibility of parole. Many other countries allow juveniles to be tried as adults, but sentences in these countries are always subject to review.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that, even for homicide, mandatory sentences of life without parole could not be imposed on juveniles. As is the case for many decisions, this ruling built on previous cases in 2005 and 2010. At the time, Steven Shapiro, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) national legal director, said: “Today’s decision helps to restore some rationality to the treatment of juveniles in our criminal justice system. [Now] judges will at least consider the fact that a 14 year old is standing before them when deciding whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, even in murder cases. The Court correctly held that laws forbidding such informed discretion before sentencing children to die in prison are unconstitutional. They also defy common sense.”

Post-Miller v. Alabama, the defendant’s age must be considered along with a list of potential mitigating factors, but the justices said nothing about applying the case retroactively. By late 2014, five states, including Pennsylvania, have held that it should not. According to an article in the Huffington Post, originally written in August 2014 and updated in October, state prosecutors have continued to wage a bitter fight against human rights groups and victims groups who advocate for the Miller v. Alabama decision to be backdated. One reason for their persistence is that they are reluctant to lose a bargaining chip they find extremely useful in many cases. The Supreme Court tends to stay out of such state-level battles.

“The Sentencing Project,” (SP) an advocacy group for sentencing reform that opposes JLWOP, has been releasing reports periodically since Miller v. Alabama based on surveys of more than 1500 people imprisoned as juveniles to life without parole. Their analyses found that as “tough-on-crime” policies became popular in the 1980s and 1990s, legislators in various states created laws that ignored developmental differences between children and adults and instead focused on the nature of the crime. Even though mitigating factors such as exposure to community violence or having family members in prison contribute significantly to rates of juveniles committing “adult” crimes, these factors were deemed irrelevant. One of the major injustices in the criminal justice systems of the states is their failure to give credence to the human maturation process.

Many other significant findings of “The Sentencing Project” are worth noting:

• More than 2500 inmates (an estimate) who are still incarcerated received their sentences as juveniles for life without parole (without freedom of information requests to every jurisdiction in the U.S., the exact number is unknown)
• Of the 2500, 97% are male and 60% are black
• The proportion of blacks serving life for killing a white person is much higher than the proportion of whites sentenced to life for killing blacks
• The vast majority of these inmates come from violent homes, and nearly half had experienced physical abuse
• Forty percent of all JLWOP prisoners had been in special education classes, and less than half had been in school when they committed their crimes
• More than 25% had a parent in prison, and 60% had close relatives in prison.

The differential value of prison inmates by race is, unfortunately, a notorious fact. As the Huffington Post indicated, “…the mantle of inherent innocence never covered all children equally.” The same article at a later point said that black children were rarely given the benefit of the doubt in the juvenile justice system and were regularly treated inhumanely and as “super-predators” even though they were first themselves victims of terrible violence. And the Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness and Equity maintains that a disproportionate number of African American, Native American and Hispanic youth face higher chances of incarceration than white youth. Josh Rovner, who authored the SP report in mid-2014, said that black youth are “much more likely to be detained, and much more likely to be sent to adult facilities.” Why would we expect that it would be any different than the adult system?

What is most troubling in the latest SP report is the fact that only 13 out of 28 states complied with the 2012 Supreme Court ruling to abolish mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles. A majority of states have done nothing to pursue statutory reform, while others use loopholes in their legislation to continue sentencing minors to life in prison without parole. Overall, a total of 44 states are guilty of these types of offenses. Mint Press News even says, in an article in mid-2014, that a University of Texas study found that juveniles waiting to be tried as adults are often held in county jails, where they are denied access to services and programs they are legally required to receive.

In December 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case, Toca v. Louisiana that should decide whether Miller v. Alabama should be back-dated. A decision is expected in June 2015. If the ruling is implemented in all the states, both the disparity among the states and the current inequity against youth, especially those who are African American, Native American or Hispanic will have finally been put to rest. Last November, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a sharp criticism of our treatment of juveniles and declared that sentences imposed on juveniles “must allow for a possibility of review and a prospect of release, notwithstanding the gravity of the crime and the circumstances around it.”

We at NETWORK agree with the UN and with the principles of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. The practice of sentencing children under age 18 to life imprisonment without parole is a violation of human rights and dignity, our basic moral values, and a conscience rooted in justice – and it flies in the face of all Catholic Social Teaching.

If your March was anything like mine, it was filled with stories, pictures, and news coverage of the fiftieth anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights. It seemed everyone who is anyone traveled to Selma on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday and took their photo walking over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. I read all the articles paying tribute to the leaders of the civil rights movement in the New York Times. I watched Congressman John Lewis introduce President Obama and embrace him in front of a cheering crowd via webcam from my apartment in Washington, DC. I thought I had adequately honored the memory of the pivotal civil rights campaign.

I was unsure, therefore, exactly what I was doing when I boarded my own flight to Alabama on March 20 to participate in a commemoration of the march, organized by the National Park Service. While I was excited to visit the legendary sites and walk the path of my heroes, I worried that our time and resources were being misspent. As a young person mindful of the various and intersecting social justice struggles of our time, I was concerned that the other marchers and I would only look into the past and congratulate ourselves and our country on how far we‘ve come without acknowledging the injustice that persists today. Additionally, since the commemoration was sponsored by a government agency I expected a sanitized, feel-good version of history that ended with “And they all lived happily ever after.”

Checking into the campsite was my first indication of how the next five days would go. I knew that we were camping in tents, but when I arrived I learned that we would be sleeping on the site of a real “tent city.” This was land where black families had lived in tents, sometimes for years, after being evicted by white landlords in retaliation for their participation in the Selma voter registration campaign. The message was well received: this experience would not just be about the march, but also about the aftermath, including the problems that persist today. And while we spent our days learning about the Selma voter registration campaign and walking the route of the 1965 march, we spent our nights discussing ways to challenge the military-industrial complex, economic inequality, and racial injustice in our communities today.

Over the course of the many miles we walked, I talked to: high school students from Ferguson, Missouri; the editor of a new magazine about progressive politics in the South; a community organizer from Pennsylvania working with high-school students to advocate for statewide nondiscrimination legislation; and a woman who ran for a seat in the Tennessee state legislature and now is working on Medicaid expansion, among many others. Many people I talked to were educators, and they spoke to me about the purpose they find in their work— shaping our youth to create a more just future. There were grandparents and children under the age of ten. Lifelong activists walked alongside nonpolitical women and men. Everyone had a unique vision of hope for our country. We also met and heard from many of the “foot soldiers” of the original march, who have continued to stand up against racism in our country and challenge us to take action today.

What I learned from marching cannot be summed up in a short conclusion sentence. What I learned from marching was a new way of relating to the world and with one another. I learned an attitude that sees injustice, talks about it, and ultimately takes action; a reaction that asks questions, listens, and learns before acting; a mindset that understands that we are all connected, our struggles for liberation are intertwined; and our ability to build community and collaborate with one another is the only thing that will lead to progress.

I traveled to Alabama to understand and to honor the participation of women and men of faith in the Civil Rights movement, particularly the women religious who were key participants of the march from Selma to Montgomery. What I learned traveling 54 miles was that the march truly does continue today. The principles that led religious sisters to travel to Selma in 1965 are still relevant, and thousands—including the members of the NETWORK community—still hear and respond to the call to love one another and work for justice.

In an effort to stem the increasing militarization of police, the Obama administration announced yesterday that the federal government will no longer transfer certain military-grade gear and weaponry to local police departments and will severely restrict access to other equipment without stringent assurances of its proper use. We applaud the president for taking these positive steps forward in addressing the deteriorating relationship between police officers and the communities they have sworn to protect and serve, especially communities of color.

When Americans turned on their television sets on August 9, 2014 many were shocked to see members of the Ferguson, Missouri police department in full military gear. They resembled an invading army. It might well have been a scene from Iraq or Afghanistan. This was perhaps the first time that many of us became aware of a growing trend in U.S. law enforcement – the increasing militarization of local police forces. It was unbelievable that police would use military force against fellow Americans. What happened to Officer Friendly – the persona that police departments across the country have promoted for so many years? How did weapons of war become standard issue on the streets of U.S. cities?

Unwittingly, the federal government has contributed to this situation. The federal 1033 program, which authorized the transfer of excess military equipment to local police departments, was initiated in the wake of 9-11 to help build the capacity of local police jurisdictions to combat drug wars and keep community residents safe in the event of a terrorist attack. But, somehow it went wrong along the way.

The president’s executive order is one of a number of initiatives the administration is undertaking to address this situation. In addition, over the next three years, the White House will purchase about 50,000 body cameras to be worn by officers and will assist local jurisdictions to implement technology designed to increase transparency as well as build trust with their communities. These and other community policing recommendations from the Task Force on 21^st Century Policing will form the administration’s strategy to help reform police departments and restore the public trust in communities across the country. This is indeed good news.

Now, Congress needs to follow the president’s lead and end the transfer of military equipment to local law enforcement altogether. With both the executive and legislative branches of government focused on this issue and with increased attention to community policing initiatives that work, perhaps communities and the police who serve them can once again be in ”right relationship.” Who knows? Maybe Officer Friendly will make an encore appearance.

The country may be reaching a tipping point for criminal justice reform. Both on Capitol Hill and on Pennsylvania Avenue, a steady drumbeat for some kind of reform is likely to reach a crescendo as early as September when Congress returns from their August recess.

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), took up the issue just before they adjourned in order to address such bills as the Youth Promise Act co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Scott [D-VA] and Walter Jones [R-NC], the Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective (SAFE) Act co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Scott and James Sensenbrenner [R-WI] and the Smarter Sentencing Act co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Scott and Raul Labrador [R-ID]. All of these bills have Senate cosponsors as well. Before leaving in August, Chairman Goodlatte announced his plan to introduce bipartisan legislation to the floor of the House, and Speaker John Boehner expressed his commitment to bring such legislation to the full chamber for a vote.

Similar efforts are in the works in the Senate. Sens. Dick Durbin [D-IL] and Mike Lee[R-UT] introduced theSmarter Sentencing Act, which proposes the reduction of some mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses; the Second Chance Reauthorization Act cosponsored by Sens. Robert Portman [R-OH], Marco Rubio[R-FL], Kelly Ayotte[R-NH] and Patrick Leahy[D-VT]; the Record Expungment Designed to Enhance Employment (REDEEM) Act cosponsored by Sens. Cory Booker [D-NJ] and Rand Paul [R-KY],and the Corrections Oversight, Recidivism Reduction and Eliminating Costs for Taxpayers (Corrections)Actcosponsored by Sens. John Cornyn [R-TX] and Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI] to reduce the size of the federal inmate population. There are other bills that have been introduced as well. Sen. Chuck Grassley [R-IA], Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, generally a critic of sentencing reform, has been working with a bipartisan group of senators since early August and is said to be poised to bring a bill that reduces the number of federal prisoners and the cost of running federal prisons, to the full Senate chamber for a vote in September.

President Obama has called for a major overhaul of the federal criminal justice system, commuted the sentences of 47 inmates serving long prison terms for non-violent drug offenses and is said to be prepared to make other changes by executive order.

As unlikely as it may be that this dysfunctional Congress can do anything productive, it seems that the stars might just be aligned to actually pass significant criminal justice reform legislation by the end of this year.

Gun Violence Prevention

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for gun violence prevention legislation. While Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX] introduced an NRA-endorsed bill to reward states that submit more information to the federal background check system about residents with known mental problems, it is much narrower than the measure expanding background check requirements for private and gun show purchases, which the Republicans and the NRA defeated in 2013. Sadly, nothing more is happening on this issue now nor is it likely to happen during this term.

They said it couldn’t be done. Six months ago, if you had asked people who follow federal criminal justice reform if there would be a bill on this issue coming out of the 114thCongress, you would have gotten a big laugh. Even Hill staffers would have had a one word answer “No.”

the Senate recently surprised everyone by doing just that. A group of nine Senators from both parties held a press conference to introduce The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 which, by their own description, calls for the most significant reforms of the criminal justice system in decades and saves taxpayers millions of dollars in the process.

The bill includes both sentencing and prison reform. With regard to sentencing, some of the key provisions of the bill target and reduce mandatory minimum sentences for some non-violent drug offenses; reduce the three-strike penalty from life imprisonment to 25 years; apply certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act and other sentencing reforms retroactively; enhance mandatory sentencing for violent firearms offenders and unlawful possession of firearms; and address mandatory minimums for interstate domestic violence.

To address the burgeoning federal prison population, the bill requires the implementation of evidence-based recidivism reduction programming that not only enhances rehabilitation but also enables offenders to earn ‘credits’ for time served; requires a post-sentencing risk and needs assessment for all prisoners; limits solitary confinement for juveniles and establishes eligibility for parole for juveniles sentenced to life terms as adults or to terms longer than 20 years. Additional administrative reforms are included that require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to operate more efficiently and effectively.

Among the co-sponsors of the bill is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), previously a staunch opponent of reducing mandatory minimum sentences and other reforms to the criminal justice system. A concerted advocacy effort on the part of the faith community and our national and grass roots partners had a positive impact on his eventual ‘change of heart’. The other original co-sponsors include – Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Tim Scott (R-SC).

While ultimate passage of The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 is not guaranteed, it is an extremely encouraging sign that Congress can accomplish big things if legislators work together for the common good.

Ok, House of Representatives – it’s your turn!

Last week, soon after the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, 20 senators spoke out for commonsense measures to #StopGunViolence. The gun violence crisis is real, and each of us must call for quick action.

Each day, our nation adds new names to the horrifically long list of people who have lost their lives because of guns. In fact, the number (more than 1.5 million) of those who have died because of guns just since 1968 exceeds the number of Americans who have died during ALL U.S. wars (under 1.4 million). Gun violence is one of the most important moral issues we face today.

There is something particularly insidious about the way we treat gun violence in this nation. Immediately after highly publicized shootings, public demands for action to curb such violence are strongly and quickly resisted by a relatively small group of extremists who always seem to triumph, no matter how absurd or dangerous their claims. They actively work to increase people’s fears, citing bogus “facts” to support what they say while deliberately intimidating anyone who disagrees with them.

That intimidation has a strong effect on politicians, who fear the wrath of the NRA and smaller groups of gun rights extremists. But the extremists also target ordinary citizens, showing up at public meetings carrying guns and attacking through social media and other means anyone calling for changes in gun regulations. People are understandably frightened when gun-toting bullies threaten them either directly or indirectly.

Extremists make the absurd claim that we can lower gun violence with easier access to guns. Reasonable people, including a huge percentage of gun owners, favor gun regulations that include stronger background checks for gun buyers along with measures to close loopholes and stop the spread of illegal guns. These are minimal ways to begin to address the gun crisis we have today.

Congress has a duty to listen to the reasonable people, not the extremists, and make us all safer. Legislators currently working on firearms regulation legislation must step up their efforts. And President Obama should also take action now to address loopholes that make it easy for violent people to get guns.

We the People must stand up to the bullies. Today’s epidemic of gun violence requires an urgent response. We must act now.

Dear Speaker Ryan,

Congratulations on your election to Speaker of the House. As you are well aware, we are in a period of great importance for our nation, and your election is highly significant for the future of all the people who rely on your leadership. This is surely not an easy task, but we are hopeful that we can work together to make progress on this goal.

We at NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby look forward to seeing a familiar face in the Speaker’s office. We value having a leader of the House of Representatives who listens to the message of the Gospel, is familiar the tenets of Catholic Social Teaching, and truly wants to make this country a better place for its residents. Though we may differ on many of the policy solutions, we desire the same result, a nation that cares for those who are vulnerable, elderly, sick, immigrants— a thriving nation made up of strong communities.

We agree with you that the House of Representatives “represents the best of America, the boundless opportunity to do good.” We know you have made poverty a special focus of your work over the past few of years. We are grateful that you and other colleagues are giving this issue extra attention in Congress. As Pope Francis said:

“Poverty in the world is a scandal. In a world where there is so much wealth, so many resources to feed everyone, it is unfathomable that there are so many hungry children, that there are so many children without an education, so many poor persons.”

Catholic sisters, including the founders of NETWORK, have been serving and accompanying families and individuals on the economic margins for centuries. We are moved to do this work by our belief that all are made in the image of God. Our common belief in the Dignity of the Human Person means that all women, men, and children are worthy of care and having their basic needs met. We are jointly motivated by the principle of theOption for the Poor and Vulnerable, which calls us to consider the needs of those who are most marginalized and most vulnerable before any other considerations. The Catholic faith we share with you inspires us to work for a nation where all can live safe, healthy, and fulfilled lives. We have faith that you will try to live out this sacred trust as Speaker, and we hope that you will legislate to make sure the needs of all our sisters and brothers are met.

There are many challenges we must overcome to reach that society. Last year more than 45 million people experienced poverty in the United States, over 30 million people did not have health insurance, and over 15 million children lived in food-insecure households. We strongly feel, as Pope Francis said in his address to Congress, “Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a “culture of care” and “an integrated approach to combating poverty.” We will continue our work on Capitol Hill; lobbying for policies that combat poverty and contribute to a culture of care, and we invite you to join us in this undertaking.

Congratulations again. We look forward to working with you, Speaker Ryan.

Monday, January 25, 2016 was a double-header for kids in the U.S. criminal justice system, with compassion and justice winning the day. First, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana,held that its 2012 ruling banning life without parole for children must be applied retroactively.This time, Chief Justice Roberts reversed his earlier position against the ban and voted with the majority. Now the U.S. will no longer be the only country in the world that jails kids and throws away the key.

Thousands of prisoners sentenced as juveniles prior to the Court’s original decision, will be able to request a review of their sentences and have a chance for parole. Pope Francis has called for an end to all life sentences, calling life imprisonment a “hidden death penalty.” Additionally, numerous studies have shown children lack the maturity and judgment of adults, and both their capacity to act responsibly and their ability to reform increases with age. With this decision, the Court aligns the law with existing scientific evidence, real life experience, and basic respect for human dignity.This is a major step in ensuring fairness and compassion in the juvenile justice system.

Second, on the same day, President Obama issued executive orders banning the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons. Responding to a Department of Justice study regarding the use of solitary confinement by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, President Obama observed, “The practice of solitary confinement in the federal prison system is overused and has the potential for devastating psychological consequences.” The president’s orders also provide relief to prisoners who are typically subjected to solitary confinement for committing “low-level infractions” and expand access to treatment for mentally ill prisoners.

Traditionally, as a nation, we have not been concerned with how prisoners were treated once they were incarcerated. Clearly, we should care. Many studies show a link between isolating prisoners and an increase in rates of recidivism. The stories of prisoners held in solitary confinement who have developed mental illness or have taken their own or other’s lives once released from prison should serve as cautionary tales.  As the president said, “It [solitary confinement] doesn’t make us safer. It’s an affront to our common humanity.”

All justice-seekers should applaud and support the momentous juvenile justice reforms announced this week. It is admirable that the judicial branch and the executive branch have made these changes. But where is Congress? It’s time for Congress to enact comprehensive criminal justice reform.  Call or email your Senator or Congressional Representative and demand that they pass the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (S. 2123) and the Sentencing Reform Act (H.R. 3713) in the House.  When that happens, compassion and justice will have truly won!

Society should hold offenders accountable for their misdeeds. But surely our hearts are big enough to do that with compassion and mercy. “Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy.”