Serving life for a slice of pizza

Many in the US serve life sentences for minor offenses like stealing baby food, a jacket or a bottle of propane gas. Civil rights activists are now demanding that the law be changed.

"They treat him like a dangerous criminal." Judith Minor has had to live with that reality for the last 13 years - ever since her son Ricky disappeared behind the bars of Yazoo City Jail in Mississipi because he had drugs worth a handful of dollars on him. He was sentenced to life without parole - something his 76-year-old mother just cannot fathom.
But his case is no exception in the US justice system. It could be a pair of socks, a slice of pizza - many petty thieves serve life sentences in the US. Ricky Minor's offense was carrying one gram of methamphetamine. He is just one of the 3,300 people that serve life sentences without parole for minor, non-violent offenses in the land of the free.
"These are people who are sentenced to die in prisons for shoplifting three belts from a department store, for stealing gasoline out of a truck, for having a bottle cap with an unweighable amount of heroin," says Jennifer Turner from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
"There are tens of thousands of others serving excessive sentences, many others who will die in prison because they've been sentenced to such long sentences that aren't formally life without parole but who will never see freedom again," Turner adds.
In their report "A living death," Turner and other activists are sounding the alarm over these conditions.

Ricky was sentenced to life without parole

"These sentences are the direct result of laws that were passed over the last 40 years, as part of the war on drugs and tough-on-crime policies. Those policies led to the passage of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, three-strikes laws and other mandatory sentencing laws," Turner told DW.
Three strikes and you're out
Those laws stipulate sometimes draconian punishment for petty crimes. In some states, like Louisiana and Florida, the three-strikes law puts anyone in jail for life who has been convicted three times.
"They had committed those prior crimes as long as two or three decades earlier. Some hadn't even done any time for their prior crimes because they were so minor," said Turner.
She tells the story of a man who was sentenced to life because he was caught stealing the age of 16. "It was used to sentence him to mandatory life without parole. And in that case he was sentenced to life without parole for steeling his stepfather's gun after his stepfather shot at and threatened to kill his mother." The stepfather got off scot-free.
Another man has to spend the rest of his life in prison after he tried to steal a leather jacket worth $150 (110 euros). "These sentences are grotesquely out of proportion," Turner says. And she is not alone in thinking that.
"My hands are tied, I have no control over the sentence I give you, you don't deserve life," Minor's judge said. His mother remembers it vividly. "I almost came out of my chair."
Inevitable sentence
But the judge was right, the law is binding, a true verdict is not expected from the judges, Turner says. "The judges simply cannot do what they're supposed to do - which is to judge, which is to select a punishment that's appropriate for both the crime and the person before them and, in fact, they have to use these mandatory laws that automatically require them to lock up the person and throw away the key."
She says she has come across many legal experts who've said "I disagree with the sentence. As a judge, as a citizen of the US, as a taxpayer. This is a travesty and it's silly. But I don't have a choice."
The contentious law costs $1.8 billion worth of taxpayers' money annually. "I don't think that voters who supported these legislations and even some of the legislators who passed these laws necessarily envisioned that people would be locked up for the rest of their life for shoplifting a jacket," Turner says, but these sentences are being handed down every week.
"A judge should have the discretion not to give a life sentence," says Burl Cain, a warden at Louisiana State Penitentiary, which is nicknamed Angola. "This is not what the forefathers envisioned when they wrote the constitution. That's extreme. That's cruel and unusual punishment to me."
Vicious cycle
Nationwide, in 65 percent of these cases the perpetrator is African American, in Louisiana, it's 91 percent of cases, according to the ACLU report.

The US Attorney General also sees room for improvement

"We have only 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's prisoners are in the US," Turner says.
No wonder then that the federal prisons are bursting at the seams because they have exceeded their capacities by 40 percent.
"A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities," Attorney General Eric Holder said recently, when he announced an overhaul of the justice system. Under his plans, petty criminals serving drug-related sentences are to be released.
A good start, according to Turner, but not enough. ACLU wants to pressure Congress to repeal the contentious law. A petition to President Barack Obama is also in the works.
For Judith Minor and her husband it is a race against time. Their son, she says, had done everything to further his education in prison, to prepare for a new beginning.
When they go to see him in prison, he often dreams of being outside with his dog, looking up at the trees. "He's ready to come home," Judith says. "He longs for the day he might just get out while we're still alive. That's our one hope, that we get to see him released from prison."

DW.DE

Europe's role in East Asian islands dispute

China has snubbed Japan by setting up its new 'air defense zone' near disputed islands in the East China Sea. The situation also affects the EU. What can Europe do?

Beijing recently announced the establishment of an "air defense identification zone," a new measure that could deepen the territorial dispute with Tokyo over an island chain in the East China Sea.
Chinese fighter jets may now intercept Japanese aircraft flying over the disputed territory. Japan has reacted angrily. A senior Japanese foreign ministry official lodged a protest with the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo saying that Japan could "never accept the zone set up by China."
Similar air defense zones, set up by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan on the East China Sea, also exist. These zones overlap in several places. Liu Jiangyong, professor of international relations at Tsinghua University, says that China is only catching up other countries in this area: "I am of the opinion that China has set up the air defense zone too late," the Chinese expert told DW.
Small islands, big consequences
The islands, which are called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, have a total area of about seven square kilometers. The dispute is primarily about who has sovereignty over the islands. However, it's also about rich fishing grounds, mineral resources and access to key international sea lanes passing through the archipelago.
The conflict is also fueled by rising nationalism on both sides. A study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) states: "Mutual resentment limits the ability of both Chinese and the Japanese governments to make compromises to resolve the dispute over the island chain."

The dispute over the islands is partly fueled by rising nationalism in East Asia

Since there is no institutionalized system for dealing with maritime incidents, there is a big risk of the conflict escalating. And this would have global consequences. Because of its security deal with Japan, the United States would have to intervene. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirmed this: "We remain steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners."
It's difficult to measure the impact an escalation of the conflict might have on the world economy, as three of the world's largest economies - the United States, China and Japan - are involved in it. But "also German and European economic interests would be affected," according to a report published by the SWP. The report states that trade with East Asia accounted for more than a quarter of total EU trade in 2012. The EU would therefore have good reasons for defending it's interests in the East China Sea.
Europe as a mediator?
But the EU has followed a restrained approach. According to the SWP report, "the EU has restricted itself to calling on both sides to settle the dispute peacefully." However, the SWP experts believe the EU could do more, as it is not directly involved in the conflict, unlike the United States and East Asian countries.
The institute, which also advises Germany's parliament and federal government suggests: "For these reasons, it is important for the EU to act preemptively. This requires that the Union intensifies its political ties with East Asia." A strategy for East Asia must be drafted in the interest of the EU, the document adds.
Arbitration could first take place on a low level, starting with, for instance, scientists, former political decision-makers, members of civil society or between government officials and non-official representatives.
The SWP report ends with the following sentence: "This way, the EU could make a name for itself as an independent player in the region - between the USA and China."
Skepticism about EU's role
Edward Schwark, Asia expert at the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) agrees that there's a lot at stake for the EU. But Schwark is skeptical about a potential European involvement.

The conflict is also about rich fishing grounds, mineral resources and access to key international sea lanes

"There are already too many players involved in the dispute in the East China Sea. I don't see what the EU will be able to contribute. Furthermore, it will be difficult to justify such a move vis-a-vis the states in the region, particularly China."
Schwark explains that Beijing has always insisted on bilateral negotiations and pronounced itself against international solutions. The expert therefore believes that "the EU would cause more problems than it would solve." Instead, he argues, the EU should speak out in favor of freedom of navigation and against unilateral attacks on the sovereignty of any nation.

DW.DE

Opinion: Thailand needs to change

Only when the scenes of brotherhood that followed the street clashes in Bangkok lead to far-reaching social changes will Thailand be able to become a stable democracy, says DW’s Rodion Ebbighausen.

The street clashes in Bangkok are over. On government's orders, Thai police dismantled the barricades and cleared the way to the government's power centers. The adversaries in the power struggle now lie in each other's arms.

Rodion Ebbighausen of DW Asia

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra made the right decision by pursuing a strategy focused on easing tensions. The wave of protests can now continue peacefully, instead of being violently broken up at the barricades. Yingluck is aware that her government enjoys the support of the majority of people. This makes her so strong that she can withdraw the security forces without having to fear for her government's survival. The call from opposition leader Suthep Thaugsuban to continue the struggle appears to be adrift.
The end of the protests, as long as it is not disturbed by a desperate act of violence, can mark a new beginning. In the long term, Yingluck should use her strength to unite the deeply polarized Thai society. The reconciliation process, which has so far failed to produce concrete results, must be undertaken seriously. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before the next round of street riots erupts.
Thailand has been striving for more democracy since 1992. The Southeast Asian nation has been undergoing radical changes ever since. The upheavals during this period led to several crises, which deepened the divisions between people. The old elites find it hard to give up their privileges and to accept the majority vote. The ruling party of the Shinawatra siblings finds itself often unable to resist the lure of populist promises.

DW.DE

On the path to unity, both sides will have to make unpalatable compromises. Yingluck will have to stop consulting her exiled brother as a "gray eminence" on Thai politics. Only then will be a chance of regaining the trust of political opponents. The yellow shirts, on the other hand, will have to accept that it is the majority that sets the country's direction.
Both sides must overcome their widespread friend-enemy thinking. In a democracy, the political opponent is not an enemy that must be destroyed. It is about uniting the majority of citizens with better arguments. There is always a possibility that today's opposition parties make up tomorrow's government. Therefore, the political struggles must not be carried out in such a way that they make reconciliation impossible.
Yingluck can now prove how strong she really by sticking to her offer of dialogue even after the protests wane. From a position of strength she can admit mistakes and make offers that do not humiliate the opposition. Only then can Thailand find the path to a form of democracy that is suitable for the country.