By Bishop Adam J. Richardson, Jr., Bishop, African Methodist Episcopal Church Second Episcopal District, March 15, 2006.

Greetings and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this crucial social justice bill in Maryland.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church (AMEC) is among the largest religious denominations in the United States, with 2.8 million members. For 219 years, the AMEC denomination has been in the forefront of the struggle for equal justice for all people.

I am pleased to serve as bishop of the AME Church’s Second Episcopal District, representing 150,000 members of AMEC congregations in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C. A substantial number of these congregations are located throughout Maryland.

I am testifying in support of SB592 today because of the tremendous harm that mandatory drug sentencing laws have had on poor and oppressed communities. This is especially significant among African-Americans.

In Maryland, African-Americans comprise 28 percent of the general population and roughly the same percentage of drug users. However, African-Americans comprise an astounding 68 percent of people arrested for drug offenses in Maryland and 90 percent of those incarcerated. There’s something terribly wrong (and unjust) with this picture. We believe that the only way to correct this injustice is to allow judges to determine appropriate sentencing for drug offenders on a case-by-case basis.

This is not a trivial issue for the AME Church’s Second District. Indeed, our seven-point vision explicitly includes “Ministry to the incarcerated.” How better can we serve this population than to ensure that people are not incarcerated any longer than a judge deems necessary and appropriated? Our other vision-points include: “Ministry to Youths and Young Adults;” “Ministry to Men;” and “Ministry for Health and Personal Development.” All of these missions would be helped and strengthened by SB592.

As bishop, I am committed to visiting every congregation in the Second District during my tenure. I am making a priority of mobilizing these congregations in support of sentencing reform. I hope that I can tell these congregations the good news that their state legislators supported just and compassionate sentencing laws.

This is not an abstract issue for me. As an AMEC minister, I recall several families suffering from the loss of their loved ones to excessive mandatory drug sentences. I am moved to fight for these families, and I know that other AMEC congregations in my district also have experienced the devastating effects of these laws.

Many have felt helpless, knowing that the hands of judges were tied by the legislature. The passage of SB592 would provide judges with the opportunity to do something about it. By working to change these laws, AMEC members can help people in their communities, and countless others in similar situations. We can restore justice to the state’s criminal justice system and restore hope and the opportunity for healing to those whose drug addiction has gotten them bogged down in a legal quagmire.

Make no mistake. Neither I nor AME Church congregations are naive to the problems of drug addiction and drug trafficking. I have hands-on knowledge of the challenges of substance abuse. Before moving to the Second District, the congregation I formerly served in Tallahassee, Florida operated a drug treatment program that included outreach vans that identified and engaged substance abusers from the street corners. That organization also ran groups inside of penal institutions to address the needs of those imprisoned on drug charges.

I recognize that some drug dealers are immoral profiteers, exploiting others’ addictions to get rich at any cost, including the use of violence and intimidation, damaging entire communities because of their greed. Fortunately, HB877 would still allow judges to impose long periods of incarceration when necessary.

However, many of the people currently given mandatory sentences are themselves victims — of poverty, despair, addiction, abusive family situations, and so on. That should not absolve them of their responsibility to society. However, judges should be given the authority to consider each defendant’s role in the offense, the likelihood of committing a future offense, the role of addiction and the possibility of recovery.

Those of us sitting here in this room today are not omniscient. We cannot pretend to know all of the facts about every individual who will someday be charged with a drug offense. We cannot know, for certain, exactly what sentence would be most appropriate for every offender based solely on the quantity of drugs involved. That is why we have judges. That is why justice can only be served on a case-by-case basis. Some people might deserve a lengthy prison sentence. For others, some combination of a shorter stay in prison, combined with treatment and community service, might be best. That is a matter for judges, not legislators, to decide.

If I thought that there was any chance that passing this bill would increase drug abuse and addiction, I would not be here testifying today. Instead, I believe this bill will reduce drug addiction by giving people a chance to transform their lives. All people, even those arrested on drug charges, are precious children of God with inherent worth and dignity. We cannot paint them all with the same brush through a mechanized system of sentencing that fails to give each one fair consideration and an individually tailored sentencing and treatment package. Such dehumanization feeds the conditions that foster drug abuse and addiction and erode entire communities’ respect for the justice system. We can do better. We must do better. Please support SB592.

Thank you.