The Law That Sent a Man to Prison for Life for Stealing a Pair of Hedge Clippers – and What Prosecutors Can do About It
Last month, the Louisiana Supreme Court to review the life sentence of Fair Wayne Bryant, who was sentenced to life in prison for attempting to steal a pair of hedge clippers more than 20 years ago. Bryant’s sentence was the result of Louisiana’s extreme “habitual offender” law, which allows people to spend life in prison for minor offenses. While the court should have reviewed the sentence, the legislature should abolish this law, and until then, Orleans prosecutors should refuse to seek it.
Habitual offender statutes, known in some states as “three strikes” laws, are a relic of failed “tough on crime” policies that have had devastating consequences for families and communities across the country. Both racist and punitive in their nature, these enhancements drive out of control prison populations in states that have some of the highest incarceration rates in the world, Oklahoma and Louisiana among them.
Under these statutes, a person who is convicted of more than one felony crime faces longer and longer sentences for each subsequent conviction — no matter how minor or how much time has passed since. Not only are these laws racist, they are also ineffective and unnecessary from a public safety perspective. The (64 percent) of people serving time in Louisiana prisons under the law are there for nonviolent crimes, and Black people represent nearly 80 percent of those convicted as habitual offenders.
The sheer cruelty and unfairness of Mr. Bryant’s sentence is enraging and inexcusable, but it is no anomaly: It is part and parcel of a system designed to perpetuate racial injustice and white supremacy.
Louisiana’s extreme sentencing law has condemned thousands of Louisianans to life imprisonment for minor offenses, helping make Louisiana the world’s leading incarcerator. And its longevity is a prime example of how our legal system continues to oppress, brutalize, and imprison Black and Brown people.
In a scathing to the decision, Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson traced the law to the Black codes and “Pig Laws” during the post-Civil War era, which attempted to re-enslave newly-freed Black people.
“These laws remained on the books of most Southern states for decades,” Justice Johnson wrote. “And this case demonstrates their modern manifestation: harsh habitual offender laws that permit a life sentence for a Black man convicted of property crimes.”
Bryant’s outrageous and unjust sentence is a reminder of the urgent need for state legislators to repeal this extreme sentencing law before it needlessly destroys more people’s lives. Ballot initiatives like Oklahoma’s campaign seek to put an end to the destructive power of habitual sentencing enhancements through the electoral process. Fortunately for Louisiana, our district attorneys don’t have to wait.
Prosecutors — right now — have the discretion to stop seeking enhanced penalties under the habitual offender law, and all of us have a responsibility to hold them to it.
There are dozens of district attorneys on the ballot across Louisiana this year — including in Orleans Parish, where District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro is stepping down after 12 years of pushing ineffective “tough on crime” policies.
The ACLU of Louisiana is proud to be among more than 30 organizations in the , which, among other reforms, is calling on Orleans Parish District Attorney candidates to commit to ending all use of the habitual offender law.
Prosecutors have a vital role to play in helping ensure Louisiana finally sheds its title as the prison capital of the world, and declining to seek harsher sentences under this unjust law would be one important step in that direction.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.