The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

October 20, 2009

“Criminalizing” Poverty, How Public Policies Result in the Over-Incarceration of Low-Income Communities in America"

“Criminalizing” Poverty, How Public Policies Result in the Over-Incarceration of Low-Income Communities in America"
By Tracy Velázquez, Executive Director, Justice Policy Institute
October 13, 2009:

One of the early lessons in school civics is that “justice is blind”—that is, all citizens get equal treatment in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, this ideal has become an American myth. First, people living in poverty get swept into the criminal justice system more often than their better-off counterparts. Once there, they are at a real disadvantage in a court system where money can buy freedom through quality representation. And after they are incarcerated, they are relegated to poverty once again because of the punitive barriers society has set up to prevent their success.

This system is not only unfair, it’s counterproductive to our country’s overall well-being. Unless we as a nation take ownership of this flaw in our current system, we will continue to be the world’s biggest jailor, with the social and economic costs that accompany that shameful moniker.

Policing the poor

Recently, I was visiting my friend Rachel, who lives and teaches in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City. Having started as a Teach for America participant who chose to stay on after her two-year stint, she is well connected with her predominantly Dominican neighborhood’s assets and challenges. In commenting on her experience taking classes at Columbia’s Teachers College on the Upper West Side, Rachel said, “You know, I finally get why people in this neighborhood end up in trouble more. Compared to down by Columbia, the cops are everywhere here in the Heights, all the time. And judging by the warnings I get from campus, it doesn’t look like there’s any more crime up where I live.”

Rachel had, on her own, come to see what those who advocate for low-income communities have known for a long time: America over-polices the poor. It makes sense that places with more crime would have a stronger police presence than communities with less. However, more policing in low-income areas results in more arrests and incarceration for offenses that would likely be handled informally or not at all in another neighborhood. For example, someone smoking a marijuana joint on a bench or their front porch in a more affluent neighborhood is unlikely to be observed by a police officer who would arrest them. More police can also mean more encounters with police – what some might consider “hassling” – which also can result in arrests that just wouldn’t occur otherwise.

Many have asserted that a significant component of over-policing is race. For instance, between January 2006 and September 2007, “random” frisks by New York City police included 453,042 blacks and only 94,530 whites. However, with race and income so closely intertwined, it is often difficult to separate the two. And the result is still that low-income individuals are more often the target of police attention, which means more are arrested and move deeper into the criminal justice system.

“When the lawyer you choose matters most”

The above phrase shocked me as I listened to public radio on my way to work recently. It was the tagline for a law firm that was underwriting the program, and it was impossible for me not to think about it in terms of what it means for people in poverty that have been arrested.

In this day and age of complex proceedings, a multitude of laws, and serious and lasting consequences of a criminal record, the idea of not having a lawyer represent you in court seems almost unfathomable. In fact, in 1963’s Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” However, individuals of lower income generally don’t choose their lawyer; one is assigned by the court. Or one should be, anyway; unfortunately, over one in four people in jail charged with misdemeanor offenses reported not having been represented by counsel.

The vast majority of public defenders are qualified, dedicated attorneys, but many work in conditions they describe as “assembly line justice.” Small budgets – which are now shrinking during this economic downturn – mean many public defenders have barely met their client before they have to go into court and defend them. Of people in prison with court-appointed counsel, only 37 percent in state facilities and 54 percent in federal facilities spoke with their attorneys within the first week after arrest. In contrast, of people with hired counsel, three in five in state facilities and three-fourths in federal facilities had been in contact with their attorneys about their charges within a week of arrest. In an effort to manage their caseloads, public defenders are under pressure to resolve cases quickly, with little time to investigate leads that might have resulted in the case being dismissed or the charges lessened.

What is the result? State defendants with a public defender are sentenced to prison or jail more often than those with private attorneys. People who can afford a private attorney are less likely to go to state prison.

In addition, about half of individuals using a public defender or assigned counsel were released from jail prior to trial, compared to over three in four with a private attorney. Part of this may be a result of differences in representation; it is likely also because people who use public defenders are generally the same people who can’t afford to post bond. With courts demanding higher bail amounts, fewer and fewer people are able to post bond and be released from jail while awaiting trial. Currently, more than 60 percent of people in jails across the country have not been convicted of any offense. The inability to post bond not only makes it harder for people accused of crimes to meet with their lawyer and talk to people who might be able to aid in their defense, it also makes it harder to hold down their job and maintain custody of their children—even though they are still considered innocent.

Substituting corrections for treatment

Adult and juvenile correctional facilities are now among the country’s largest providers of mental health care: this is true both in large, urban areas (the Los Angeles County Jail is now the largest mental health facility in the country) and smaller, more rural ones (the largest provider of mental health care in Alabama is the prison). A key driver of this is lack of access to community mental health services. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, over a third of the poor and 30 percent of the near-poor (incomes ranging from the poverty line to twice the poverty line) lack health coverage. And according to the National Survey of Drug Use and Mental Health, 42 percent of those who needed mental health treatment but didn’t get it said the primary reason was that they couldn’t afford it. Underinsurance is also a problem: 34 percent of insured people who had unmet mental health needs indicated that cost was a barrier to seeking treatment.

The manifestations of untreated mental illness often lead to behaviors that draw the attention of police—public order offenses that often accompany homelessness, crises that cause law enforcement to intervene, and “self-medicating” with alcohol and illegal drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, nearly a quarter of the people in state prisons experienced mental health issues in the year preceding incarceration, and nearly two-thirds of people in jails live with mental illness. Some parents of children with serious emotional disturbances who are uninsured or underinsured turn their own children over to the police, in an effort to get at least minimum treatment through the juvenile justice system.

People with no access to health care are also likely to return to prison after being released. In a visit I made to a state prison, an individual with a serious mental illness told me that earlier that year he had been released from prison with 10 days worth of medicine and $100 in cash. He was left on his own to figure out how to manage his illness. He relied on a local clinic for pharmaceutical “samples” for a time, but ended up homeless and self-medicating with alcohol and other drugs. This eventually led to his being re-incarcerated.

A large percentage of incarcerated people also have a substance abuse disorder. Over half of people in state prisons meet the criteria for drug dependence or abuse. Once again, low-income people with a substance abuse addiction are disproportionately incarcerated as they cannot access treatment. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that 37.4 percent of people who sought substance abuse treatment indicated they didn’t receive it because they had no health coverage and couldn’t afford the cost of treatment. This lack of access, combined with the criminalization of addiction, mean thousands of people end up in prison or jail for drug possession or distribution or other offenses that would support an addiction.

Continuing barriers to opportunity

Currently, one in 31 people in the United States is under correctional supervision—whether in prison or jail, or on parole or probation. And millions more have a felony record that will never be erased, creating hardships for those trying to regain their lives and be a productive member of their community.

Adding to these difficulties is the fact that the correctional population is already largely made up of lower-income people. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002, eighty-three percent of people in jail reported income of less than $2,000 in the month prior to arrest, one-third lower than the average monthly wage of the general public.

Many people who have been incarcerated face obstacles when attempting to find a job and housing. In a report for the Brookings Institution, Richard Freedman found that jail time reduced the probability of employment by between 15 and 30 percentage points. In addition, people leaving prison, regardless of their pre-incarceration status, are especially vulnerable to homelessness, often banned from federal housing, face challenges reconnecting with family and friends, and lack the funds to afford available housing. Often, the obligations of parole fees and years of child support that went unpaid during their period of incarceration make it almost impossible to become economically successful.

Conclusion

The impact of the criminal justice system on low-income communities can’t be ignored. At every stage of the process – from who is arrested to who is convicted and who eventually loses out on their rights – the poor are disproportionately affected. Policymakers continue to incarcerate millions of people, most of whom would not be in the system if there were more adequate resources in their communities. How can this situation be addressed, so that poverty and prison aren’t inevitably intertwined?

The U.S. should provide meaningful access – regardless of ability to pay -- to community-based treatment that would ensure that people get the mental health and substance abuse treatment they need before they collide with the justice system; this would improve both public safety and individual life outcomes. A healthcare “safety net” that will cover formerly incarcerated individuals also will save states millions in reduced rates of recidivism and re-incarceration.

Instead of overfunding incarceration and policing, we should make investments in resources for low-income communities that are already at a disadvantage due to their socioeconomic status. This means better schools, more job development, and more programs that can help people – and particularly youth – succeed. These types of investments will create healthier, safer communities and reduce the use of prisons as an answer to poverty and other social problems.

Tracy Velázquez is Executive Director of the Justice Policy Institute, a nonprofit working to promote effective solutions to social problems and dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=5f13e0fe-a47d-4ce4-a945-187fc331e81d

Posted by lois at 09:28 PM | Comments (0)

September 23, 2009

VA: Lorton prison turned into an arts center

‘We really are just beginning’
By Janet Rems

The Workhouse Arts Center in Lorton has already accomplished so much that people think this vibrant, rapidly growing arts community has been around longer than one year.

“We really are just beginning,” said Sharon Mason of Springfield, the Workhouse’s executive director, during a recent conversation at the former 30-building prison on 55 acres off Ox Road.

Officially opened on Sept. 19 of last year on the site of the readapted D.C. Workhouse & Reformatory, the Workhouse houses 100 professional artists, selected in a juried competition. There is also a healthy waiting list of artists who have also completed the jurying process, according to Mason.

In their lease agreements, all Workhouse artists commit to a minimum of 100 hours per month of studio time so that the public can observe them directly at work. The artists are housed in 10 of the prison’s original brick buildings, which along with the other prison buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Readapted with state-of-the-art studios and separate retail spaces, each is dedicated to a particular medium, such as the visual, ceramic, glass and fiber arts. And students who begin at the institution can eventually become artists there, as four beginners who started learning at the Workhouse Arts Center are now working in “emerging-artist” space given to them for a year.

“We’re getting known throughout the country. That was the goal for this year,” said Rick Sherbert, 52, of Herndon. Sherbert is a blown-glass artist and director of the Workhouse’s Glassworks, whose eight artists occupy building 7, and said the goal for next year will be “refining” the operation and bringing in more people to teach. This year, the center housed world-famous glass artist Milon Townsend, who recently visited and taught a master class on his flame-working technique.

“Were getting on the radar of people who are well-known, people like Milon Townsend, who’s psyched about what we’re doing here,” Sherbert added.

In the far future, Sherbert said he would like to build a “hot shop” where artists blow and shape objects from molten glass. If he could work it out, he would fuel it by piping in methane gas from the landfill next door.

Springfield resident Dale Marhanka, 44, director of Workhouse ceramics in building 8, remains thrilled by what he regards as his “once-in-a lifetime opportunity.”

The mix of professional and emerging artists that work alongside him, as well as newer students and visiting public, have generated a wonderfully “interactive, highly dynamic environment,” he said.

Marhanka, who as an artist does mostly sculptural vessels, said other priorities for the institution include expanding infrastructure, such as finishing the studio’s kiln yard; growing the student body; and reaching out to area schools, such as nearby South County Secondary School.

But the consistently positive responses of visitors show that the center is on the right path, he said.

Giving a recent example, he related that his five resident ceramic artists and students made 350 ceramic bowls for use at an ice cream social in July on the Workhouse quad. They sold out in just an hour. More than 1,000 people came through the ceramics building during that event, Marhanka estimated.

Working in clay, like sharing food, brings people together and “provides a foundation for dialogue,” he said.

To keep its pool of artists “fresh,” the artists go through the jurying process when their leases expire in the next three to five years, Mason said.

In addition to studios, space also has been dedicated for rental by the public and rotating exhibitions of works by local and national artists and performers. The arts center already receives about three or four inquiries a day about renting space, Speer said.

By the end of 2010, more than 53 exhibitions will have been mounted, noted Lorton resident Camela Speer, 40, the Workhouse’s public relations and special events specialist.

Shows in the Main Gallery, featuring four different visual artists each time, change monthly.

In addition, studio space has been created in “one of the more unique buildings” for classes in pilates, yoga, tai chi, qi gong, martial arts, balletone and even hula dancing, Speer said.

Also recently opened in building 9 is a small museum dedicated to the site’s history, including the prison’s most famous inmates: Suffragettes who were incarcerated there after protests in Washington, D.C. in 1917.

Though Mason, 62, joked about the stamina it takes to keep up with the Workhouse’s rapid and demanding growth, she is obviously pleased and energized by it, too.

One of the past year’s surprises, Mason said, was the immediate and overwhelming demand for classes. Beginning last October, 130 classes and workshops were offered to the public — and filled rapidly, she said.

“To our amazement, 70 percent of the classes were booked, and they continue to grow,” Mason added.

A film series, started in March at the request of a benefactor, also has been a resounding success.

Lake Ridge resident Joey Wallen, 40, director of the Workhouse Institute, oversees the Workhouse Film Institute and its 13-person staff as one of his multiple duties.

Coming up on Oct. 10 is a short films competition open to everyone, and a festival of Indian Bollywood films follows on Nov. 7 and 8. Bollywood dance workshops also will be held prior to the screenings, and Wallen hopes the event will be the start of an annual “Cinematic Tourists” program that could involve embassies and restaurants, too. He also hopes to hold “something domestic” in the near future, too, such as a film event on Alaska.

“Lots of fun stuff,” Wallen promised.

A $50,000 grant from the Claude Moore Foundation was invested in industry-level film editing equipment and software so the Workhouse could offer classes in this art form, as well.

Because of a temporary space crunch, a hallway was adapted as space for the new editing lab. However, more space will become available as the buildings are renovated in phases.

Julie Booth, 42, a Kingstowne resident and the Workhouse’s community relations manager, has spent a good deal of the past year working with schools, as an “Art for Change” grant allows the Workhouse to bring its resident artists into local school. Art teachers also bring their students to the site for tours.

“They want us to talk about making careers out of art,” she said.

And children’s interest in the center has grown far faster than expected. For instance, its six-week summer camp programs were fully enrolled, Booth noted, and enrollment for next summer begins in February. Demand for year-round children’s programs also is rising.

On the horizon to accommodate this growth is the conversion of a building into an 8,000-square-foot “Kids Zone” with classroom space and a small theater.

Besides the Kids Zone, Phase 2 plans include the readaptation of two more of the site’s 30 buildings. One would become a 9,000-square foot performing arts building with a theater, and the other a 34,000-square-foot special events center. Outdoor event facilities also would be developed at the site of a future Music Barn.

This past summer, performing arts events were housed in a special tent —underwritten by a benefactor — set up on the Workhouse’s central “quad.”

The only new construction so far planned for the site will be 40 units of “live-work” space, or apartments with artist studios that are modeled on a similar art district in Paduca, Ky.

Tentatively scheduled to break ground in March 2010, this housing will be restricted to people associated with the Workhouse. Once a year, the artists residing there will be required to open their studios to the public.

Four units will be set aside for a residency program for artists who would teach at both the Workhouse and Northern Virginia Community College.

Phase 3, expected to begin about 2015, would consist of a state-of-the-art performing arts complex, including the Music Barn, constructed by combining and renovating several other Workhouse buildings, located directly behind the proposed events center. Dance venues, performing arts education and other musical performing arts activities will be the focus of this project.

When completed, the Workhouse Arts Center will occupy approximately 294,000 square feet of arts facilities and approximately 40 acres of open space.

“We’re fully engaged in negotiating with the county and construction companies,” Mason said. “We want to see more people on site more often.”

Helping to make that happen with “all kinds of events to drive awareness” is Andrea Sims, a public relations and special events executive who has been “bringing Hollywood to the Potomac” since moving from Los Angeles.

Known for her celebrity-packed Rolodex, Sims, 58, a nearby Lake Ridge resident, recently began lending her expertise to bringing some sparkle to the Workhouse.

“If you don’t have a celeb, you don’t have a party,” Sims told Forbes when the magazine named her one of the top events planners for “The World's Hottest Parties" in 2006.

And the celebrities have been appearing — most recently, Tippi Hedren, star of Alfred Hitchcock classics “The Birds” and “Marnie,” visited the Workhouse for a special discussion and screening of “The Birds.” Actress Tina Louise, best known for her role as the glamorous Ginger on the TV sitcom “Gilligan's Island” and a personal friend of Sims, read from her new children’s book “When I Grow Up” at another special event.

In the music realm, Betty Buckley — known to television fans for “Eight Is Enough” and to Broadway devotees as the original “Grizabella” in the musical “Cats,” where she sang “Memories”—will headline the Workhouse’s first Art, Wine and All That Jazz Festival on Oct. 3. Deanna Bogart, blues and boogie pianist, saxophonist, singer and the winner of 20 Washington Music Awards, performs Oct. 4.

These stars are just the beginning, Sims said — people should expect “really fun, eclectic stuff to happen” in the next few months.

“We’re going down a lot of different tracks,” she said.
Times Community © 2007 | Fairfax Times
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2009/sep/22/we-really-are-just-beginning/print/

Posted by lois at 12:11 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2009

Prison Comix by Jim Ridgeway

Prison Comix
September 5, 2009

With more and more older people going to prison there is a growing demand for educational materials to keep their minds alive and well amid the deadening atmosphere of the American correctional system—created in large part by government and supervised and informed by the judiciary. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of young and middle-aged people whose “rehabilitation” has been cut short by the cruel sentencing laws.

There are all sorts of projects afoot in this area, but one is of special interest. It is called the Real Cost of Prisons, and is run by Lois Ahrens of Northampton, Mass., on a shoestring. You can get a feel for her work by obtaining the Real Cost of Prisons Comix book which includes three comics: Prison Town about the financing and placement of prisons and their effect on rural communities; Prisoners of the war on Drugs, a history of the war on drugs; and Prisoners of a hard Life,which includes stories of women trapped by mandatory sentencing. To me, this last book is the most telling. PM Press publishes the book at $12.95 a copy.

Ahrens got the idea of doing comic books,partly because she wanted to find a way of communicating with prisoners in a simple,direct way providing them especially up to date information and new research. She hit on the idea,in part from years of going to Mexico, and watching women engrossed in photo novellas while tending market stalls or sitting on park benches. Then trade unionists from South Africa gave her publications chock full of graphics, pictures and text that they were using to educate people in their campaign to stop privatization and in the fight against globalization. She also got ideas from “A Field Guide to the US Economy” by James Heintz and Nancy Foibre which also uses graphs, cartoons and ordinary language to explain the economy.

Because prisoners can’t ordinarily take advantage of the information that currently proliferates on the internet, comic books which speak to their lives and needs, are available and free, she says.

Comic books have been received by prisoners in every state prison system,every federal prison and numerous jails. Thousands more have been sent to prisoners through 13 Books through Bars organizations. We know that comic books are passed hand to hand by prisoners,since as soon as a set is sent to one prisoner,not a week passes before we begin receiving requests from other prisoners at that prison..One prisoner wrotethat he found one on a pew in the prison

Ahrens web site is an up to date resource on prison news.

http://unsilentgeneration.com/category/prisons-criminal-justice/

Posted by lois at 11:51 AM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2009

ColorLines Review: The Real Cost of Prisons Comix: Vivid comics show the impacts of mass incarceration on communities of color

Issue #52, Sept/Oct 2009
The Real Cost of Prisons Comix
By Jenna M. Lloyd
Vivid comics show the impacts of mass incarceration on communities of color.

September 2, 2009

Locking 2.3 million people behind bars is a vast social project. It takes work to hide the equivalent of a large US city in plain sight. The explanations served up on the nightly news and by tough-on-crime politicians graphically focus on violent crime, despite its decline. More prisons, they say, will create safe and drug free communities.

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix (PM Press), winner of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s PASS Award, asks whether the billions of dollars invested annually in mass incarceration delivers on these promises.

Hidden behind these fear-provoking images, the book documents the steep human costs exacted on individual health and freedom, family unity, and community well being. What else could be done with the social wealth and creativity now trapped into cycles of cage-building and neighborhood abandonment?

Through powerful graphics and a wealth of grim statistics The Real Cost of Prisons Comix depicts how the past 30 years of unprecedented prison growth have reshaped the landscape of our urban and rural communities. By showing the concrete work that goes into building and maintaining the prison-industrial complex—from the peddlers of fear to the parole officer—the book serves as a smart, accessible primer on the politics and economics driving prison expansion. Prisons are filled with people who have dreams, raise children, and belong to communities most will rejoin.

The RCPC shows visceral narratives of their lives and the collision of racism, poverty, sexism to trace the systematic ways in which mass incarceration builds on and exacerbates these powerful inequities. Most importantly, it suggests concrete alternatives that can help rebuild safe, healthy communities.

Shrinking the system becomes as important a harm reduction strategy as needle exchange and drug treatment.

Three accomplished comic artists collaborate with long time activists and draw on the work of dozens of researchers imprisoned people, and advocates, to examine one dimension of mass incarceration. Kevin Pyle’s "Prison Town: Paying the Price" shows how millions of dollars poured into moving people hours away from their homes fails to generate promised economic growth for struggling rural communities.

In "Prisoners and the War on Drugs," Sabrina Jones takes on racial disparities in drug laws and policing practices that result in African American and Latino people comprising 93% of those incarcerated in New York, and that lock up more drug users than dealers.

Susan Willmarth’s "Prisoners of a Hard Life: Women and Their Children" examines how women are the fastest growing group of people being imprisoned. Most women are imprisoned for non-violent crimes, half of them drug offenses. But lifetime bans on welfare, public housing, and student loans for felony drug convictions only exacerbate already serious problems of poverty, racism, abuse, and drugs women face in their daily lives.

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix grew out of a popular education project Lois Ahrens began in 2000. Since the first printing in 2005, over 115,000 copies have been distributed free of charge, and project’s website receives over 30,000 page views each month. One of the great things about this book as an organizing tool is that it includes letters from readers of the comic books—imprisoned people, political organizers, policy makers, teachers, social service providers—which give us a sense of how resonant these comics have been, and all of the ways they have been put to work on the ground.


The economic depression and fiscal crises facing so many states make the alternatives to mass incarceration the book outlines all the more timely. But it’s also a time when the government is pouring even more money into locking up immigrants. Doing away with prisons isn’t just an issue of pure economics, but will also require confronting the racism, economic inequalities, and sexism that work to fuel the futureless future that they represent.

Larson, a man who is imprisoned in Sing Sing, reminds us: “Anyone planning a prison they’re not going to build for ten or fifteen years is planning for a child, planning prison for somebody who’s a child right now.” What dreams are never realized when billions go to jails and prisons instead of to rebuilding our decimated cities? The Real Cost of Prisons Comix gives us a solid place to begin building the healthy, safe, and free futures we want.

Jenna M. Loyd is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Place, Culture and Politics at The Graduate Center, The City University of New York. She is also co-editing a collection, Beyond Walls and Cages, that analyzes the connections between US migration policy and mass incarceration, and activist efforts to the brutalities of both systems. She can be reached at jloyd@gc.cuny.edu.
http://colorlines.com/article.php?ID=598

Posted by lois at 03:42 PM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2009

Coalition for Prisoners' Rights Newsletter now can be found on the Real Cost of Prisons website

As many of you know, the C.P.R. newsletter was published for 34 years. In June 2009, they mailed an announcement to their 9,100 subscribers ... almost all of whom are prisoners saying the could no longer afford to keep printing and sending the newsletter. The Real Cost of Prisons believes in the work of the C.P.R. To reach out to families, friends, allies of prisoners, we will post the C.P.R. Newsletters in PDF format beginning with July, 2009. Each month, we will post a new newsletter. The Newsletter is now 2 pages. We encourage you to download the newsletter and send it to prisoners so that they will continue to receive this important source of information and inspiration for organizing that the Newsletter provides.
http://www.realcostofprisons.org/coalition.html

Posted by lois at 07:41 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2009

KY: Supreme Court Announces Pilot Project Allowing for People Charged with 600 Different Offenses Not To Spend Time in Jail

Nonviolent offenders could avoid jail in Kentucky
High court reveals pilot plan to save $12 million each month
By Stephenie Steitzer
August 17, 2009

The Kentucky Supreme Court announced a pilot project Monday that could save counties an estimated $12 million a month by allowing thousands of people arrested for nonviolent, non-sexual crimes to post bail immediately after they are arrested.
Advertisement

The project would set standard bail amounts for roughly 600 offenses, most of them misdemeanors, so defendants don't have to spend a night or weekend in jail waiting for judges to set the amounts for their release.

Individuals would then post bail and leave.

“It is designed to help Kentucky, not hurt Kentucky,” Justice Will T. Scott said.

In the next couple months, the court will pick the counties where it will test the new rules, which would apply mostly to first-time offenders and would include such crimes as marijuana possession, traffic offenses, hunting violations and shoplifting, Scott said.

It costs counties $30 to $50 a day to house individuals in jails. Scott said a nine-month period analyzed by the court found 13,000 defendants in jails who could have been released immediately under the proposed changes.

He said the other benefit of the project is to standardize bail amounts for certain offenses.

Currently, judges determine bail, which can vary greatly depending on the county.

Under the proposed change, judges could still decide to set bail higher than the standardized amount, but they would have to give reasons. Those decisions could be appealed.

Christopher Cohron, president of the Kentucky Association of Commonwealth's Attorneys, said the project “is a perfect example of instituting procedures that financially are going to make a huge impact on our jails but are going to pose only minimal risk to public safety.”

He said state and local governments are struggling financially in the midst of a recession, and officials need to consider all options to reduce costs.

Campbell County Jailer Greg Buckler, who said that he was told by one of the justices that his county could be a candidate for the pilot project, said he generally supports the concept, although he hasn't seen the details.

During the coming Labor Day weekend, Buckler estimates that about 30 people will have to spend the weekend in jail on minor offenses because a judge won't be on duty to set bail.

“If we can get somebody out, especially on weekends … that would save taxpayers some money on incarceration, plus leave more space for the ones that need to be in jail,” he said.

Marshall Long, executive director of the Kentucky Jailers' Association, told The Associated Press that his organization is reserving judgment until after the initiative has been tested.

“I don't oppose trying it,” Long said. “It if works, keep on doing it.

“If it doesn't, stop.”
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090817/NEWS01/908170357/Nonviolent+offenders+could+avoid+jail+in+Kentucky

Posted by lois at 10:41 AM | Comments (0)

Nicholas Kristoff: Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?

Op-Ed Columnist : Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=1
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: August 19, 2009- NY Times

At a time when we Americans may abandon health care reform because it supposedly is “too expensive,” how is it that we can afford to imprison people like Curtis Wilkerson?

Mr. Wilkerson is serving a life sentence in California — for stealing a $2.50 pair of socks. As The Economist noted recently, he already had two offenses on his record (both for abetting robbery at age 19), and so the “three strikes” law resulted in a life sentence.

This is unjust, of course. But considering that California spends almost $49,000 annually per prison inmate, it’s also an extraordinary waste of money.

Astonishingly, many politicians seem to think that we should lead the world in prisons, not in health care or education. The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care — and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor.

It’s time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the criminal justice system, as legislation sponsored by Senator Jim Webb has called for, so that we’re no longer squandering money that would be far better spent on education or health. Consider a few facts:

¶The United States incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average. Of those sentenced to state prisons, 82 percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes, according to one study.

¶California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. In contrast, it spends only $8,000 on each child attending the troubled Oakland public school system, according to the Urban Strategies Council.

¶For most of American history, we had incarceration rates similar to those in other countries. Then with the “war on drugs” and the focus on law and order in the 1970s, incarceration rates soared.

¶One in 10 black men ages 25 to 29 were imprisoned last year, partly because possession of crack cocaine (disproportionately used in black communities) draws sentences equivalent to having 100 times as much powder cocaine. Black men in the United States have a 32 percent chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives, according to the Sentencing Project.

Look, there’s no doubt that many people in prison are cold-blooded monsters who deserve to be there. But over all, in a time of limited resources, we’re overinvesting in prisons and underinvesting in schools.

Indeed, education spending may reduce the need for incarceration. The evidence on this isn’t conclusive, but it’s noteworthy that graduates of the Perry Preschool program in Michigan, an intensive effort for disadvantaged children in the 1960s, were some 40 percent less likely to be arrested than those in a control group.

Above all, it’s time for a rethink of our drug policy. The point is not to surrender to narcotics, but to learn from our approach to both tobacco and alcohol. Over time, we have developed public health strategies that have been quite successful in reducing the harm from smoking and drinking.

If we want to try a public health approach to drugs, we could learn from Portugal. In 2001, it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Ordinary drug users can still be required to participate in a treatment program, but they are no longer dispatched to jail.

“Decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal,” notes a report this year from the Cato Institute. It notes that drug use appears to be lower in Portugal than in most other European countries, and that Portuguese public opinion is strongly behind this approach.

A new United Nations study, World Drug Report 2009, commends the Portuguese experiment and urges countries to continue to pursue traffickers while largely avoiding imprisoning users. Instead, it suggests that users, particularly addicts, should get treatment.

Senator Webb has introduced legislation that would create a national commission to investigate criminal justice issues — for such a commission may be the best way to depoliticize the issue and give feckless politicians the cover they need to institute changes.

“There are only two possibilities here,” Mr. Webb said in introducing his bill, noting that America imprisons so many more people than other countries. “Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.”

Opponents of universal health care and early childhood education say we can’t afford them. Granted, deficits are a real constraint and we can’t do everything, and prison reform won’t come near to fully financing health care reform. Still, would we rather use scarce resources to educate children and heal the sick, or to imprison people because they used drugs or stole a pair of socks?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=1

Posted by lois at 09:15 AM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2009

IL: Cook county Commissioners pass ordinance to decriminalize 10 grams of marijuana

Posted in the Unshackle List serve by:
Catherine Christeller
Executive Director
Chicago Women's AIDS Project

Here is some good news about changes in the marijuana policy in Cook County, Illinois. Evidently this was inspired by a drug policy conference...so let's keep talking.

---------------------------------------------
August 7, 2009

Dear Friends:

Two weeks ago, the Cook County Board of Commissioners, with little fanfare, passed an ordinance decriminalizing low levels (10 grams or less) of marijuana possession in the non-incorporated areas of the County.

Offenders will receive a $200 fine rather than a criminal charge that could haunt them for the rest of their lives.

This action was a direct result of the PCG conference "New Directions in Drug Policy for Illinois" that PCG organized at Roosevelt University on June 12. Commissioner Earlean Collins (D-1st) sponsored the ordinance. A member of her staff had attended the conference, heard that Chicago Heights had taken a similar step, returned to her office and said "We've got to do
this."

At first glance, the new ordinance might not seem very important. The number of arrests for marijuana possession in the area affected by the ordinance is small. But this change is already being noticed by other municipalities around the state. From as far south as Decatur, one of the attendees of our conference called to say that he is leading a group of ministers to push for a similar ordinance there.

And the ordinance is important for deeper reasons. By drawing attention, it is prompting the public to think about whether existing drug laws and their enforcement make moral and economic sense.

Our country has become a prison nation. One in every 100 adults is
incarcerated in the United States, with the rapid increase since the early 1970's due to tougher, more punitive drug laws.

The racial disparity underlying these figures is shameful. About 9% of Whites use drugs in our society, and the figure is about the same for Non-whites. Why is it, then, that 86% of those in prison for drug offenses are Non-white?

Equal protection under law is a fundamental tenet of our faith. In Illinois, we are failing miserably by this standard. A Human Rights Watch Report in 2000 stated that Illinois leads the nation in the racial disparity of those in prison for drug offenses.

Much of this disparity, of course, has to do with unequal enforcement. Street drug trafficking is much more visible to police in poor urban than in wealthier, mostly white suburbs. In Chicago, spaces around schools, parks, and other special areas are designated as mandatory "enforcement zones." This now covers 80% of the entire City.

Commissioner Collins' ordinance decriminalizes an offense that has burdened offenders with a life-long criminal record. Indirectly, it prompts us to consider the possibility that regarding drug offenses as primarily a public health problem is a better response than prohibition - a more effective use of public resources and more likely to produce productive citizens.

Surely even those who argue that drug use should be met with severe
punishment would agree on the following: it is wrong to stigmatize for the rest of their lives those who have committed only minor offenses, and that those who need treatment to overcome the disease of addiction should have a chance to receive it.

At our conference, Rep. Lou Lang (D-16th) described his efforts to get a medical marijuana bill passed in Illinois. (We are close; this may happen next year). He was asked why a conference focusing on drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration should include a discussion of marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana. His answer was compelling: "It is because we have to learn to think differently about drugs, and drug policy in our society. Starting with marijuana helps us to do this."

In the year ahead, PCG will be seeking to build a statewide network that focuses on local drug laws, including marijuana. We will use these opportunities to bring forward the questions of drug policy more broadly. It is wrong that we have become a prison nation; it is backward thinking to view prohibition and punishment as the central answers to drug problems in this country.

Sincerely,

Rev. Alexander Sharp,
Executive Director
Protestants for the Common Good

Posted by lois at 09:09 AM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2009

Review of The Real Cost of Prisons Comix in Feminist Review

Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Real Cost of Prisons Comix
Edited by Lois Ahrens
PM Press

As activists know all too well, crafting a political message and effectively mobilizing an audience is an elusive task. In The Real Cost Of Prisons, Lois Ahrens and her contributors beautifully stage a difficult dialogue—about mass incarceration, mandatory sentencing, and the “war on drugs”—with comics. Comics are an accessible, popular form of education, and most importantly, addictive, and hence become a subversive way to raise awareness. The Real Cost of Prisons Project has distributed 115,000 comics to the incarcerated, affected families, and social justice organizations free of charge. Comics are just one part of the organization’s mission to end mass incarceration; since Lois Ahrens founded organization in 2000 a coalition of artists, activists, and researchers has produced and distributed educational materials about the costs—material and affective—of the prison industrial complex and it’s devastating impact on family preservation, women’s reproductive rights, rural economies, and much more.

“What does it cost to lock up 2.3 million people each day in the world’s biggest prison system?” ask Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore in the introduction to The Real Cost Of Prisons. In addition to the staggering economic costs (the U.S. spends $60 billion per year on prisons) that could otherwise be directed at health care, public education, and other social services, the human costs are immeasurable. In the comic “Prisoners of a Hard Life: Women and Their Children,” illustrated by Susan Willmarth, we learn about the cost of incarceration for women and their children:

*One out of every 109 women in American is incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.
*Half of all women in prison are incarcerated more than 100 miles from their families.
*Seven million children have a parent in prison, on probation, or on parole.
*Seventy-nine percent of all women in New York State’s prisons are Black or Hispanic.

The Real Cost Of Prisons documents the vital efforts of the movement to end mass incarceration, and is an exceptional resource for all activists seeking creative ways to build and sustain a political movement.

Review by Jeanne Vaccaro

Posted by lois at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2009

OR: Tepid Reception for Racial Impacts Proposal. Sponsor finds unease when 'race' enters fray.

Tepid Reception for Racial Impacts Proposal
By Jake Thomas /The Portland Observer
Sponsor finds unease when 'race' enters fray

When Oregon voters jumped on the "get tough on crime" bandwagon in the 1990s by approving Measure 11, they might not have fully understood where it was headed.

Measure 11, which removes the sentencing leeway a judge can give a defendant and imposes mandatory minimum prison terms for certain crimes, has caused Oregon's prison population to swell.

The Department of Corrections estimated that inmates in Oregon prisons will grow by 41 percent because of the measure. This has been particularly hard for Oregon's minority population. African Americans make up nearly 10 percent of the state's prison population, even though they are about 2 percent of the population. Hispanics make up over 12 percent of inmates, while making up only about 10 percent of the general population.

Rep. Chip Shields, D-Portland, hoped to shine light on the issue this year by introducing House Bill 2352, which requires the state to issue a racial and ethnic impact statement any time voters or legislators consider a change to sentencing policy, like Measure 11.

Such a statement would be similar to an environmental or fiscal impact statement, which use existing data to predict how pending legislation will affect the natural world or the state's coffers.

Shields hopes that the bill will make lawmakers and the public aware of the potential for unintended consequences from a change in sentencing policy.

The bill has received a tepid reception so far, which is surprising for a state that prides itself for its tolerance and progressiveness, and recently gave the Democratic Party super majorities in both houses last election,

It passed the House Rules Committee without a recommendation as to passage, with an amendment from the Oregon District Attorneys Association, which would require an additional statement detailing how minorities might be disproportionately affected by a certain type of crime.

"I've got to do some more educating of the body on the bill," said Shields.

One of the issues he says he has encountered has been his fellow legislators' unease with the phrase "racial impact statement."

"You throw the word 'race' around and it freaks people out," he said.

With the legislature set to adjourn later this month it's dubious that Oregon will join four other states that require racial impact statements.

Iowa, a state even more lilywhite than Oregon, passed similar legislation last year, which was championed by the state's only black legislator, Rep. Wayne Ford (D-Des Moines.).

Ford said that Oregon is in a similar situation with Iowa having most of its minority populations in its urban centers. This arrangement might make rural legislators less sensitive to the issue.

But Ford overcame this by calling enough attention to the fact that people of color make up 37 percent of the prison population, although they are less than 8 percent of the general population.

"I think many politicians on both sides of the aisle got sick of this," he said.
http://www.portlandobserver.com/story.asp?record=10139&section=Law%20/%20Politics

Posted by lois at 04:04 PM | Comments (0)

June 25, 2009

FL: Powerful business lobby calls for a halt to prison construction & change in sentencing policies

Change sought in Florida prison system
A movement among powerful Florida leaders to overhaul the state's prison system is gaining steam as lawmakers grapple with shrinking resources.

BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
Miami Herald
06.24.09

A call by Florida's most powerful business lobby to halt prison construction and reform the criminal justice system is gaining surprising traction among policymakers in the wake of a deepening budget crisis and growing evidence that building new prison beds will not reduce crime.

Four months after the head of Associated Industries of Florida stunned lawmakers with his plea to slow prison growth, a who's-who of business, religious and political leaders are asking Gov. Charlie Crist to consider alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders, particularly drug addicts.

Crist and state lawmakers this week received an ''open letter'' from opinion-makers calling for a ``bold and serious conversation about justice reform.''

The statement was signed by three former Florida attorneys general -- Jim Smith, Bob Butterworth and Richard Doran -- along with retired Department of Corrections secretary James McDonough and the heads of the Florida Association of Counties and the Florida Catholic Conference.

''At a time when Florida is in serious recession and facing a deep state budget crisis, the $2 billion-plus budget of the Florida Department of Corrections has grown larger; and without reform, that budget will continue to grow at a pace that crowds out other mission-critical state services such as education, human service needs, and environmental protection,'' the group wrote.

Calling itself the Coalition for Smart Justice, the group is asking state leaders to bolster education, drug and alcohol treatment and faith-based and character-building programs both within the state prison system and in community settings as an alternative to prison.

Coalition members also want Crist to ''immediately implement'' a bill passed by the Legislature in 2008 that created ''the much needed'' Correctional Policy Advisory Council to offer new directions for criminal justice administration.

Staying the course, coalition members wrote, will lead to ``too many non-violent individuals being incarcerated, too many prisons needing to be built at astounding public cost [and] too many young people moving from the juvenile justice system into the adult justice system.''

BREAKING CYCLE

At the root of the state's failures, the group says, is the unwillingness of lawmakers to invest in programs -- such as job training, education and substance-abuse treatment -- that can break the cycle of crime and reduce recidivism.

McDonough, the state's former drug czar and prisons chief, said Florida can avoid the need to build a new $100 million prison each year by spending one-fifth that amount on drug treatment. ''The math is irrefutable,'' McDonough said. ``That's $100 million right there that you don't have to spend immediately.''

Gretl Plessinger, DOC's spokeswoman, said the equation is far more complicated. Since the prison system runs on a five-year cycle based on ''strategic projections,'' the corrections agency cannot simply ``stop construction on a dime.''

''Several projects are nearing completion,'' Plessinger said. ``We've already spent money, and to stop construction now would cost taxpayers quite a lot of money.''

DOC Secretary Walter McNeil does not favor the early release of inmates, Plessinger said, but does agree with the coalition's goal of increased spending on drug treatment and other programs designed to aid offenders' safe return to their communities. Close to 90 percent of state inmates eventually are released, she said.

''Secretary McNeil knows inmates who receive basic education, job skills training and substance abuse treatment are less likely to commit another crime and return to prison,'' Plessinger said. ``Through re-entry [programs], we can reduce our recidivism rate which will increase public safety and lower our inmate population.''

Sterling Ivey, a Crist spokesman, declined to discuss the letter in depth. ''We have received the letter and we are currently reviewing the information,'' he said.

A driving force in the coalition is J. Allison DeFoor II, an admittedly unlikely prison reform activist as a former Monroe County sheriff, prosecutor, judge and reelection running mate for former Gov. Bob Martinez. Now an ordained Episcopal priest, the colorful politician tends a ministry at Wakulla Correctional Institution near Tallahassee.

Among DeFoor's gripes: though faith-based programs at Wakulla have reduced recidivism among inmates from 33 percent to just 7 percent, Florida's waiting list for such programs has grown to 10,000-strong. ''I've seen everything that doesn't work,'' he says. ``And I've seen what does work.''

''I can flatly tell you that 75 percent of the people in the system -- probably more than that -- have substance abuse and psychological problems,'' and treatment, education and counseling can help many of those men and women stay out of prison, he said.

PREVENTION

Butterworth, a former Broward sheriff, prosecutor and 20-year attorney general, said his two-year stint as secretary of the Department of Children & Families reinforced his belief in the value of prevention dollars -- which are typically the first to be cut during lean years.

''Sometimes the worst dollar we spend,'' Butterworth said, ``pays for bricks and mortar.''

Florida still will need prisons for violent felons, Butterworth said. But spending $1 billion over the next decade to build new prisons for drug addicts and people with mental illness, he added, is ``nuts. There's just got to be a better way.''

Steve Seibert, a former Pinellas County commissioner and secretary of the Deparment of Community Affairs under Gov. Jeb Bush, said he discovered another reason for reform while touring an Overtown community center: Leaders told him 70 percent of the neighborhood's men were ex-felons.

'That was an `Aha' moment for me,'' said Seibert, who as director of policy for the Collins Center for Public Policy is a coalition leader.

``All the affordable housing, economic development, parks, water and infrastructure-type stuff doesn't mean squat when 70 percent of the men in a community are ex-felons.''

And most Americans appear to agree with him. A just-released poll by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency showed that nearly eight in 10 Americans favor probation, restitution and community service over prison for ''nonserious, nonviolent, nonsexual'' offenders.

McDonough, who calls himself a pragmatist, said that ultimately the most powerful winds steering reform are financial.

''I think the recession probably will bring the pendulum swing to its highest point and it will start to swing the other way,'' he said. ``Legislators don't want to spend that much money.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/v-fullstory/story/1111002.html

Posted by lois at 08:40 PM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2009

MA Bar Association Drug Policy Task Force report on The Failure of the War on Drugs"

Massachusetts Bar Association's Drug Policy Task Force issued a major report, "The Failure of the War on Drugs: Charting a New Course for the Commonwealth." The report urges the Legislature to reform the state's approach to drug prevention, treatment and punishment. "Changing policies from emphasis on incarceration to more encouragement for treatment would allow us to save money, reduce crime, and rebuild families and communities."
Recommendations for reform. The Task Force's recommendations to reform mandatory minimum sentences are the same ones that FAMM supports: allowing drug offenders to apply for parole, work release and earned "good time" deductions, reducing "school zones" to 100 feet, eliminating mandatory sentences for school zone offenders (who will still be punished for the underlying offense) and allowing school zone sentences to be served concurrently with another sentence.
http://www.massbar.org/media/520275/drug%20policy%20task%20force%20final%20report.pdf

Posted by lois at 05:52 PM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2009

Architecture: "Behind Bars ... Sort Of"

Behind Bars ... Sort Of
By JIM LEWIS
Published: June 10, 2009
NY Times
Pictures at this URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14prisons-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

Go ahead and say it; everyone does. Certainly I did. Here’s a striking building, perched on a slope outside the small Austrian town of Leoben — a sleek structure made of glass, wood and concrete, stately but agile, sure in its rhythms and proportions: each part bears an obvious relationship to the whole. In the daytime, the corridors and rooms are flooded with sunshine. At night, the whole structure glows from within. A markedly well-made building, and what is it? A prison.

Everybody says this, or something like it: I guess crime does pay, after all. Or, That’s bigger than my apartment. (New Yorkers, in particular, tend to take this route.) Or, Maybe I should move to Austria and rob a couple of banks. It’s a reflex, and perfectly understandable, though it’s also foolish and untrue — about as sensible as looking at a new hospital wing and saying, Gee, I wish I had cancer.

To be more accurate, free people say these things. Prisoners don’t. Nor, for the most part, do the guards, the wardens or the administrators; nor do legal scholars or experts on corrections; nor does Josef Hohensinn, who designed the Leoben prison. They all say something else: No one, however down-and-out or cynical, wants to go to prison, however comfortable it may be.

Still, the argument goes, the place must be a country club for white-collar criminals. (No, it holds everyone from prisoners awaiting trial to the standard run of felons.) Then it must cost a fortune. (A little more than other prisons, maybe, but not by much — as a rule, the more a corrections center bristles with overt security, with cameras, and squads of guards, and isolation cells, the more expensive it’s going to be.) And that’s glass? (Yes, though it’s shatterproof. And yes, those are the cells and that is a little balcony, albeit caged in with heavy bars, and below it is a courtyard.) The whole thing seems impossible, oxymoronic, like a luxury D.M.V., and yet there it is.

One gray day in February, Hohensinn drove me from his office in Graz down to Leoben, an hourlong trip through a region isolated by mountains and still transitioning out of an industrial economy. He is a compact man in his early 50s, with bushy eyebrows, a gappy smile and an air about him of cheerful confidence, mixed with a kind of Alpine soulfulness. Before the prison opened, late in 2004, he had a solid career building public housing. Now he is the Man Who Built That Prison, a distinction that dismays him slightly, if only because, as he says, “One always has mixed feelings about having one work singled out for attention.”

Leoben has received quite a lot of attention. In America, its public profile has been limited to a series of get-a-load-of-this e-mail messages and mocking blog posts (where the prison is often misidentified as a corrections center outside Chicago), but in Europe, Hohensinn’s design has become more of a model — not universally accepted, but not easily ignored either. It is the opening statement in a debate about what it means to construct a better prison. Already there are plans to build something like it outside of Berlin.

The day Hohensinn and I visited, Leoben was dreary, and there were traces of sleet in the air; as we approached, the building looked both idle and inviting, like a college library during winter break — or it would have, anyway, were it not for the razor wire coiled along the concrete wall of the yard and the sentence carved below it, a line from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the United States signed and ratified) that reads: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”

Inside the prison it felt like Sunday afternoon, though in fact it was a Tuesday. There was a glassy brightness over everything, and most surprising, an unbreakable silence. Prisons are usually clamorous places, filled with the sound of metal doors opening and closing, and the general racket that comes with holding large numbers of men in a confined space. Noise is part of the chaos of prison life; Leoben was serene. I mentioned as much to Hohensinn, and he smiled and pointed to the whitewashed ceilings. He had taken great care to install soundproofing.

An assistant warden accompanied us on our tour, one of three guards on duty tasked with watching more than 200 inmates. On one side of the prison there was a block of prisoners on remand; on the other side were the convicts, living in units called pods — groups of 15 one-person cells with floor-to-ceiling windows, private lavatories and a common space that includes a small kitchen. We came upon one prisoner cooking a late lunch for a few of his podmates; we stood there for a bit, chatting. They were wearing their own clothes. The utensils on the table were metal. “They are criminals,” Hohensinn said to me, “but they are also human beings. The more normal a life you give them here, the less necessary it is to resocialize them when they leave.” His principle, he said, was simple: “Maximum security outside; maximum freedom inside.” (The bars over the balconies are there to ensure the inmates’ safety, Hohensinn said; the surrounding wall outside is more than enough to make sure no one gets free.)

We walked around some more. There was a gymnasium, a prayer room, a room for conjugal visits. I asked Hohensinn what he would do if, contrary to fact, it were conclusively proved that prisons like his encouraged crime rather than diminished it. Would he renounce the design? He shook his head. “The prisoners’ dignity is all I really care about,” he told me.

Suppose we can’t bring ourselves to be quite so magnanimous. Suppose all we’re interested in is reducing crime. If you trust a criminal with a better environment, will he prove trustworthy? As far as Leoben is concerned, it’s too soon to tell. The place has been open for only four years. But I noticed something as we were leaving, and in the absence of any other data it seemed significant. In the three or four hours we spent roaming all through the place, I hadn’t seen a single example of vandalism.

It sounds odd to say, but it’s nonetheless true: we punish people with architecture. The building is the method. We put criminals in a locked room, inside a locked structure, and we leave them there for a specified period of time.

It wasn’t always so. Prison is an invention, and a fairly recent one at that: it wasn’t until the 18th century that incarceration became our primary form of punishment. True, there have been dungeons and the like for quite some time, but they were generally for traitors and political enemies and, later, debtors. More common criminals could expect other forms of penalty: execution, for example, and various kinds of corporal punishment; forced labor and conscription; public humiliation; the levying of fines; exile; loss of privileges and offices; and so on. We’ve come to consider most of these barbaric, unjust or wildly impractical, but their very existence should tend against the idea that settling with criminals by putting them in a building is a natural thing to do.

To be sure, there’s something about prisons that engages man’s imagination. Alberti discussed them, Piranesi drew them, Jeremy Bentham proposed them. But the imagination of incarceration rarely translates directly into design. Bentham’s Panopticon, a circular structure with an all-seeing guardhouse in the middle, was meant to show that surveillance was as powerful a method of control as shackles and door locks — an idea that has proved enticing to many an academic, though it was never built.

In fact, for a long time many prisons, including some of the most well known — the Tower of London, for example — were repurposed castles, fortresses and gates; and even in the U.S., where such legacy buildings didn’t exist, prison construction was an ad hoc affair. Among the first people to try to blend ideology, morality and design principles into a carefully planned building were the Quakers of Pennsylvania, whose late-18th-century model was characteristically spare, consisting primarily of cells where convicts were to be kept in strict isolation, that they might better explore their own souls and find a way to God. A competing system, known as the Auburn model, arose a few years later. It focused more on the potential rehabilitative powers of labor, so it included larger spaces where prisoners could work together; but it, too, called for them to spend the rest of their time alone.

And there, for the most part, the thinking simply stops. Surveillance techniques come and go, materials change, levels of security are introduced and refined. The language changes, from “penitence” to “incarceration” to “corrections,” but very little is fundamentally different than it was. You can get it in a rectangle or a circle, in a radiant or a telephone-pole style, in brick or concrete or shipping containers; you can get guardhouses conducting surveillance via closed-circuit TV, electronic doors, an isolation room. But it’s pretty much the same building: a large institution, holding many convicts in small cells for years at a time.

Does imprisonment work? It seems like a bottom-line question, but the answer depends on what you want prisons to do, and that’s not an easy thing to decide. Even if we assume that there are good and sensible reasons to incarcerate people, there remains some debate about what purpose is served. Deterrence is often proposed as a goal, but no one really knows whether the prospect of incarceration gives would-be criminals pause, and in any case we quickly reach the realm of diminishing returns. “It’s absurd to think that the worse you make these places, the less recidivism you’ll have,” said Michael Jacobson, who was commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections under Mayor Rudy Giuliani and is now the director of the Vera Institute of Justice, a research group that focuses on criminal justice. “For one thing, it’s hard to make a lot of these places worse. Besides, people commit crimes after serving sentences in the third ring of hell. You’re not going to stop them by demoting them to the fourth ring.” Moreover, most crimes are committed either in the heat of the moment or by career criminals who consider themselves invincible. Few people in either group think about where they might wind up. When I asked one of the prisoners at Leoben if he was surprised by how nice it was, he said no; what surprised him was that he’d been caught in the first place.

In fact, though most of us are reluctant to admit it, we mainly use prisons as storage containers, putting people there with the hope that, if nothing else, five years behind bars means five years during which they can’t commit more crimes. It’s called warehousing, and we do a lot of it. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, by far — it is more than five times as high as in the U.K. About 1 in every 100 American adults is in federal or state prisons or local jails — 1 in 30 men between 20 and 34, 1 in 9 black men of the same age. All told, we keep about 2.3 million adults behind bars: if the entire prison population were treated as a single city, it would be the fourth-largest in the United States, just behind Chicago and just ahead of Houston. Moreover, our incarceration rate has climbed, or rather rocketed, for the past 30 years: adjusted for population growth, there are about four times as many people in prison this year as there were in 1980. In response, we’ve hastily thrown up hundreds of prisons. But not nearly enough: facilities are strained, units are grotesquely overcrowded and space for medical and psychological services has become profoundly inadequate. We pay lip-service to the idea of rehabilitation, but we do little to make it happen. About 67 percent of the prisoners who are released are arrested again within three years. The result, to borrow a phrase from a Conservative British home secretary, has been “an expensive way of making bad people worse.”

To be fair, prominent architects aren’t lining up to take on the task of making prisons better. Most of Hohensinn’s colleagues would be happy to design a courthouse, but few are quite as eager to build a penitentiary, though the two are merely opposite ends of a single system. New prison construction is generally parceled out to a handful of large and more-or-less anonymous firms — a process that discourages innovation. Whoever gets the commission is told how many beds are needed, what kinds of security, how much room for the clinic, the recreation area, the guardhouses. They’re big-box prisons, as anonymous and uninflected as so many Wal-Marts.

Jeff Goodale, the director of correctional design at HDR, a large architectural firm based in Omaha, was disarmingly frank about what he faced. “When I got into the business in the ’70s,” he told me, “there was a very progressive approach to prison design. There was an emphasis on creating an environment that would lend itself to rehabilitation — low-rise buildings, more human scale. In the ’80s and ’90s, the trend became very much about throwing people in jail, locking them up, taking amenities away from them. We spent a fortune on security, and it did little for recidivism.” He went on to describe what he’d like to see happen instead, and it was much like Leoben. “That works great,” he said. “It doesn’t cost significantly more to build, and you save on maintenance, vandalism, lawsuits, assaults, medical care.” But, he added sharply, “at the end of the day, my clients are my clients. We’ve been told we can’t make it look too good, because the public won’t accept it.”

Perhaps that’s because most people never see prisons. The facilities at Leoben are part of a complex designed by the same architect, which houses both courtrooms and a variety of more mundane offices — the local property registrar and the like. You commit a crime, you go to jail, you go to court and, if you’re convicted, you go to prison, and the fact that all three are contiguous is meant to remind you, and everyone around you, that the process relies on a set of institutions that flow from one to the next.

By contrast, new American prisons are usually built out in the countryside, where land and labor are cheaper, and security is easier to establish. And since site selection is the first step in design, everything stems from that. A rural prison needs no public face. It needn’t articulate any sense of civic pride or communal justice, because there’s no one around to see it, beyond the prisoners themselves, the guards and the occasional visitor.

There are other social costs. As Jonathan Simon, a law professor at Berkeley, pointed out to me, convicts tend to come from cities; guards do not. Culture clashes inevitably arise. Skilled labor — doctors, psychologists and the like — is harder to find in rural areas, and so are the volunteers who work in the many rehabilitation programs. The families of working-class and poor convicts often can’t afford to travel a few hundred miles to visit their relatives. As a result, prisoners have a harder time maintaining ties with the lives they left behind.

And it isn’t only inmates and their loved ones who suffer. Almost everyone I spoke to was quick to point out that guards and inmates are essentially imprisoned together. As Michael Jacobson, the head of the Vera Institute, put it, “Officers serve life sentences eight hours at a time.” To a surprising degree, then, both groups want the same thing: They want prisons to be safer and more humane, and they believe that can best be achieved by building in more face time between convicts and their keepers. They want smaller, less anonymous units. They want more natural light. The debate over prison design shouldn’t begin and end with our asking what it’s like to live in one. We should also be asking what it’s like to work in one.

Let’s admit at once that the Leoben facility isn’t the Jesus Prison: It’s not going to single-handedly heal us and carry us up to Paradise. Even if you endorse its goals, it may not be the best implementation of them. Its windows might create an unnerving lack of privacy in a dense city. Allowances would have to be made for the breadth of our landscapes and the nature of our crimes — a prison in California, with California’s gang presence, would most likely be built differently from a prison in Vermont. What’s more, no institutional architecture can be expected to consistently manifest the clarity and elegance of Hohensinn’s design.

More to the point, it’s unlikely that anything even remotely like it will be built in this country anytime soon. John Baldwin, the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections, looked at pictures of the Leoben design and, like many people, found it both intriguing and a bit much. “We’re more focused on putting our money into mental-health and re-entry treatment units,” he told me. “I didn’t see a great deal of treatment space, or the kind of classroom space where you can teach job skills. Nice views, great basketball court, but I didn’t think Iowans want to put their money into that sort of thing.

“Still,” he said with atypical enthusiasm, “architecture is huge.” Iowa is in the process of building new facilities for both men and women. To that end, the state held a design competition and received 17 entries. While the winning submissions are not as luxurious as the Leoben prison, they do share certain principles: a smaller number of cells in each unit, more sunlight, security made deliberately unobtrusive. Other states may soon be joining Iowa, if not because they want to then because they have to. Earlier this year, federal judges in California tentatively ruled that the state release almost a third of its prisoners because the conditions in which they’re kept amount to cruel and unusual punishment. If the ruling holds up on appeal, it’s quite likely that other states will face similar sanctions. And then what?

Jim Lewis is the author, most recently, of the novel “The King Is Dead.” His most recent article for the magazine was about the design of refugee camps.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 14, 2009, on page MM48 of the New York edition.

Posted by lois at 10:28 AM | Comments (0)

Testimony at Senate Hearing on national prison reform Commission introduced by Jim Webb

Testimony at Senate Hearing on national prison reform
June 13,2009

The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs convened a hearing on proposed national prison reform legislation. Virginia Senator Jim Webb introduced bill S.714 in March to create a commission to thoroughly review the entire criminal justice system and make recommendations for reform in several areas of significant concern.

Since being introduced, the bill already has widespread support with 29 cosponsors in the Senate including Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Ranking Member Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Judiciary Committee member Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Numerous organizations, currently numbering 42, now endorse the legislative endeavor with interest continuing to expand as public awareness increases.

Other than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA), and Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA), no other senators from the southeastern states, including Georgia and Florida, have as yet expressed their support for this bill as cosponsors.

Speaking at the June 11 hearing, entitled “Exploring the National Criminal Justice Act of 2009,” Senator Webb compared the condition of the criminal justice system to be no less critical than have been the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and the economic crisis the country faces. The senator asserts, “…the disintegration of this system, day by day and year by year, and the movement toward mass incarceration, with very little attention being paid to clear standards of prison administration or meaningful avenues of re-entry for those who have served their time, is dramatically affecting millions of lives, draining billions of dollars from our economy, destroying notions of neighborhood and family in hundreds of communities across the country….” The proposed legislation is the first major effort to examine and reform the United States criminal justice system in more than forty years.

“We need to take a comprehensive look at our criminal justice system…. As a nation, we can spend our money more effectively, reduce crime and violence, reduce the prison population, and create a fairer system. It is time to take stock of what is broken and what works and modify our criminal justice policies accordingly.” (See related article: ‘Pew “1 in 31” report on corrections: Challenges and opportunities.’)

Collaboration between Senator Webb’s office and more than 100 organizations that represent prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, advocacy groups, think tanks, victims’ rights organizations, academics, prisoners, law enforcement, and numerous church organizations has generated significant interest and support for advancing this legislation.

Several experts in the legal, law enforcement, and volunteer services communities testified at the hearing, including Chief William Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department, Professor Charles J. Ogletree of Harvard Law School, Pat Nolan, Vice President of the Prison Fellowship, and Brian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies of The Heritage Foundation.

Serving as vice president of the volunteer service organization the Prison Fellowship, Pat Nolan testified, “My work has given me a close up view of our criminal justice system across the country; and I must tell you our prisons are in crisis. Corrections budgets are literally eating up state budgets, siphoning off money that could be going to schools, roads and hospitals. The crisis in our criminal justice system is national in scope; and only a national commission can conduct the type of review that will help guide us into better policies and safer communities.”

Brian W. Walsh with The Heritage Foundation encouraged support in saying, “Reform experts who are serious about criminal-justice reform should draw encouragement from Senator Webb’s efforts to date to reach out to elected officials on both sides of the aisle and to criminal-justice reform advocates across the conservative-to-liberal spectrum.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-7357-Atlanta-Criminal-Rehabilitation-Examiner~y2009m6d13-Testimony-at-Senate-Hearing-on-national-prison-reform

Posted by lois at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)

June 04, 2009

Foes of Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Attack Recent Changes By False Charges of Threats to Public Safety by Judges Sealing Records

From the Center for Community Alternatives (NY)
Those opposed to the recently enacted Rockefeller Drug Law Reform have seized upon a small, but important aspect of the legislation - conditional sealing - as a way to attack the recent reforms and create the misperception that drug law reform will diminish public safety. Their criticism overlooks the fact that the conditional sealing legislation is an important tool for fostering New York's commitment to promoting public safety by ensuring the successful and productive reentry of people with criminal history records into our communities - a commitment best demonstrated by the 2006 amendment to the Penal Law establishing reentry and reintegration as a sentencing goal. Ultimately, conditional sealing is a well-considered mechanism for ensuring that people who have demonstrated a commitment to their rehabilitation (by completing substance abuse treatment and a court-imposed sentence) will have a fair opportunity at employment, housing, education, and other aspects of full community membership. For a reasoned response to the misperceptions created by opponents to drug law reform and an explanation of how conditional sealing can enhance public safety, click here.
http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/conditionalSealingResponse.pdf

Posted by lois at 05:44 PM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2009

New Poll Shows the Public Largely in Favor of Alternatives to Prison and Jail as a Response to Nonserious Offenses

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD)
Oakland, CA, June 2, 2009
New Poll Shows the Public Largely in Favor of Alternatives to Prison and Jail as a Response to Nonserious Offenses

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) has just released the results of a public opinion poll on attitudes toward nonserious, nonviolent, nonsexual crime and the appropriate sanctions in such cases. Across most demographic groups, the public feels that alternatives to prison and jail benefit society rather than hurt it.

Some of the key poll results are as follows:

* Eight in ten (77%) adults believe the most appropriate sentence for nonviolent, nonserious offenders is supervised probation, restitution, community service, and/or rehabilitative services; if an offender fails in these alternatives, then prison or jail may be appropriate.
* Over three-quarters (77%) believe alternatives to incarceration do not decrease public safety.
* More than half (55%) believe alternatives to prison or jail decrease costs to state and local governments.
* US adults more often think alternatives to incarceration are more effective than prison or jail time at reducing recidivism (45% vs. 38%).
* Respondents cited a variety of reasons they believe justify sending fewer people to prison or jail, including expense, overcrowding (danger to guards, danger to inmates), the ability of proven alternatives to reduce crime, and the fairness of the punishment relative to the crime.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International in April, 2009. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

This report is available on NCCD’s website at: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2009_focus_nonserious_offenders.pdf

Posted by lois at 07:16 PM | Comments (0)

May 28, 2009

NY: Solar "farmer" is top bidder on closed prison farms

Mid-Hudson region's prison farms may harvest sun
Solar panels could provide 9 megawatts
By Adam Bosch
Times Herald-Record
Posted: May 27, 2009

A fashion designer from New Paltz wants to install solar energy panels at three prison farms that were shut as part of state budget cuts.

Anthony Sicari came out on top when the state opened bids this month to lease prison farms at Eastern, Sullivan and Wallkill Correctional facilities. Sicari said he wants to install enough solar panels at each of the farms to produce a total of 9 megawatts, or enough to power 9,000 homes. On Tuesday, Sicari said he would sell the power to New York state at a reduced rate to help power the prisons, and then sell the remaining power back into the grid.

One hurdle stands in his way. Current rules only allow the farms to be used for an agricultural purpose. Sicari said he's going to chat with Gov. David Paterson and other state lawmakers about changing that rule. He's looking for farmers to hay the fields and plant crops in the interim.

"It's not something I expect a fight on," Sicari said of the possible rule change. "It's just a matter of will it take one year, two years or three?"

Sicari, chairman of the company New York State Solar Farm, outbid six other people, including some who only bid on individual farms. He hasn't yet signed the lease with the state Office of General Services, but records show he'll pay about $48,000 for the farms this year. OGS spokesman Brad Maione said Sicari will be allowed to renew the lease annually for the next five years, after which time the terms of the deal will be subject to review.

Bigger projects in works

The prison project would supplement plans already in development. Earlier this year, Sicari pitched an $18 million plan to build solar energy farms in Gardiner and the hamlet of Wallkill. The solar panels, on a combined 45 acres of land, would produce enough energy to power 25,000 homes.

In November, the state announced it would shut 12 of its prison farms to save an estimated $3.4 million. The move was decried by unions, community groups and business people who opposed losing the jobs and said shuttering farms would bite a chunk out of the local economy, about $1 million-$1.5 million, according to one local estimate.

The state said it chose to cut the prison farms because they weren't part of the "core mission" of correctional services. The local prison farms produced more than 2 million quarts of milk and 161,000 pounds of beef for consumption by the inmates — food that will now be purchased from vendors.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090527/COMM/9052703
23/-1/NEWS

Posted by lois at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2009

More calls for California to shut down its youth prison system

More calls for California to shut down its youth prison system
By Karen de Sá
Mercury News
Posted: 05/25/2009

With California mired in near-catastrophic budget woes, a growing number of researchers are calling for the state to shut down its youth prison system, which they say has become too expensive, too mired in abusive practices, and too ineffective in enhancing public safety.

There are just six remaining prisons for the state's most serious juvenile offenders, and they house the lowest number of inmates ever recorded in modern history. That has left taxpayers in an era of deep cuts to education and social services footing a bill of a quarter-million dollars each year for each of the 1,600 youthful offenders now left in state custody.

In a report headed this week to legislators wrestling with a $21.3 billion budget shortfall, the San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice describes a way out: Shut down the state prison system for youthful offenders, and turn the population back to county probation departments that are sitting on empty beds in new and refurbished juvenile halls. The report echoes similar findings of the state's own Little Hoover Commission and Legislative Analyst's Office, which have also concluded that given adequate time and resources, counties could house even the most troubled juvenile offenders in far cheaper and more effective institutions.

"These wards are going to get out. They're coming back to every one of their communities," said Stuart Drown, executive director of the bipartisan Little Hoover Commission,
Advertisement
which advises the state on improving efficiency. "Why not get them the programs they need to stay out of jail and not go back? They're not getting that at the state."

Bernie Warner, head of California's Division of Juvenile Justice, argues there must always be a state system for the most serious, violent, gang-involved youth offenders, the majority of whom need specialized treatment for crimes as serious as murder and sexual assault.

"The counties do a great job in managing over 99 percent of all those in the juvenile justice system in California," Warner said, but "given who's left in the state system — the highest-risk, highest-need youth — I don't think it's in the best interest of public safety to have those youth in local detention facilities."

Burden to counties

Expanding on Warner's position, the president of the Chief Probation Officers of California says counties facing deep budget cuts simply cannot assume more responsibility. "This is probably one of those things where the state needs to stay in the business of corrections," said Don Meyer, Yolo County's probation chief. "There isn't any other place for them."

Yet in a report released late last year, the Little Hoover Commission advised the state to get out of the juvenile justice business by 2011, stating: "It is untenable to continue to invest money into a system that has failed for many years." The commission advised that Californians deserve an accounting for a poor investment by the state, given that 74 percent of youth offenders leaving the state system end up back in trouble with the law. The problems don't end there: The state also has done little to meet the requirements of a 4-year-old court order to improve conditions, according to an Alameda County Superior Court judge monitoring the case.

Now, Dan Macallair of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, has issued a report going one step further.

Using figures from the state's Corrections Standards Authority, his report states there are a sufficient number of beds in California's 58 county-based juvenile justice systems to absorb the entire state population of 1,637, "and still have nearly 600 empty beds remaining."

Even given the additional costs of creating treatment units within juvenile halls that are traditionally simply holding pens, the report says a shift to counties could result in significant savings: Counties spend about $25,000 a year on youth offenders — 10 times less than the state spends.

Counties up and down the state — including Santa Clara County — expanded their juvenile hall capacity in recent years following a mini-building boom. Now many of these facilities, including state-of-the-art high-security juvenile halls, remain partially empty. Santa Clara County has 390 beds in its juvenile hall, with a current population of about 300. Macallair's report identifies the county as one of the least-reliant on state institutions; there are now just 33 county youths in state custody, down from 328 in 2000.

Santa Clara County Probation Chief Sheila Mitchell said her department has worked hard to keep kids out of state prisons. She would not comment on the recommendation to shut down the state system, other than noting that the county's newly expanded juvenile hall — designed as a short-term detention facility — would be ill-suited for those serving years-long sentences and requiring intensive treatment.

Rehabilitation

Reformers say using surplus county beds for juvenile offenders in state custody would improve the prospects of rehabilitation, a notion many parents echo. Sharon James, a Merced transit worker, said she can only visit her 18-year-old son in a Central Valley prison twice a month, which has caused his condition — in a massive institution mired in violence — to worsen.

"I can look at him and see that he's given up on himself," James said of her son, charged with a robbery and fighting while on probation. The teen landed in a Stockton youth prison with the credits of a high school senior, but after almost two years in custody has not graduated.

"If he were closer, I could visit him every day, or as often as visits are allowed," James said. "I just don't want him to come home totally broken down — that's my biggest concern."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12431880

Posted by lois at 01:43 PM | Comments (0)

Reps. Kenyatta Johnson and Ronald Waters Call for Review of Criminal Justice System in PA

Pa. lawmakers want to examine criminal-justice from all angles
By DANA DiFILIPPO
Philadelphia Daily News
May 23, 2009
Two months after federal lawmakers announced plans for a top-to-bottom study of the nation's criminal-justice system, two state lawmakers from Philadelphia yesterday called for a similar reform-minded review of Pennsylvania's system.

Reps. Kenyatta Johnson and Ronald Waters detailed legislation they recently introduced - now in the Senate Judiciary Committee - during a news conference yesterday outside the Criminal Justice Center in Center City.

"Pennsylvania's criminal justice system is in much need of repair," said Johnson, D-Phila. "Prisons are overcrowded, sentencing policies are uneven and often unfair, ex-convicts are poorly integrated into society, and the growing problem of gang and street violence has not received the attention it deserves."

The lawmakers have ambitious plans for the study, saying it should address the costs of incarceration; crime and gang activity in and out of prison; prison health care; mentally ill inmates; reintegration programs for ex-offenders; jail overcrowding, infrastructure and living conditions; the overrepresentation of minorities in prison; and other issues.

The state remains too focused on housing its swelling population of inmates rather than proactively addressing the problems that landed them behind bars, Waters said. Plans to build four new prisons are under way in a state that already has 26.

"We are preparing for more people to become victims of crime," Waters said. "Taxpayers should be outraged at the amount being spent on corrections, and they still can't feel safe walking down the street. There's something wrong with the way we are responding to crime, and we need to fix it."

The study would be conducted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Johnson said.

Bill DiMascio, executive director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, applauded the plan.

"During the past two to three decades, Pennsylvania's population has remained pretty steady, yet the growth in our prison population has almost quadrupled," DiMascio said. "It's not because our people are getting more lawless. It really is an issue of our criminal justice policies."

The federal plan, introduced in March by Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Jim Webb, D-Va., would create a commission charged with conducting an 18-month comprehensive review of the nation's criminal justice system and offering recommendations for reform. *
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/45901367.html

Posted by lois at 01:34 PM | Comments (0)

May 18, 2009

Review of new books on Christian moral practice/punishment/imprisonment

"...both Logan and Redekop think that the underlying problem is our captivation with the idea of retributive punishment. Punishment, says Redekop, is "a historical artifact passed from one generation to the next without much thought and supported by force of habit and by unexamined assumptions and presuppositions." Logan asks why there is a presumption that criminal justice must issue in retributive punishment, and Redekop queries why there is a presumption that we should punish at all. Whereas Logan offers a theology of "good punishment," Redekop believes we should "remove punishment from our repertoire of responses to conflict" altogether."

Article printed from:The Christian Century Magazine
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=6938
Books
May 19, 2009
Punitive measures
by Tobias Winright

Good Punishment? Christian Moral Practice and U.S. Imprisonment
Eerdmans, 271 pp., $20.00 paperback
by James Samuel Logan

Changing Paradigms: Punishment and Restorative Discipline
Herald, 296 pp., $18.99 paperback
by Paul Redekop
As an undergraduate student 25 years ago, I found myself behind bars—not as an inmate but as a correctional officer. One of the youngest members of a large metropolitan sheriff's department on the west coast of Florida, I worked full-time at the maximum-security jail in order to pay for college. Those four years working in the slammer schooled me, and they raised a number of questions for me as a Christian, especially about the death penalty and the use of force. I am continuing to unlearn certain attitudes and assumptions I held then, including some about punishment itself.

By vividly putting into words much of what I have personally pondered about prisons and punishment, these two books should help American readers—Christian or not, possessing firsthand experience with incarceration or not—to step back and take an honest look at what is happening in our current practice of large-scale imprisonment. Each book also asks why we insist on continuing down this punitive path.

Why is it, for example, that the U.S., which has 6 percent of the world's population, incarcerates 25 percent of the world's prisoners? We currently have some 2.3 million persons in federal, state and local jails and prisons—an estimated half-million more than are locked up in China, whose population is more than triple that of the U.S. We spend more money building and maintaining prisons than public schools—to the tune of $50 billion a year. Some 644,000 persons are incarcerated per year and about 625,000 are released, but then 50 to 75 percent of those who are released end up returning to prison within a few years. No other democratic nation today imprisons people on such a scale or for as long as the U.S. Yet what are we accomplishing?

Both of these authors observe that re tributive punishment has become the primary engine driving large-scale im prisonment. James Samuel Logan, a Men nonite ethicist who teaches religion and African-American studies at Earl ham College, gives attention to the various ways punishment has been understood in theory and in practice, historically and today, focusing on how punishment in the U.S. system of imprisonment is especially demeaning to offenders. This approach to punishment boils down to chastising people to teach them their proper place. Paul Redekop, who teaches conflict resolution studies at Menno Simons College at the University of Winnipeg, also zeroes in on how retributive punishment is degrading to offenders. Unlike Logan, however, Redekop extends his analysis of punishment beyond criminal justice to other areas in which "teaching a lesson" is prominent: parenting, education and international relations.

The punitive approach to imprisonment not only has adverse effects on prisoners, it leads to results that are the reverse of what society expects. According to Logan, the prison-industrial complex, which is "rife with practices of violence and degradation," reproduces criminality. Redekop writes that imprisonment creates a "criminal culture" that amplifies "the likelihood that people will commit crimes" and will be "therefore more likely to return to prison." Especially disturbing in this connection is how common it is for inmates to be raped, or "punked out," in jails and prisons that Logan refers to as "punk factories." He quotes ex-offender David Lewis, president and cofounder of the California-based outreach program Free at Last, who says, "Prison is a school and violence is the curriculum." This is particularly troubling given that 75 percent of new inmates are imprisoned for crimes that don't involve violence.

Logan and Redekop also detail the effects of large-scale punitive imprisonment on prison staff, prisoners' families and communities, and the wider society. In their view, this form of punishment has brutalizing effects and brings out the worst in people. Logan notes a number of times that jail and prison personnel are also "doing time," albeit in eight-hour shifts, and that they bear the scars of imprisonment too. In the rest of society, Logan contends, retributive degradation exacerbates alienation, atomistic individualism, racism and an overall decline in "fellow feeling."

Logan describes the effect of large-scale imprisonment on the African-American community. Black males make up less than 7 percent of the U.S. population, but they constitute approximately 37.5 percent of its jail and prison population. More than a half-million fall between the ages of 20 and 39; this devastates families and neighborhoods because in that age bracket lies human capital necessary for a community's social, economic and political stability.

Black females now constitute the fastest-growing segment of the prison population. Most incarcerated women are mothers. Their imprisonment results in collateral emotional and psychological damage to around 1.5 million prison "orphans." The retributive approach to criminal justice "ends up punishing the families of offenders by leaving them destitute," Redekop writes.

Given that retributive punishment leads to all of these negative results, why do we continue to practice it? Part of the answer is that jails and prisons are now big business. In addition to for-profit correctional corporations, many other companies benefit from expanding imprisonment, including food-service companies, construction contractors, furniture manufacturers and the "specialty item" industry (makers of handcuffs, fencing and drug detectors). Major companies—Logan mentions Microsoft, Honda and Victoria's Secret—employ cheap prison labor. Small rural communities used to object to plans to build prisons in their areas. Now they welcome prisons to boost their struggling economies.

Beyond such economic pressures, both Logan and Redekop think that the underlying problem is our captivation with the idea of retributive punishment. Punishment, says Redekop, is "a historical artifact passed from one generation to the next without much thought and supported by force of habit and by unexamined assumptions and presuppositions." Logan asks why there is a presumption that criminal justice must issue in retributive punishment, and Redekop queries why there is a presumption that we should punish at all. Whereas Logan offers a theology of "good punishment," Redekop believes we should "remove punishment from our repertoire of responses to conflict" altogether.

Drawing on Stanley Hauerwas's work in Christian ethics, including a recent essay called "Punishing Christians," Logan calls on the church to imagine and model a better response to crime and to help the rest of society construct one. Hauerwas's account of Christian punishment—which includes excommunication, penance, reconciliation and forgiveness—offers a "politics of healing memories" that Logan considers promising for the formulation of an alternative to punitive, large-scale imprisonment.

To Hauerwas's contribution Logan appends a "politics of ontological intimacy," whereby human interrelatedness amidst diversity encourages us to signal to an offender: "We care about you, you are still one of us, even as we must now insist that you take serious responsibility for your offense." Instead of confronting, Logan advocates "care-fronting." The final chapter of his book identifies some places where there is evidence of such a politics—in restorative justice programs, calls for "decarceration" and efforts to decriminalize nonviolent acts such as drug use, welfare fraud and prostitution.

Drawing on the work of Howard Zehr in restorative justice, Redekop calls for an approach that enables offenders to be active participants in making things right for all stakeholders—victims, offenders, the community and society as a whole. Citing examples from Northern Ireland, New Zealand and Canada, he presents an alternative paradigm for all situations in which punishment has been assumed to be both necessary and morally legitimate, from parenthood to the aftermath of armed conflict. Two mottoes held in tandem summarize this restorative approach to justice: "No more victims" and "No one is disposable."

Both authors allow for the confinement of dangerous inmates, though in places much smaller and more humanizing than current prisons. They could have devoted more imagination to this sad necessity. Shortly before his death, John Howard Yoder shared with me an unpublished working paper on providing "a life for lifers" in secure communities modeled after the cities of sanctuary in the Hebrew scriptures. What if churches undertook such a project, just as in the past they built and operated schools and hospitals?

Despite this shortcoming, Logan and Redekop's efforts will help us to rethink punishment and create new ways to deal with perpetrators as persons.
Tobias Winright is a former law enforcement officer who teaches Christian ethics at Saint Louis University.

Posted by lois at 02:54 PM | Comments (0)

May 13, 2009

NJ: New state initiative seeks to reduce prison overcrowding

New state initiative seeks to reduce prison overcrowding
by Chris Megerian/The Star-Ledger
May 10, 2009

After five months in prison for dealing drugs, Nashon James was going straight.

He cut hair at his mother's barbershop, tried making money on eBay and even joined a bowling league.

But James' past caught up with him. After smoking pot with friends on New Year's Eve, he said he began using cocaine and within months was struggling with a full-blown addiction.

"I just came to a hump in the road that I couldn't get over," said James, 29, of Ridgefield Park.

After breaking his parole by failing a drug test, James is back in a cell.

But he's not in prison. Along with a few dozen New Jersey parole violators, James is locked up in a special program intended to divert low-risk parolees away from jail and back into society.

State Parole Board officials say it's the first of its kind in the nation.

"We have to take full credit for this one," said Director of Community Programs Lenny Ward. "This is a New Jersey initiative."

The idea is to take technical parole violators -- people who haven't committed a new crime but may have failed a drug test or missed a meeting -- and house them for 15 to 30 days at secure facilities run by a private company, Community Education Centers, in Newark or Trenton.

Officials hope the program, which can house 45 parole violators at a time, will help the state avoid $14 million in incarceration costs in the coming budget year.

In New Jersey, the overwhelming majority of parolees returning to prison each year -- about 85 percent of almost 3,000 -- committed technical violations, not new crimes. Lowering that number would help take a bite out of prison overcrowding at a time when state prisons have about 5,500 more inmates than what they were designed for.

Like other states, New Jersey struggles with the high rate of ex-offenders returning to prison. Of the 14,000 inmates released each year, 65 percent are back behind bars within five years.

Jeff Mellow, professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said that's changing how people view minor parole violations.

"There has been a shift across the country due to the high costs of incarcerations, prison overcrowding, and a new emphasis on rehabilitation that makes us rethink this whole notion of 'zero tolerance,'" Mellow said. "Everyone is realizing that they can no longer incarcerate their way out of this problem."

For several years, New Jersey has used a system of "graduated sanctions," in which parole officers have more options than simply returning their offenders to prison. Parolees who have not committed a new crime can receive increased supervision, electronic monitoring or substance abuse treatment. As a result, the number of technical violators returning to prison dropped 37 percent from 2001 to 2008.

The Residential Assessment Centers, which opened last summer, use the same concept. According to state officials, 46 percent of technical violators who passed through the centers returned to prison, compared with 81 percent who did not. A total of 810 parolees were diverted from prison as of February, saving more than $2 million.

That doesn't mean the program is cheap. The state has already spent $4.51 million on it and is expected to fork over another $3.786 million in the budget year that begins July 1.

But parole officials say that money will pay dividends, as more parolees receive the attention they need to get their lives back on track.

"Every day that the person is not in county jail or in a state prison, New Jersey basically saves money," Ward said.

One of those parolees is Khalil Muhammad, who was released from jail in October after serving a year for drug possession.

Muhammad was working at a home improvement company for six months when he moved out his brother's home and into his own place. But he made one mistake: He didn't tell his parole officer that he was moving.

Muhammad was arrested and brought to Delaney Hall in Newark. But he said it's better than prison.

"You can't even compare this to prison," said Muhammad, 47, of Elizabeth. "This is like a hotel compared to prison. You got murderers in there. You got thieves. You got rapists."

Muhammad and other parolees are housed in a separate section of the facility. Behind green doors, they sleep in bunk beds with white bedding, surrounded by white cinderblocks. Motivational posters hanging in other parts of the building read, "Risk being optimistic."

There's no simple way to determine whether a parolee at one of these centers will commit another crime if released. Staff members question them on their criminal history, job status, living arrangements and mental health.

Hoping to be back on the street as soon as possible, parolees are generally on their best behavior during their assessment, said clinician Cathy Velazquez.

"A lot of times, they want to talk about what went wrong and how they can fix it," she said.

Muhammad said he has no interest in going back to crime.

"My mother told me I could put a suit on or I could be a gangster. My mother told me that when I was about 18," he said. "I should have listened to her."

He said he has a good lead on a job if he gets out: working on the planned commuter rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York.

For parolees like James, the struggle to live within the law is ongoing.

A tattoo on his forearm reads "Valentino," after silent-film star and sex symbol Rudolph Valentino.

It's his street name, a reminder of his drug dealing, womanizing alter ego -- and an identity James said he no longer wants.

"When I go out with my friends, I got to turn into something completely different," he said. "I just want to be me."
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/new_state_initiative_seeks_to.html

Posted by lois at 01:08 PM | Comments (0)

Congressional Black Caucus Justice and Civil Rights Taskforce and Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School presents Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy: 25th Anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act.

Congressional Black Caucus Justice and Civil Rights Taskforce and Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School presents Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy: 25th Anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Start: 2009/06/24 - 4:00pm
End: 2009/06/24 - 7:00pm
Schedule:

Welcome and Opening remarks by
Rep. Danny Davis (5 minutes)
Rep. Charles Rangel (5 minutes)

Welcome and Introduction of A.G. by CBC Justice & Civil Rights Task Force, Rep. John Conyers (5-10 minutes)

Remarks by Eric Holder, Attorney General (15 minutes), U.S. Department of Justice

Introduction of Justice O’Connor by Sen. Patrick Leahy, Charles Hamilton Houston, Institute for Race & Justice (5 minutes)

Remarks by Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor (15 minutes), Supreme Court of the United States

Mandatory Minimums
Panel One: Rep Maxine Waters (CA) History of Mandatory Minimums

Hon. Terry Hatter, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Hon. J. Spencer Letts, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Eric Sterling, President, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
Charles E. Black, formerly Incarcerated

Panel Two: Rep. Bobby Scott (VA) the need for repeal and how to repeal, including legislative update

Hon. Ann Williams, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
A.J. Kramer, Federal Defender, Federal Public Defender of the District of Columbia
Julie Stewart, President, Families Against Mandatory Minimums

Disparity between Crack and Powder Cocaine
Panel Three: Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX)

Hon. Reggie B. Walton, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Hon. William Sessions, Vice Chairman, U.S. Sentencing Commission
Brace Nicholson, Legislative Counsel, American Bar Association
David Kirby, Former United States Attorney for the District of Vermont

Good Time

Panel Four: Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL)

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for Central District of California
Nancy Gertner, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Marc Mauer, Executive Director, Sentencing Project
Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons (Discuss overcrowding)
U.S. House of Representatives -- Committee on Ways and Means
1100 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC
United States

Posted by lois at 12:58 PM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2009

NY: AFTER 'ROCK' REFORM: WHAT HAPPENS TO REHAB?

AFTER 'ROCK' REFORM: WHAT HAPPENS TO REHAB?
Expanded drug courts and holistic re-entry planning are under discussion, along with up to 3,000 more slots for addiction treatment.
By Casey Samulski
City Limits WEEKLY #686
May 11, 2009

Now that New York state's Rockefeller drug laws have been reformed, mandatory prison sentences no longer come with convictions for any but the highest level of non-violent offenders found guilty of drug possession. Now judges can send drug addicts who would have gone to prison to treatment programs instead. Viewing addiction more often as an affliction rather than a crime – better treated through rehabilitation than confinement – will mean a stream of new clients at drug rehab centers, which are planning for the influx.

Under the reforms, an additional 1,000 to 2,000 offenders per year could be diverted from prison to drug treatment, raising questions around the state about how to handle the increased caseload. Gov. Paterson recently announced the creation of a group called ACTION – the Addictions Collaborative to Improve Outcomes for New York – a council of commissioners from 20 state agencies as well as the nonprofit and private sectors. Its mandate is to identify “ways in which statutes, regulations, rules and policies may be revised in order to promote addiction prevention, treatment and recovery efforts.”

Accompanying the planning group is an additional $50 million appropriation for treatment to be disbursed through the state Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS,) which regulates and certifies all operating drug treatment centers in the state. Over 1,500 certified treatment centers work with an estimated 110,000 New Yorkers every day. The state currently spends close to $2 billion annually – across a number of agencies – on substance abuse, treatment, and recovery, and the new funding is an addition to OASAS’ current $713 million budget. The $50 million will be distributed over the next three years to help build and improve residential and outpatient capacity, to help treatment networks to meet the increased demand that's anticipated.

OASAS Commissioner Karen Carpenter-Palumbo praised the changes to the Rockefeller laws, congratulating the governor in an interview for “leading the country,” calling the changes a “landmark reform.” Carpenter-Palumbo expressed confidence that the additional funding would cover increased use of the treatment system, saying, “I’m confident we have the resources we need to make it real.”

While recidivism for those who successfully finish a course of treatment is on average far lower than for those who have been imprisoned, the commissioner called addiction “a chronic illness.”

“There is no magic bullet,” she said. “Some people do relapse.”

It is organizations like Phoenix House that will be recipients of the additional funding. Phoenix House is a network of treatment centers spread across nine states, including New York. It runs more than 120 programs for drug and alcohol treatment and prevention and serves about 7,000 individuals every day, treating everyone from adolescents to the homeless; in New York alone it serves 2,400 individuals per day.

Norwig Debye-Saxinger, vice president and director of public policy and government relations at the New York office, said it's too early to tell what effect the changed policies will have on his organization. Of the increased funding, he said, "Percentage-wise it’s not a big increase, but it’s hard to tell how many additional people will be diverted.” Debye-Saxinger has heard estimates ranging from as few as 600 to as many as 3,000 additional offenders entering treatment.

As rehab facilities acclimate, OASAS may be urged to consider temporarily waiving space regulations to help increase capacity faster. “The only regulations that might need tweaking are the physical plant standards that require a certain square footage per client,” he said, suggesting that returning to the lower standard from before 2002 would help build additional treatment space faster.

Working in an advisory capacity to ACTION will be the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, who help in the training, startup, and organization of drug courts across the country. Judge John Schwartz, founder of New York’s first drug court in Rochester and former chairman of the drug court association's board, reached out to the governor to be a part of the council in helping with ACTION. Schwartz says that while New York has a drug court for every county – one of the largest systems in the country – he anticipated that his group would be advocating to improve and expand the drug court system. “Everyone who fits the criteria should be given the opportunity” to be assessed for treatment, he said.

Drug courts function as the intermediary between the criminal justice system and the drug treatment network, strategizing side by side with treatment professionals to determine the best course of action for those diverted from prison. “It’s not the normal courtroom that one thinks of,” Schwartz said. “It’s really a treatment court. Treatment services are provided right through the court system.”

Schwartz said increasing the capacity of the drug court system, making more courts, making them larger, and thus making them able to divert more people from prison would actually save the state money. “It costs about $6,000 for a drug court placement compared to $30,000 for staying in prison,” he explained.

Dr. David Deitch, senior vice president and chief clinical officer of Phoenix House, explained his concerns for those in need of treatment but already imprisoned. He called the Rockefeller reforms “enlightened legislation” but warned that the effort could be “tossed on its rear end if indeed people are released and commit crimes simply because they are returning to a lifestyle of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior.”

Deitch was adamant that a part of preventing this sort of cycle would be treatment options for those nearing the end of their sentence. He said, “Providers like Phoenix ought to be given the opportunity to case manage those who are due for release" – thus helping an individual re-enter society and deal with issues like welfare, mental health, employment, housing, and family reunification.

This is the sort of cooperation with the prison system that Deitch and others would like to see expanded even further by the ACTION council, particularly for those individuals who may achieve retroactive release if their crimes fall under the guidelines for a diversionary treatment program. The transition of taking people out of prison and into treatment can be a difficult one, he said. “Most offenders after years in prison are not interested in being committed to a mental health program.”

Deitch is not the only one thinking long-term. When discussing aftercare and case management, Commissioner Carpenter-Palumbo made it clear that effective drug treatment was a long and involved process. “The science tells us that after any treatment involvement, the person has to maintain contact [with the program] for at least one year, many even longer. The reason they say 'one day at a time' is that it is truly one day at a time.”

- Casey Samulski

Posted by lois at 09:19 AM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2009

MA: Editorial: Reform sentencing to save money, reduce crime

Editorial: Reform sentencing to save money, reduce crime
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 08, 2009

The case for reforming criminal sentencing in Massachusetts has been evident for years. Mandatory minimum sentences handcuff judges, denying them the flexibility they need to ensure justice and protect public safety in light of the specific case at hand. They pack the prisons with people who come out more dangerous than they went in. And they deny courts and prosecutors the most effective tools for keeping released prisoners from offending again.

Those serving mandatory minimum sentences, most of them drug offenders, aren't eligible for work release programs, "good conduct" credits or parole. As a result, nearly a thousand inmates a year are released back into the community with none of the post-release supervision proven to keep ex-offenders from committing crimes again.

The state's Criminal Offender Record Information system suffers from similar unintended consequences. Designed to protect the innocent by giving prospective employers access to criminal records, CORI too often denies those who have served their sentences the jobs they need to keep away from crime.

But the case for reforming sentencing and CORI has been lost on the risk-averse state Legislature. Mandatory minimums aren't as politically popular as they were 20 years ago, but convicted criminals don't vote, and those who like policies that look "tough on crime" do - even if those policies don't actually work.

Gov. Deval Patrick is challenging legislators to choose effective crime-control strategies over outdated political assumptions. Patrick is introducing bills to modify mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders, allowing them to apply for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentences and making post-release supervision mandatory. Drug offenders serving mandatory minimums would be eligible for work release and community corrections programs.

Patrick calls for CORI reforms that would tighten administration and give offenders the opportunity to contest CORI decisions and respond to those reviewing their records.

These reforms are a good first step, but only that. The state should be creating options for drug treatment instead of incarceration for some drug offenders. Community corrections and post-release supervision should be expanded, as should drug treatment programs in the prisons.

In the past, the Legislature has too often ignored the governor's reform initiatives. His response, in this and other areas, has been to offer more modest reforms, which the Legislature dilutes further, so that they hardly qualify as reforms at all.

In this case, the Legislature should make Patrick's reforms even stronger. If the research into preventing recidivism isn't convincing enough, lawmakers should consider the cost of "lock-em-up-and-forget-about-them" policies. It costs about $47,000 a year to house each inmate in Massachusetts' overcrowded prisons. With the state facing its worst ever fiscal crisis, taxpayers can no longer afford politically popular policies that do little to reduce crime.

The MetroWest Daily News
http://www.enterprisenews.com/opinions/x2133277840/Editorial-Reform-sentencing-to-save-money-reduce-crime?view=print

Posted by lois at 02:12 PM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2009

Wesleyan University (CT): Students Push for Prison Classes

Students Push for Prison Classes
Jan. 30th, 2009 — Vol. CXLV, No. 1
Wesleyan Argus
By Jae Aron, Features Editor

Students are asking the school to award prisoners academic credit. STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER / CHARLOTTE ROBERTSON Students are asking the school to award prisoners academic credit.

In his opening address at the College in Prison Symposium held last Monday, Assistant Professor of Political Studies at Bard College, Daniel Karpowitz, described a course he teaches on Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” in which students study the relationship between law and literature. The catch? His classroom and his students are behind bars.

“The students are never called upon to reflect on themselves, but are called upon to do exactly the same thing as students at Bard College,” Karpowitz said. “The core principle of the program is to maintain the same academic rigor, scope, ambitions and spirit of what we do on the conventional campus.”

Karpowitz, who is the Director of Policy and Academics for the Bard Prison Initiative, and Max Kenner, its founder, have been directing two satellite colleges inside two long-term maximum-security prisons and two transitional medium-security prisons for the past 11 years. Approximately 160 students are currently enrolled in the competitive program, which culminates in a Bard degree.

25 years ago, only 200,000 Americans were incarcerated; today, that number has risen to over 2 million. In fact, one out of every 100 Americans is now in prison. In the state of Connecticut, public investment in the prison system is greater than its investment in education.

These types of statistics have motivated students like Russell Perkins ’09, who for the past two years has been a part of the Prisoner Solidarity Project, a group of students who hope to bring a College in Prison program to Wesleyan modeled after Bard, Boston University and others.

“There is a conventional sense in which prisoners are the last people qualified to go to Wesleyan, but in that they largely represent a population that the educational system has profoundly failed, they are precisely the kind of students a place like Wesleyan should try to serve,” Perkins said. “Part of why I’m doing this is that I feel very strongly about Wesleyan as an institution. By incorporating this program, what we’re doing is actually committing to our belief that an education is a truly powerful thing.”

The Prisoner Solidarity Project is an offshoot of WesPREP, the Wesleyan Prison Research and Education Program, a prison advocacy group that leads workshops in prison and promotes activism on campus. Students and faculty involved in the project are proposing a two-year College-in-Prison pilot program at Cheshire Correctional Institution in Connecticut, located about half an hour away from campus.

Molly Birnbaum ’09 joined WesPREP her freshman year and has been deeply committed to the Prisoner Solidarity Project since then, working with faculty and staff to develop the program. She is also helping to write a grant for funding and organizing the symposium with other students.

“Coming from my neighborhood, prison and policing were all around me, but it was the type of thing that was just a given in the makeup of urban life,” Birnbaum said. “I wanted to address those issues of systemic racism and class oppression that plagued the place where I grew up.”

According to Perkins, the Wesleyan Center for Prison Education proposal pilot program would be highly competitive, with only 15 inmates being admitted, and taught exclusively by faculty. Admitted students would enroll in two courses per semester for “non degree seeking” academic credit, at least initially.

“Academic credit is something Wesleyan takes very seriously, and it comes along with extremely rigorous expectations,” Perkins said. “We’re asking Wesleyan to make a significant investment in the sense that Wesleyan academic credit and faculty are two of our most precious resources.”

The Center is also proposing “Critical Pedagogy,” a service-learning seminar where conventional Wesleyan students will learn about incarceration as well as tutor prisoners not accepted into the credit-bearing program.

Jason Kavett ’09 started volunteering in prison his first year at Wesleyan. Since then Kavett and about 30 other students have led workshops at Cheshire and also at York Women’s Prison on subjects like anthropology, poetry and non-fiction writing.

“Those [professors] who participate will find not just excited and talented students, but also a fresh outlet to share what they do best,” he said. “I think this will happen because, while being innovative, it is really only a reflection of the kind of engagement that defines Wesleyan as an institution. The program is actually quite conventional for us.”

Birnbaum said the level of commitment of incarcerated students often surpasses that of the average Wesleyan student.

“I’ve heard stories about professors who become reinvigorated as teachers through their experience working with incarcerated students,” she said. “Professors would not be diverting attention away from the Wesleyan classroom, but rather enriching their tenure with different experiences and new ways of approaching the process of learning.”
Karpowitz and Kenner were joined by two other panelists on Monday night in the Memorial Chapel: Dr. Robert Cadigan, who directs a Prison Education Program at Boston University, and Theater Professor Ronald Jenkins, whose course “Activism and Outreach through Theater” allows Wesleyan students to perform alongside prisoners in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and York Women’s Prison.

While all five panelists advocated the program’s implementation at Wesleyan, there were differences of opinion as to how to carry out the program, even amongst colleagues. Questions about the value—or lack thereof—of interactions between traditional students and students in prison, as well as concerns about censorship and rules were common, as well as what one panelist called “anti-training”: that is, whether or not to allow faculty to discuss their students’ own “crime and punishment.”

“The panel gave the community a chance to see a large spectrum of approaches and even politics that advocates for this program have,” Kavett said. “We saw that even though you could say there is an obvious kind of progressive politics in the background, there is no dogmatic set of beliefs one has to have to understand why the program is so compelling.”
http://wesleyanargus.com/2009/01/30/students-push-for-prison-classes/

==================================================
What does it mean to have College in Prison?
By Sylvia Ryerson
Wesleyan Argus May 1, 2009

Dear Wesleyan Faculty and Fellow Students,

In the midst of all the excitement over the near approval of a Wesleyan College in Prison pilot program for the coming academic year, I wish to take a step back to consider the possible implications of the proposed program, and to re-imagine the best way to move forward at this moment in time. [1] As a citizen and activist passionate about the urgent need to actively oppose the U.S. prison industrial complex, as a current workshop facilitator at York Prison in Niantic, CT, and as a former member of the student group working to establish the WCPE (the Wesleyan Center for Prison Education), I have become increasingly disillusioned with the Wesleyan College in Prison program. Before it is too late, I urge us as a community to give this proposal the critical attention it deserves.

The goal of the WCPE is undoubtedly a worthy one: to offer college-level courses taught by Wesleyan professors to incarcerated individuals for credit. The program is meant to take place at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Cheshire, CT, the largest male high-security prison in the state. As the mission statement of the WCPE proposal reads, the aim is to offer courses to “those who are systematically denied access to educational opportunities,” because “we believe access to a college education should be a right for all.”

Yet in making this claim, the proposal fails by its own logic. Cheshire Prison incarcerates approximately 1,361 people. This two-year pilot program will admit fifteen students in the first year and thirty in the second year, .01 percent and .02 percent respectively of the total prison population. In order to determine who gets to participate, the project states, “we propose a rigorous application process that will evaluate reading comprehension, writing ability and critical thinking skills of potential applicants.” Thus rather than enacting the belief that college education should be a right for all, this program explicitly outlines how individuals will be judged in order to determine whether or not they are worthy of this education, by a process that will necessarily privilege those coming from more advantaged backgrounds.

Rather than allowing inmates to elect the option of attending classes, this framework perpetuates a system of denied access for a population that has already been “systematically denied access to educational opportunities,” in a space that offers few alternatives. And in admitting only .01 percent of the population, this program will re-institute a social hierarchy throughout the entire prison structured on exclusive access to privileged forms of knowledge.

This is not the only way a college in prison program can exist. This is simply the model that has been dictated to the WCPE by a grant offered from the Bard College in Prison program. In some Connecticut prisons, community colleges offer open access courses for degree-granting credit (the WCPE offers only “non-degree seeking” transferable credit, meaning that participants will not be granted Wesleyan degrees). It is possible that Wesleyan could become an ally to these programs. Another starting point could be to set up an open access lecture series at Cheshire by Wesleyan professors.

Some argue that as a pilot, this program will grow to admit more people. Between year one and year two of the pilot, the program will expand from excluding 99.99 percent of Cheshire’s population, to excluding 99.98 percent. Given these statistics, how much expansion can we truly hope for down the road? Some argue that the intense competition for admission is necessary to uphold the belief that the “same standards of academic rigor that adhere at Wesleyan can be upheld in a class taught to prison inmates.” [2] Such an argument remains entirely within the paradigm that accepts prison as a space where rehabilitation is possible – yet only allows the possibility of redemption to a select few, within the terms of the intellectual order that has created the category of their exclusion.

The significance of this decision extends far beyond the relationship between Cheshire and Wesleyan. The hope of the WCPE (as it has been explained to me) is to make this a satellite program to be replicated in colleges and prisons across the country. I see this potential national expansion as re-creating the paternalistic logic of development that offers band-aid solutions in moments of crisis, effectively diverting attention and energy from meaningful radical organizing for social change.

There are many, many more things to be said here that this space will not allow. But I want to end by saying that I deeply respect the incredible amount of work that my fellow students have put into making this program happen. I know that the hardest time to re-evaluate is when things feel so close to completion. Yet personally, I find no sense of completion in the institutionalization of a program that lacks a broader vision and strategy for how to confront and transform the present crisis of the U.S. prison system. It is a dangerous game to theorize about the horror of the prison industrial complex, and then separate this from our own involvement in its recreation – especially at a moment when we have the opportunity to begin something new.

I know that there are many people on this campus who care deeply about these issues, and for this reason I urge us to talk to each other about the significance of this proposal. It is happening now, and it is in our name.

Sincerely,
Sylvia Ryerson
[1] The proposal has passed the Educational Policy Committee (EPC), but must still be passed by a faculty vote.
[2] From the WCPE proposal.
Ryerson is a member of the class of 2009.
http://wesleyanargus.com/2009/05/01/what-does-it-mean-to-have-college-in-prison/

Posted by lois at 06:30 PM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2009

NACDL: "Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts"

Washington, DC (Apr. 28, 2009) – Nationwide, state and local governments are wasting millions of tax dollars to prosecute petty offenses, creating huge deficits in their budgets and violating the constitutional rights of citizens haled into court. That is the conclusion of "Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts", a report released today by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) that comprehensively examines misdemeanor courts across the country.

The report, (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/defenseupdates/misdemeanor/$FILE/Report.pdf), recommends that states divert non-violent misdemeanor cases that do not impact public safety to programs that are less costly to taxpayers and repay society through community service or civil fines.

Misdemeanors—infractions such as curfew violations, loitering and open container laws—lead to expensive prosecutions on the taxpayers’ dime. The volume of cases is staggering. A median state misdemeanor rate of 3,544 cases per 100,000 citizens indicates that taxpayers are burdened with paying the costs of more than 10 million misdemeanor prosecutions per year, the report said.

With courts this clogged, public defenders and probation officers are forced to handle hundreds more cases than they can ethically manage, spending just minutes preparing for each case. And some defendants are completely deprived of their constitutional right to counsel, putting states at risk for expensive lawsuits on top of the heavy financial burden of unnecessary incarceration costs.

Research and drafting of the report was a collaborative effort between NACDL and Professor Robert C. Boruchowitz of the Seattle University School of Law. In addition to compiling of misdemeanor courts in a number of jurisdictions, NACDL conducted interviews with key criminal justice personnel in misdemeanor courts across the country, including judges, defense counsel, prosecutors and accused. Where possible, NACDL site teams also gathered data on misdemeanor prosecutions, public defender caseloads, and other relevant statistics. The authors also conducted a national survey of defense lawyers seeking information on misdemeanor practices in respondents’ jurisdictions. In 2008, NACDL held misdemeanor practice conferences in New York and Seattle with over 150 public defenders, prosecutors, judges and policy persons in attendance.

Posted by lois at 03:12 PM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2009

Time to decriminalize drugs? The Portuguese experiment

"...the Portuguese government decided to create a high-level commission, dominated by health care professionals, to recommend a solution. The commission's surprise recommendation: Don't officially legalize all drugs. Instead, decriminalize them, take away all criminal penalties."

Time to decriminalize drugs?
By By Neil Peirce, syndicated columnist
By Daily Hampshire Gazette
Created 04/27/2009

The criminal factor is being lifted from marijuana use in California. The other 12 states where marijuana is permitted for medical use can't be far behind.

And if 13 states now, then all 50 in the next years?

That's the future some see flowing from a decision announced Feb. 25 by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. The federal Drug Enforcement Agency, Holder announced, would stop its raids on marijuana dispensaries in states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes.

The order spells a refreshing respect for states' rights. In California, where hundreds of new dispensaries are springing up to meet demand, customers need only produce a physician's recommendation in order to buy marijuana. California law allows pot to be dispensed for "any illness for which marijuana provides a relief." Back pain, anxiety, sleeplessness, glaucoma, virtually any condition can now be claimed.

Perhaps no line can be drawn between serious conditions for which marijuana is a godsend, relieving many patients suffering excruciating pain, and simple recreational use.

And then there's the sheer numbers issue. Surveys show 100 million Americans at some point in their lives have smoked pot. It's time to ask: What's government doing prohibiting marijuana in the first place?

In California alone, the marijuana market is already estimated to total $14 billion a year. Legislation pending in Sacramento would regulate the trade and yield the state $1.3 billion in revenues. In an America whose revenue-hungry state governments have already gone hog-wild legalizing another practice once thought evil, gambling, what's so different about marijuana?

And there's a parallel. At the height of the Great Depression, state governments drowning in red ink seized the opportunity to repeal prohibition of alcohol as a way to institute legal taxes and fill their empty coffers.

The myth we need to break is that the use of mind-altering drugs is really different from a whole range of activities, sometimes sheer fun, sometimes dangerous, that humans have engaged in since the dawn of time.

I'd put gambling on that list, but even more deeply entrenched are alcohol, drugs and sexual practices. All have legitimate roles; each, depending on its form and application, can be seriously abused. A mature society warns of problems but holds back on prohibition ## and sensibly, because rules of total denial will be broken anyway.

What's missing on the marijuana front, suggests Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, is any fair, open debate about its use. How serious is it, for example, if a high school student gets "stoned"? Is "binge drinking" really less serious? Would a successful prevention model aim mostly at abstinence or some safer, moderate form of use?

We've been so preoccupied with a total prohibition model for drugs, says Sterling, that we've not had the sane conversation we need.

Hopefully, California and the other medical-marijuana states will now oblige us to open up a fuller debate.

By good fortune, a fascinating new European study has become available to us. In the late 1990s, Portugal was faced by seemingly runaway drug usage, together with record arrest levels and imprisonments. (Sound familiar?)

So the Portuguese government decided to create a high-level commission, dominated by health care professionals, to recommend a solution. The commission's surprise recommendation: Don't officially legalize all drugs. Instead, decriminalize them, take away all criminal penalties.

"I think it's bizarrely underappreciated what's been done in Portugal," says analyst Glenn Greenwald, author of a just-published study on the Portuguese experiment for the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.

The Portuguese parliament didn't "go soft" on drug traffickers, they're still liable to arrest and criminal prosecution. Police can still issue citations to drug users. But under the new law, in effect since 2001, the worst fate an apprehended drug user can expect is mandatory appearance before a "dissuasion commission", which in turn is most likely to suggest a course of treatment.

The crucial advantage of decriminalization, says Greenwald, is that it removes citizens' fear of government punishment. So they feel free to seek out help for treatment or stopping drug use altogether. The money formerly spent on "putting drug users into cages," as he puts it, is going for counselors and psychologists conducting quality treatment programs.

America's "drug war" myth has been that anything short of severe criminal penalties leads to massive drug abuse, escalating crime and worse. But in Portugal, none of the predicted parade of horrors has occurred. Drug use among youth has actually declined, and surveys show use of marijuana, cocaine and dangerous substances like heroin are all well below Europe-wide averages.

Decriminalization rather than legalization, could this be the sane middle ground we need here too?

Neal Peirce's email address is nrp@citistates.com.
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2008 All rights reserved
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/04/27/time-decriminalize-drugs

Posted by lois at 05:15 PM | Comments (0)

April 23, 2009

TX: Expand program to divert mentally ill from prisons

Commentary
Expand program to divert mentally ill from prisons
By MARC A. LEVIN
April 22, 2009

Mental illness is a key factor in driving up correctional costs in Texas. There are 42,556 offenders with a mental health diagnosis in prison, 55,276 on probation and 21,345 on parole. Additionally, some 170,000 mentally ill inmates are admitted into Texas county jails every year.

Mentally ill inmates cost more to house and they stay longer. They are also more likely to recidivate.

Fortunately, there are policies that can reduce both the recidivism and cost associated with the mentally ill in the criminal justice system.

First, counties can divert mentally ill offenders from jail through programs that protect public safety while saving taxpayer dollars.

Bexar County has established a successful three-pronged jail diversion program that can serve as a model for other Texas counties.

First, it employs specially trained law enforcement personnel called Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT). These teams are often able to defuse incidents involving the mentally ill without an arrest. Participants in CIT programs spent on average two more months out of jail than non-diverted individuals, resulting in significant jail cost savings.

While the largest Texas metropolitan police departments have CIT personnel, smaller police departments can create a CIT program through cooperatives with other nearby departments.

With Bexar County’s second prong, arrested offenders are screened for mental illness and, if not a threat to public safety, released on a mental health bond or to a treatment center. Screenings are conducted at the Crisis Care Center, a 24-hour facility that provides significantly quicker service at a lower cost than the emergency room.

Once stabilized, offenders are released on a mental health bond. Because the wait for a trial date can be as long as six months, outpatient monitoring significantly reduces the utilization of county jail space.

Finally, Bexar County diverts such misdemeanants from jail through an initiative called MANOS, which includes intensive case management that consists of outpatient medication management and counseling.

Of the 371 offenders admitted to the MANOS Program, only 6.2 percent were re-incarcerated. This compares to a re-incarceration rate of 67 percent for mentally ill offenders without the intensive case management services offered by the jail diversion program.

Savings from Bexar County’s jail diversion program are estimated at between $3.8 million and $5 million per year.

The state can also take steps to address the impact of mental illness on the criminal justice system. About 2,500 probationers and 800 parolees participate in a state-funded initiative involving intensive case management and a smaller case load with a specially trained officer.

The three-year re-incarceration rate is 15.1 percent for participating probationers and 16 percent for parolees. In contrast, there is a 52 percent re-incarceration rate for mentally ill probationers and parolees who do not receive treatment. Increasing the number of probationers and parolees in this program could more than pay for itself through lower recidivism.

Another way to address mental illness in the criminal justice system is through mental health courts. Several Texas counties — including Bexar, El Paso, Tarrant and Dallas — have established mental health courts in which a judge orders the defendant to obtain treatment and supervises his progress. Harris County’s criminal district judges voted in January to designate a full-time felony mental health court. The court is not yet in operation.

A RAND Institute study found significant cost savings from mental health courts due to lower jail utilization.

Finally, defendants who are mentally incompetent to stand trial can be diverted from a state hospital. In 2008, the state launched outpatient competency restoration pilot programs.

Taking Travis, Tarrant, Bexar and Dallas counties together, some 427 offenders are projected to be served in 2009. The total cost of these four programs is $2.16 million compared with the state hospital cost of $14.95 million based on an average cost of $35,000 per offender.

Accordingly, it makes sense to expand these pilot programs to additional sites.

Mentally ill offenders will always pose a substantial challenge in the criminal justice system.

But through initiatives like these, we can achieve our goals of enhanced public safety and reduced costs to taxpayers.

Levin is director of the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a nonprofit, free-market research institute based in Austin.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6387282.html

Posted by lois at 02:08 PM | Comments (0)

April 13, 2009

NY Times Editorial: Addiction Behind Bars

NY Times Editorial
Addiction Behind Bars

Published: April 12, 2009

The United States must do more to curb the spread of diseases like AIDS and hepatitis C in prison, where infection rates are high and inmates can easily spread disease through unprotected sex or by sharing needles.

Drug treatment in prison is clearly part of the solution. But by some estimates, fewer than one in five inmates who need formal treatment are actually getting it. That’s alarming, given that about half the prison population suffers from drug abuse or dependency problems.

Addicted prisoners cause problems outside the walls. After they’re freed, addicts with H.I.V. or AIDS can infect spouses and lovers. They feed their addictions by returning to crime, which lands them back in prison and starts the terrible cycle over again.

The most effective programs provide inmates with high-quality treatment in prison and continue that treatment when prisoners return to their communities. Such programs have been shown to reduce both drug use and recidivism.

But good programs are rare, according to a report earlier this year in The Journal of the American Medical Association. Prisons typically rely on the abstinence-only model, which fails miserably with heroin addicts. Moreover, prison officials are notoriously hostile to methadone maintenance and other chemically based therapies that have long been a standard for people addicted to opiates.

Prison treatment is particularly disastrous in New York, according to a new report from Human Rights Watch. Imprisoned addicts, the authors say, are typically shut out of treatment until their sentences are nearly over because of ill-conceived policies that give priority to those who are about to be released.

New rules created earlier this month should help address these problems. The rules give oversight responsibility for prison treatment programs to the State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, an agency that develops treatment programs and licenses treatment providers.

The agency will be required to make sure that prison drug treatments are tailored to inmates’ needs. It will also monitor the programs, filing annual reports to the governor and Legislature. Drug-policy advocates hope that the new arrangement will improve treatment and provide timely help for addicted inmates. That would be good for public health. It could reduce crime, too.

A version of this article appeared in print on April 13, 2009, on page A20 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13mon3.html?_r=1

Posted by lois at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2009

Twenty Years of Drug Courts -- Results and Misgivings from Drug War Chronicle

Feature: Twenty Years of Drug Courts -- Results and Misgivings
from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #580, 4/10/09

The drug court phenomenon celebrates its 20th birthday this year. The first drug court, designed to find a more effective way for the criminal justice system to deal with drug offenders, was born in Miami in 1989 under the guidance of then local prosecutor Janet Reno. Since then, drug courts have expanded dramatically, with their number exceeding 2000 today, including at least one in every state.

According to Urban Institute estimates, some 55,000 people are currently in drug court programs. The group found that another 1.5 million arrestees would probably meet the criteria for drug dependence and would thus be good candidates for drug courts.

The notion behind drug courts is that providing drug treatment to some defendants would lead to better outcomes for them and their communities. Unlike typical criminal proceedings, drug courts are intended to be collaborative, with judges, prosecutors, social workers, and defense attorneys working together to decide what would be best for the defendant and the community.

Drug courts can operate either by diverting offenders into treatment before sentencing or by sentencing offenders to prison terms and suspending the sentences providing they comply with treatment demands. They also vary in their criteria for eligibility: Some may accept only nonviolent, first-time offenders considered to be addicted, while others may have broader criteria.

Such courts rely on sanctions and rewards for their clients, with continuing adherence to treatment demands met with a loosening of restrictions and relapsing into drug use subjected to ever harsher punishments, typically beginning with a weekend in jail and graduating from there. People who fail drug court completely are then either diverted back into the criminal justice system for prosecution or, if they have already been convicted, sent to prison.

Drug courts operate in a strange and contradictory realm that embraces the model of addiction as a disease needing treatment, yet punishes failure to respond as if it were a moral failing. No other disease is confronted in such a manner. There are no diabetes courts, for example, where one is placed under the control of the criminal justice system for being sick and subject to "flash incarceration" for eating forbidden foods.

Conceptual dilemmas notwithstanding, drug courts have been extensively studied, and the general conclusion is that, within the parameters of the therapeutic/criminal justice model, they are successful. A recently released report from the Sentencing Project is the latest addition to the literature, or, more accurately, review of the literature.

In the report, Drug Courts: A Review of the Evidence, the group concluded that:

* Drug courts have generally been demonstrated to have positive benefits in reducing recidivism.
* Evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of drug courts have generally found benefits through reduced costs of crime or incarceration.
* Concern remains regarding potential "net-widening" effects of drug courts by drawing in defendants who might not otherwise have been subject to arrest and prosecution.

"What you have with drug courts is a program that the research has shown time and time again works," said Chris Deutsch, associate director of communications for the National Association of Drug Court Professionals in suburban Washington, DC. "We all know the problems facing the criminal justice system with drug offenders and imprisonment. We have established incentives and sanctions as an important part of the drug court model because they work," he said. "One of the reasons drug courts are expanding so rapidly," said Deutsch, "is that we don't move away from what the research shows works. This is a scientifically validated model."

"There is evidence that in certain models there is success in reducing recidivism, but there is not a single model that works," said Ryan King, coauthor of the Sentencing Project report. "We wanted to highlight common factors in success, such as having judges with multiple turns in drug court and who understand addiction, and building on graduated sanctions, but also to get people to understand the weaknesses."

"Drug courts are definitely better than going to prison," said Theshia Naidoo, a staff attorney for the Drug Policy Alliance, which has championed a less coercive treatment-not-jail program in California's Proposition 36, "but they are not the be-all and end-all of addressing drug abuse. They may be a step forward in our current prohibitionist system, but when you look at their everyday operations, it's pretty much criminal justice as usual."

That was one of the nicest things said about drug courts by harm reductionists and drug policy reformers contacted this week by the Chronicle. While drug courts can claim success as measured by the metrics embraced by the therapeutic-criminal justice complex, they appear deeply perverse and wrongheaded to people who do not embrace that model.

Remarks by Kevin Zeese of Common Sense for Drug Policy hit many of the common themes. "If drug courts result in more people being caught up in the criminal justice system, I do not see them as a good thing," he said. "The US has one out of 31 people in prison on probation or on parole, and that's a national embarrassment more appropriate for a police state than the land of the free. If drug courts are adding to that problem, they are part of the national embarrassment, not the solution."

But Zeese was equally disturbed by the therapeutic-criminal justice model itself. "Forcing drug treatment on people who happen to get caught is a very strange way to offer health care," he observed. "We would see a greater impact if treatment on request were the national policy and sufficient funds were provided to treatment services so that people who wanted treatment could get it quickly. And, the treatment industry would be a stronger industry if they were not dependent on police and courts to be sending them 'clients' -- by force -- and if instead they had to offer services that people wanted."

For Zeese, the bottom line was: "The disease model has no place in the courts. Courts don't treat disease, doctors and health professionals do."

In addition to such conceptual and public policy concerns, others cited more specific problems with drug court operations. "In Connecticut, the success of drug courts depends on educated judges," said Robert Heimer of the Yale University School of Public Health. "For example, in some parts of the state, judges refused to send defendants with opioid addiction to methadone programs. This dramatically reduced the success of the drug courts in these parts of the state compared to parts of the state where judges referred people to the one proven medically effective form of treatment for their addiction."

Heimer's complaint about the rejection of methadone maintenance therapy was echoed on the other side of the Hudson River by upstate New York drug reformer Nicolas Eyle of Reconsider: Forum on Drug Policy. "Most, if not all, drug courts in New York abhor methadone and maintenance treatment in general," he noted. "This is troubling because the state's recent Rockefeller law reforms have a major focus on treatment in lieu of prison, suggesting that more and more hapless people will be forced to enter treatment they may not need or want. Then the judge decides what type of treatment they must have, and when they don't achieve the therapeutic goals set for them they'll be hauled off to serve their time."

Still, said Heimer, "Such courts can work if appropriate treatment options are available, but if the treatment programs are bad, then it is unlikely that courts will work. In such cases, if the only alternative is then incarceration, there is little reason for drug courts. If drug court personnel think their program is valuable, they should be consistently lobbying for better drug treatment in their community. If they are not doing this, then they are contributing to the circumstances of their own failure, and again, the drug user becomes the victim if the drug court personnel are not doing this."

Even within the coerced treatment model, there are more effective approaches than drug courts, said Naidoo. "Drug courts basically have a zero tolerance policy, and many judges just don't understand addiction as a chronic relapsing condition, so if there is a failed drug test, the court comes in with a hammer imposing a whole series of sanctions. A more effective model would be to look at the overall context," she argued. "If the guy has a dirty urine, but has found a job, has gotten housing, and is reunited with his family, maybe he shouldn't be punished for the relapse. The drug court would punish him."

Other harm reductionists were just plain cynical about drug courts. "I guess they work in reducing the drug-related harm of going to prison by keeping people out of prison -- except when they're sending people to prison," said Delaney Ellison, a veteran Michigan harm reductionist and activist. "And that's exactly what drug courts do if you're resistant to treatment or broke. Poor, minority people can't afford to complete a time-consuming drug court regime. If a participant finds he can't pay the fines, go to four hours a day of outpatient treatment, and pay rent and buy food while trapped in the system, he finds a way to prioritize and abandons the drug court."

An adequate health care system that provided treatment on demand is what is needed, Ellison said. "And most importantly, when are we going to stop letting cops and lawyers -- and this includes judges -- regulate drugs?" he asked. "These people don't know anything about pharmacology. When do we lobby to let doctors and pharmacists regulate drugs?"

Drug courts are also under attack on the grounds they deny due process rights to defendants. In Maryland, the state's public defender last week argued that drug courts were unconstitutional, complaining that judges should not be allowed to send someone to jail repeatedly without a full judicial hearing.

"There is no due process in drug treatment court," Public Defender Nancy Foster told the Maryland Court of Appeals in a case that is yet to be decided.

Foster's argument aroused some interest from the appeals court judges. One of them, Judge Joseph Murphy, noted that a judge talking to one party in a case without the other party being present, which sometimes happens in drug courts, has raised due process concerns in other criminal proceedings. "Can you do that without violating the defendant's rights?" he asked.

A leading advocate of the position that drug courts interfere with due process rights is Williams College sociologist James Nolan. In an interview last year, Nolan summarized his problem with drug courts. "My concern is that if we make the law so concerned with being therapeutic, you forget about notions of justice such as proportionality of punishment, due process and the protection of individual rights," Nolan said. "Even though problem-solving advocates wouldn't want to do away with these things, they tend to fade into the background in terms of importance."

In that interview, Nolan cited a Miami-Dade County drug court participant forced to remain in the program for seven years. "So here, the goal is not about justice," he said. "The goal is to make someone well, and the consequences can be unjust because they are getting more of a punishment than they deserve."

Deutsch said he was "hesitant" to comment on criticisms of the drug court model, "but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to keeping drug addicted offenders out of the criminal justice system and in treatment, drug courts are the best option available."

For the Sentencing Project's King, drug courts are a step up from the depths of the punitive prohibitionist approach, but not much of one. "With the drug courts, we're in a better place now than we were 20 years ago, but it's not the place we want to be 20 years from now," he said. "The idea that somebody needs to enter the criminal justice system to access public drug treatment is a real tragedy."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/580/drug_courts_at_20_years

Posted by lois at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)

April 05, 2009

NY: Rockefeller Drug Laws: A Welcome Change But Not Far Enough Say NY Activists and Organizers

"The new law eliminates the mandatory minimum of a year in prison for first offenders charged with Class B felonies (sale of up to 1/2 ounce of cocaine or heroin, or possession with intent to sell) and first or second offenders charged with lesser felonies (such as possession of 1/2 gram of cocaine). It also expands drug treatment and other alternatives to incarceration. Second offenders charged with B felonies, who now face an automatic 4 1/2 to 9 years, might be able to get treatment instead of prison if they can prove they're drug-dependent.On the other hand, the bill retains the mandatory-minimum sentences for all other accused dealers, and only about one-eighth of the state's 13,400 drug prisoners will be able to apply for reduced sentences."

New York Lightens Up on Some of the Harshest Drug Laws in the Country
Steven Wishnia
AlterNet
Fri, 03 Apr 2009

New York State is about to enact major changes in its Rockefeller drug laws, which contain some of the harshest mandatory-minimum sentences in the nation. The activists who've been trying to repeal those laws for years say it's a very welcome move but doesn't go far enough.

"I think it's a really positive step forward. It is not the end of the Rockefeller drug laws, but hopefully, it's the beginning of the end," says Caitlin Dunklee of the Drop the Rock campaign, an umbrella group campaigning to repeal the laws.

The bill "breaches the mandatory-sentencing wall," adds Robert Gangi of the Correctional Association of New York, the prison-reform group behind Drop the Rock. It might divert half the state's convicted drug felons from prison, the group estimates.

The bill came about as part of a deal among the "three men in a room" who control New York's government: Gov. David Paterson, state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, all Democrats. They agreed to include it in the state's budget, so it would not be voted on separately. After several days of delay, the state Senate approved the bill on a 32-30 party-line vote on Thursday, April 2. Paterson has promised to sign it.

The new law eliminates the mandatory minimum of a year in prison for first offenders charged with Class B felonies (sale of up to 1/2 ounce of cocaine or heroin, or possession with intent to sell) and first or second offenders charged with lesser felonies (such as possession of 1/2 gram of cocaine). It also expands drug treatment and other alternatives to incarceration. Second offenders charged with B felonies, who now face an automatic 4 1/2 to 9 years, might be able to get treatment instead of prison if they can prove they're drug-dependent.

On the other hand, the bill retains the mandatory-minimum sentences for all other accused dealers, and only about one-eighth of the state's 13,400 drug prisoners will be able to apply for reduced sentences.

The old law, Silver said in a statement, "has not impacted crime or reduced addiction, but, rather, has led to a massive increase in New York's prison population."

Drug offenders make up one-fifth of the state's male inmates and one-third of the female inmates. More than 90 percent of them are black or Latino, and about 40 percent are incarcerated for possession charges.

Paterson was arrested at a civil-disobedience protest against the Rockefeller laws in 2002, when he was a state senator representing Harlem, but he has taken a more cautious stance since he succeeded Eliot Spitzer as governor last year. He objected to several provisions in a drug-law bill passed by the Assembly in March.

Gangi credits activist pressure for getting him to compromise. The deal was reached on the night of March 25, a few hours after about 250 people demonstrated outside the governor's Manhattan offices.

"We heard that Paterson's staffers were asking, 'Can we make a deal before the rally?' " Gangi says.

According to Paterson spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein, the governor agreed to end mandatory minimums for second offenders charged with felonies below Class B, and to allow drug prisoners to apply for resentencing.

But he insisted that accused drug offenders who wanted treatment instead of prison would have to plead guilty first, on the grounds that the threat of prison would make drug users more likely to stick with treatment. The governor's philosophy is "treat, don't punish, but treat to be effective," Shorenstein explains.

The bill also revives the Rockefeller law's original 15-years-to-life sentences, this time for "kingpins" convicted of selling more than $75,000 worth of drugs.

The state's prosecutors largely oppose easing the law. And the New York Daily News editorial page, long a loud voice for the "fry 'em" approach to crime, called the proposed changes the "Drug Dealer Protection Act" and said they would unleash a crime wave.

New York's current drug laws date from 1973, when Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was facing two problems. First, heroin-related crime was exploding, with dope fiends funding their habits with muggings and burglaries and dealers killing each other in business disputes.

Second, Rockefeller, the erstwhile standard-bearer of the Republicans' shrinking liberal wing, was contemplating another run for the party's presidential nomination, and he needed to prove that he was adequately "tough on crime."

The result was a law that mandated 15 years to life for sale of 2 ounces or more of heroin or cocaine or for possession of 4 ounces.

(Crime in New York continued to rise until the early 1990s, and New York City neighborhoods like Washington Heights and the Lower East Side -- low-income areas easily accessible to white buyers -- became open-air drug markets.)

Critics of the Rockefeller laws' harshness charge that they are "unjust and racially targeted," Linda Dechabert, head of Exponents, a harm-reduction group working with drug addicts, ex-prisoners and people with AIDS, said at the March 25 rally.

The racial disparities most likely stem from the ecology of the drug trade -- ghetto street dealers are more visible and violent than discreet white-collar dealers -- and the cumulative effects of racism in who gets stopped, who gets prosecuted and who gets imprisoned.

"It's easy to arrest blacks and Latinos, because they're in a confined area," notes Carl Dukes, 64, an ex-prisoner who attended the rally.

Another criticism is that penalties are determined by the weight of the drugs seized rather than by the defendant's role in the deal.

The most notorious case of that was Elaine Bartlett, a Harlem single mother who in 1983 was set up by an Albany cocaine dealer, who paid her $2,500 to deliver 4 ounces to him. Bartlett got 20 years to life, serving 16 years before she won clemency. Police allowed the dealer who hired her to continue operating in exchange for the information.

The state enacted mild reforms in 2004 and 2005. They reduced the 15-to-life sentences to 8 to 20 years, but did not affect the 90 percent of the state's drug prisoners convicted of lesser charges.

Activists developed four "pillars" for further-reaching reforms: restoring judicial discretion, expanding treatment and alternatives to prison, reducing sentences and retroactivity -- letting prisoners apply for the sentences they would have gotten under the revised laws.

By those standards, the proposed new law would do well on treatment. It's expected to provide an extra $50 million to $80 million for drug-treatment and alternatives-to-incarceration programs, such as the one run by the Brooklyn district attorney's office.

New York has a harm-reduction system well positioned to take advantage of this, notes Gabriel Sayegh of the Drug Policy Alliance, as there are well-established programs for drug rehab, needle exchange, methadone maintenance and overdose prevention.

Most activists agree, however, that the bill falls short on judicial discretion and retroactivity. For example, someone found guilty of selling drugs would still get an automatic 4 1/2-year minimum if they had been convicted of a violent felony in the past 10 years, says Gangi. Such a person might be dangerous -- or might have calmed down considerably since their previous crime.

"We're not saying people should not go to prison," he explains. "We're saying the judge should decide."

"It's unfair. You're caught with a little amount of drugs, and you serve a long, long term in prison," says Ashley O'Donoghue, a tall, thin man with "God's Son" tattooed on his neck. "It should be retroactive so the people who are still there can get a sentence that's more suitable for what they did."

O'Donoghue, 26, was arrested in 2003 when two white college students he'd been dealing cocaine to were nabbed and set him up for a 2 1/2-ounce sale, well above his usual range. Facing 15 to life, he pleaded guilty to a B felony and served five years of a 7-to-21-year sentence.

Comedian Randy Credico, a longtime drug-law activist who attended the March 25 rally dressed as Diogenes, "looking for an honest politician," says any changes in the law would be inadequate unless retroactive resentencing is "automatic." Less than half the 1,000 prisoners eligible to apply for shorter sentences under the 2004 law actually got them.

Nicholas Eyle of Reconsider, a Syracuse anti-prohibition group, is also not enthusiastic. "I don't want to sound like I don't support the change, but I'm not that excited," he says. "I'm not a fan of mandatory treatment."

Although rehab is preferable to prison, he says, most people arrested on drug charges are not addicts, and if they tell counselors that, they'll be told they're "in denial."

What the state really needs, he believes, is a "paradigm shift. If you want to save money and reduce crime, end prohibition. If you question the fundamentals, you have to conclude that prohibition doesn't work."

Many New Yorkers find it surprising that the state government could accomplish anything on such a controversial issue. The New York legislature is often called the most dysfunctional in the nation. Virtually all major legislation is crafted by secret negotiations among the "three men in a room": the governor, the state Senate majority leader and the Assembly speaker.

Democrats have long held a majority approaching 2-1 in the Assembly, the legislature's lower house. However, state Senate districts have been gerrymandered to aid the Republicans, who controlled it from 1965 to 2008.

Over the last 15 years of that era, the Senate's GOP leader, Joseph Bruno, was able to block all but token Rockefeller-law reform. He also gutted the state's rent-control laws and refused to let the Senate consider legalizing same-sex marriage.

Bruno resigned last summer, several months before he was indicted on federal corruption charges, and in November, the Democrats won a 32-30 majority in the Senate. That immediately revved up hopes among the state's progressive activists.

However, the ballots had scarcely been counted when three Senate Democrats threatened to ally with the Republicans unless they were given power and concessions.

Nicknamed the Gang of Three, they are Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, a rent-control foe with a long history of campaign-finance violations; Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn death-penalty advocate; and the fiercely anti-gay Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx.

The Democrats' majority was further threatened when Hiram Monserrate, a Queens liberal, was indicted for slashing his girlfriend. This has jeopardized Senate passage of several bills to strengthen rent control and is widely believed to have scotched any hope of it considering same-sex marriage.

Many activists also believe that upstate Republicans oppose reducing drug sentences because prisons are one of the few sources of steady jobs in the region, whose economy has been slumping since the 1970s. In 1973, when the Rockefeller laws passed, New York had 18 prisons. From 1973 to 1999, it built 51 new ones.

Nicholas Eyle disputes that notion, saying he doesn't believe that the dozen or so legislators from rural districts where prisons are prominent are a strong enough lobby to preserve the drug laws. Sayegh advocates replacing the 30,000 prison jobs with green jobs.

Still, economic issues may well have played a role. The state has been slammed with a $15 billion budget deficit. At $45,000 per inmate, the Silver statement emphasized, it costs New York more than $500 million a year to imprison drug offenders. The minimal changes enacted in 2004 have saved the state $100 million, it added.

"My Assembly colleagues and I continue in our pledge not to give up our fight for greater reform of New York state's ineffective and imprudent drug laws," Assembly Corrections Committee Chairman Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, a longtime advocate of repealing the Rockefeller laws, said in a statement after the deal was announced. "While today's agreement brings us closer to our goal, we recognize the need to do more."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/180895-New-York-Lightens-Up-on-Some-of-the-Harshest-Drug-Laws-in-the-Country

Posted by lois at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)

April 03, 2009

Prisons, Drugs in America: A Turning Point?

Prisons, Drugs in America: A Turning Point?
Neal Peirce / Apr 02 2009
For Release Sunday, April 5, 2009
© 2009 Washington Post Writers Group

An historic turning point in criminal justice and drug policy in America?

The fourth week of March was arguably just that:

On the way to Mexico City, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the first senior U.S. official to accept co-responsibility for the cartel-driven drug violence now ravaging Mexico. Clinton acknowledged that “our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” and that our three-decade long war on drugs has simply “not worked.”

In Albany, New York Gov. David Paterson and the Democratic legislative majority announced they’d reached agreement to roll back the punitive “Rockefeller drug laws” of the 1970s, starting with then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s insistence on mandatory minimum prison sentences for first-time, non-violent drug offenders.

But the biggest breakthrough of all may have come in the U.S. Senate, where Virginia’s Jim Webb (D), joined by two Republican and 13 Democratic colleagues, sponsored legislation for a high-level “National Criminal Justice Commission.”

This could be the official eye-opener, the crucial reexamination of America’s penal and drug policies that the nation has so sorely needed for years.

Why?

First, its chair would be appointed by the president–and President Obama has called Webb twice to commend his effort. A commission-endorsed reform agenda would provide Obama cover for major changes in this politically charged area.

Second, the Senate Democratic leadership is enthusiastically in favor and there’s smaller but significant Republican cosponsorship–Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, ranking GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, and South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham, ranking member on the Crime and Drugs subcommittee.

A third positive: Jim Webb–highly decorated Marine combat veteran, Navy Secretary under President Reagan–can hardly be labeled a “softie” on crime. He and his staff have spent two years researching the prison and drug issues, hearing from prosecutors, judges, crime victims, former offenders, inmates and police. “It was like tapping a nerve,” Webb declares– “all are saying we have a real mess on our hands.”

Webb defines the base problem: with just 5 percent of world population, the U.S. has 2.3 million people behind bars–25 percent of all prisoners worldwide. “Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong.”

Webb contends that our prisons, many seriously overcrowded, have become “places of violence, physical abuse and hate,” costing federal, state and local governments a tough-to-justify $68 billion a year.

We’re “warehousing” the mentally ill in our prisons where, the senator notes, they get scant professional treatment. Then he focuses on “the elephant in the bedroom” –the rise in drug incarcerations. In 1980, the U.S. incarcerated 41,000 drug offenders; today the figure tops 500,000–a 1,200 percent increase.

The commission, says Webb, would have to wrestle with the fact that more than half of Americans age 12 and over have at some time used an illegal drug. “In talking of legality and illegality, what does that do to the fiber of our society? I saw more drug use at Georgetown Law School than anywhere else I’ve been. A lot of those people went on to be judges.”

Yet what’s the answer? Should we be arresting people for recreational drug use–or, Webb asks, for addiction?

Then there’s race: African-Americans, he observes, comprise 12 percent of our population, use drugs at close to the national average, but represent 37 percent of drug arrests and 74 percent of drug offenders sentenced to prison. How’s that to be explained?

Conversely, Webb underscores how seriously gangs are impacting American society. Some, though not all, ride on the back of the drug trade. Mexican drug cartels, the most violent and visible, are operating in 230 American cities, not simply along the border. MS-13 gangs, notorious for drug smuggling, gun running and hits for hire, have spread across the U.S., even recruiting 2,000, Webb notes, in Northern Virginia across the Potomac from Washington.

Then there’s the problem of rural towns, hard hit by globalization, actively seeking prisons as a source for jobs.

Many American guards receive only brief on-the-job training. Webb contrasts this with Japan, where guards have a year’s preparation and inmates legitimately regard them but “mentors, disciplinarians, and friends.”

Bottom line: Webb’s commission, if Congress approves it, will have a massive, complex agenda. Yet its findings could prove a vital turning point, not only for the federal government (which holds just 10 percent of prisoners) but state and local governments nationwide. Many might be inspired to create their own commissions.

Some say Webb, representing historically conservative Virginia, is threatening his own political future. But if Webb can get us off the dime, thinking and acting afresh on critical prison and drug issues, he’ll be serving America as vitally as the bravest of his erstwhile Marine colleagues.
http://citiwire.net/post/831/

Posted by lois at 12:04 AM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2009

Real Cost of Prisons Comix wins National Council on Crime and Delinquency PASS Award

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Announces
The 2008 PASS Award Winners
Oakland, CA, March 20, 2009

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency is pleased to announce the 2008 Winners of its respected PASS Awards (Prevention for a Safer Society). NCCD honors the media’s success and vital role in illuminating the people and programs that uncover the root causes of crime and those that promise to protect our most precious resource—our youth—against involvement in crime.

A critical link in successful policies related to youth and justice is the education of the public. The media is uniquely positioned to be this link, and we gratefully acknowledge their efforts to fulfill that responsibility. Each year the PASS Awards honor media professionals in the fields of print, literature, broadcast media, television, and film in recognition of thoughtful and factual coverage of the issues. Special consideration is given to those stories that highlight solutions to criminal and juvenile justice and child welfare problems.

NCCD is the nation's oldest private organization working to attain responsive and effective criminal justice, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems. For over 100 years, NCCD has been committed to promoting criminal justice strategies that are fair, humane, cost-effective, and uncompromising in public safety. The issues that have defined NCCD since its inception are the need for a separate and humane justice system for children, alternatives to incarceration, and the fundamental connection between social justice and public safety.

For more information on NCCD, please visit our website at www.nccd-crc.org

FILM
Ice T Presents “25 to Life” Deloss Pickett, Michael Dallum
“At the Death House Door” Steve James, Peter Gilbert

LITERATURE
American Furies: Crime, Punishment, and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment by Sasha Abramsky

Chasing Justice by Kerry Max Cook, Sandra Kaye Pressey, Kerry Justice Cook, Peter Hubbard

From the Bottom of the Heap: The Autobiography of Black Panther Robert Hillary King by Robert Hillary King and Andrea Gibbons

I’ll Fly Away: Further Testimonies from the Women of York Prison by Walley Lamb

Letters From the Dhamma Brothers by Jenny Phillips, Pariyatti Press, Ron Cavanaugh

Maximum Security: The True Meaning of Freedom by Alan Gompers

Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration by Paul Wright, Tara Herivel and Dianne Wachtel

Stanley Tookie Williams Street Peace Series by Stanley Tookie Williams and Barbara Becnel

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix by Lois Ahrens, Kevin Pyle, Sabrina Jones, Susan Willmarth, Ellen Miller-Mack and Craig Gilmore

MAGAZINE
San Jose Mercury News
“A Painful Choice for Moms in Prison” Edwin Garcia, Karen Borchers, Miller-McCune
“Is This the Future of the War on Drugs?” by Vince Beiser,John Mecklin

NEWSPAPER
East Valley Tribune “Reasonable Doubt” by Ryan Gabrielson, Paul Giblin, Patti Epler
Long Beach Press-Telegram “Lots of Answers, but No Easy Fixes” byWendy Thomas Russell andTracy Manzer
Seattle Weekly “Neverminded” by Laura Onstot and Mike Seely
The Daily Review “Educate to Break Cradle-to-Prison Pipeline” by Tammerlin Drummond
The Sacramento Bee “Unprotected” Marjie Lundstrom, Sam Stanton, Autumn Cruz, Mitchell Brooks
The Village Voice “Teen Murders at Rikers Jail” by Graham Rayman, Tony Ortega
The Washington Post “Rehabilitating Juvenile Offenders” by Robert Pierre, Carol Morello Westword
“Stand and Deliver” byAdam Cayton-Holland, Patricia Calhoun, Anthony Camera

RADIO
American Radioworks -“Gangster Confidential" Michael Montgomery and Catherine Winter
KALW Radio “Prisons in Crisis: A State of Emergency in California” JoAnn Mar, Alyne Ellis
KQED/Forum “Prisoner Health” by Scott Shafer, Nick Vidinsky andDan Zoll

TELEVISION/ VIDEO
HBO - “The Wire, Season 5” by David Simon, Nina Kostroff Noble, Ed Burns, Joe Chappelle.Karen L.Thorson
SoCal Connected/KCET -“Inside Locke High” Angela Shelley andAlexandria Gales, Brett Wood, Michael Bloecher,Bret Marcus
NBC/Wolf Films “Law and Order: SVU - Confession” Dick Wolf, Neal Baer, Ted Kotcheff, Peter Jankowski, Arthur Forney, Judith McCreary

WEB
AlterNet -“Meet Gus Puryear” by Silja J.A. Talvi and Jan Frel
City Limits -“A Ballot’s Breadth Away from Rejoining Society” by Karen Loew, Curtis Stephen, Rosie McCobb
City Limits “Debating How to Police a Challenging Population” Karen Loew, Tram Whitehurst

Posted by lois at 09:30 PM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2009

NY: Press Release from Gov. Paterson on Major Changes to Rockefeller Drug Laws!!

(Scroll down for specific reforms.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 27, 2009

GOVERNOR PATERSON AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS ANNOUNCE THREE-WAY AGREEMENT TO REFORM NEW YORK STATE’S ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS

Sweeping Reform Ends Harsh Sentences for Non-violent Addicts

Focuses on Treatment Rather than Punishment to End the Cycle of Addiction

Governor David A. Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver today announced a three-way agreement calling for sweeping reform of the State’s Rockefeller Drug Laws. The agreement eliminates the harsh sentences that the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandated by giving judges total authority to divert non-violent addicts to treatment and greatly expanding drug treatment programs. The agreement strikes a careful and appropriate balance to ensure that non-violent addicted offenders get the treatment they need while predatory kingpins get the punishment they deserve.

“I have been fighting to overhaul the drug laws and restore judicial discretion in narcotics cases since I began my career in public service as a State Senator nearly a quarter-century ago,” Governor Paterson said. “As a resident and representative of Harlem, I saw first-hand the devastating effect that drugs have on our communities, and the devastating effect that ill-considered drug laws and drug policies have had on individuals, families and neighborhoods.”

The Governor added: “I have seen too many lives destroyed by outrageously harsh and ineffective mandatory sentencing laws, and I have also seen too many lives ruined by despicable dealers who prey on the vulnerabilities and addictions of others. I believe this agreement strikes the right balance, and I urge the Legislature to enact it immediately, before more lives and communities are needlessly destroyed.”

Senate Majority Leader Smith said: “Today marks the beginning of a new era for New York’s sentencing laws. Rockefeller Drug Law reform will reverse years of ineffective criminal laws, protect communities and save taxpayers millions of dollars that were wasted on the current policy. With more money going toward treatment instead of costly imprisonment, our State will finally have a smarter policy, giving families a fighting chance in the war on drugs.”

Assembly Speaker Silver said: “Long before we had partners in either the Executive or in the Senate, the Assembly Majority was fighting for real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. With this legislation, we have taken, at long last, a giant leap in establishing a more just, a more humane and a more effective drug policy in the State of New York. No longer will drug use and addiction be considered solely a criminal matter in this State, but a public health matter as well. This legislation recognizes that drug addiction is a disease which calls out for treatment rather than incarceration. I commend the tenacity and the dedication of my colleagues and the leadership of Assemblymembers Aubry, Lentol and Weinstein for their unyielding commitment to this issue.”

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson said: “Today, the Governor and the Legislature have agreed on a major change in public policy. We have created a balanced approach to drug addiction and crime. Our ability to reduce the flow of drugs in our communities is dependent on our ability to reduce the demand. We are now shifting resources to treat drug addiction as a medical problem. By diverting addicts to drug treatment courts, we believe we can get people off drugs and thereby reduce the demand for them. Study after study shows that our policies will make our communities safer and save the taxpayers millions of dollars. Today, we begin anew, offering offenders an opportunity to receive treatment, while maintaining that the safety and security of our neighborhoods, cities, and State remains paramount.”

Senator John L. Sampson said: “This is a promise made, and a promise kept. The Rockefeller Drug Laws have decimated communities and destroyed lives. Our Democratic conference said that once in the Majority we would be instrumental in making changes that positively impact all people across our State. Taking on this issue in our first year as the Majority shows the people that the Senate is serious and will not back down from the big issues. Reforms we made in 2004 were just a down payment, we’ve now paid off the mortgage. So I congratulate the Governor and members of the Assembly. I also congratulate my colleagues, Senators Schneiderman and Hassell-Thompson, who along with myself, were at the table and the forefront of the push to reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws.”

Senator Eric T. Schneiderman said: “This legislation delivers a big dose of sanity to our State’s sentencing practices. It will make our communities safer, save money and, most importantly, save lives. Thousands of people from every corner of this State will benefit from these reforms. Today NewYork chooses treatment over incarceration—30 years is enough.”

Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry said: “My Assembly colleagues and I continue in our pledge not to give up our fight for greater reform of New York State’s ineffective and imprudent drug laws. While today’s agreement brings us closer to our goal, we recognize the need to do more. We will continue to work with our partners to completely reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws.”

Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol said: “Thirty-six years ago I voted against the enactment of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. It was clear to me that simply locking drug offenders away without treatment would not be effective. I am pleased that we are finally towards turning this travesty around and judges will once again have more of the discretion they need.”

Assemblywoman Helene E. Weinstein said: “Judicial discretion has always been one of the core principles for which the Assembly has fought. With the expansion of drug courts and other options to treat addicts, we are moving toward dealing with the underlying problems of drug offenders – giving them the opportunity to get treatment and reduce recidivism in New York.”

The agreement will give judges the discretion to divert non-violent drug addicted individuals to treatment alternatives that are shown to be far more successful than prison in ending the cycle of addiction. Crucially, it also commits tens of millions of dollars to existing and new treatment programs.

“It makes no sense to give judges the authority to place non-violent addicted offenders into treatment if there is nowhere to treat them,” Governor Paterson said. “We must not only overhaul the drug laws, but also provide an infrastructure to ensure that we successfully rehabilitate those who are addicted.”

There are three significant pieces of the agreement. First, it creates a drug treatment program to be administered by drug court judges.

+ Under this program, judges will have discretion to place addicted first and second-time drug offenders into judicially-approved alcohol and substance abuse treatment – over the objectionsof prosecutors.

+ This agreement also recognizes that drug-addicted persons often commit other crimes, such as property and theft offenses. This agreement will make treatment available to these non-violent addicted offenders who commit these offenses.
+ The agreement maximizes an addicted offender’s chance of success in overcoming addiction, by relying on New York’s highly successful drug courts to administer the new treatment model. Drug courts use specially-trained judges who build relationships with offenders, closely monitor their progress and reward their successes. They are also staffed with case managers and vocational and employment specialists to assist offenders in obtaining education and jobs.

+ For the first time, the agreement gives judges the authority to dismiss all charges or seal the arrest and conviction records of offenders who successfully complete a judicially-sanctioned treatment program. It also gives judges complete discretion to determine an appropriate penalty for those offenders who are unable to succeed in the treatment program.
+ The agreement recognizes that relapses are often part of recovery from long-term drug addiction. It would require judges to consider whether a non-incarceratory remedy, such as heightened supervision or more frequent testing and treatment, could effectively be used if an offender under court supervision suffers a relapse.
+ The agreement vastly expands the availability of drug treatment programs and commits tens of millions of dollars to inpatient treatment programs, outpatient treatment programs and community residential facilities.

+ Recognizing that some offenders may require more supervision than can be provided through community-based drug treatment programs, the agreement expands the use of programs such as the “shock” incarceration program and the Willard drug treatment program, to give judges additional sentencing options for these offenders.
+ The agreement also permits the State Division of Parole to discharge early from continued parole supervision those drug offenders who have demonstrated success and rehabilitation while serving a term of post-release supervision.

Second, the agreement relieves new offenders from some of the old Rockefeller Drug Law’s mandatory sentencing provisions and provides additional relief to offenders who remain incarcerated under the old laws.

+ The agreement eliminates mandatory State prison sentences for first-time class B felony drug offenders and second-time non-violent class C, D and E drug offenders, making them eligible for a term of probation that could also include drug treatment, or a local jail sentence.

+ The agreement permits class B drug felons who meet eligibility criteria and who are currently serving Rockefeller Drug Law sentences to enter the six-month shock incarceration program when they are within three years of release. If successful, they would be entitled to early release from prison.
+ The agreement also requires the Board of Parole to consider current, lower sentencing ranges when deciding whether to release a class B drug offender to parole supervision.

Third, the agreement ensures that offenders who are not addicted, but who profit from the addictions of others, are appropriately sentenced to State prison.

+ The Governor believes that law enforcement should target drug kingpins instead of low-level drug users and his agreement creates a new drug “kingpin” offense that targets organized drug traffickers who profit from and prey on drug users.
+ The agreement also creates new crimes to ensure that adults who sell drugs to children are appropriately required to serve time in State prison.

+ Finally, the agreement retains mandatory prison sentences for class B predicate drug offenders, but allows judges to impose lower prison terms that are similar to those in other states.

Posted by lois at 09:54 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2009

The National Criminal Justice Act of 2009- will undertake a top-to bottom review of our entire criminal justice system and offer recommendations for reform"

Senator Jim Webb of VA has introduced The National Criminal Justice Act of 2009 today.

I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the full-bill http://webb.senate.gov/email/incardocs/CriminalJusticeReform_Legislation.pdf

Here is a fact sheet on the Bill (http://webb.senate.gov/email/incardocs/FactSheeti.pdf), which according to Senator Webb will be "undertake a top-to-bottom review of our entire criminal justice system" and to offer recommendations for reform."

Please encourage your Senators and Congresspeople to support passage of the Act.

Here is part of Webb's statement:

The National Criminal Justice Act of 2009 that I introduced in the Senate on March 26, 2009 will create a blue-ribbon commission to look at every aspect of our criminal justice system with an eye toward reshaping the process from top to bottom. I believe that it is time to bring together the best minds in America to confer, report, and make concrete recommendations about how we can reform the process.

Why We Urgently Need this Legislation:
With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses 25% of the world's reported prisoners.
Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200% since 1980.
Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.
Approximately 1 million gang members reside in the U.S., many of them foreign-based; and Mexican cartels operate in 230+ communities across the country.
Post-incarceration re-entry programs are haphazard and often nonexistent, undermining public safety and making it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to become full, contributing members of society.

America's criminal justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace. Its irregularities and inequities cut against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness. Our failure to address this problem has caused the nation's prisons to burst their seams with massive overcrowding, even as our neighborhoods have become more dangerous. We are wasting billions of dollars and diminishing millions of lives.

We need to fix the system. Doing so will require a major nationwide recalculation of who goes to prison and for how long and of how we address the long-term consequences of incarceration.

Posted by lois at 05:31 PM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2009

NY: Letting Judges Have a Say in Sentencing

About New York- NY Times
Letting Judges Have a Say in Sentencing
By JIM DWYER
Published: March 24, 2009

It is a cold spring morning, and a woman in her 30s, who has spent most of her adult life working as a prostitute to support a cocaine habit, pushes open the door to a courthouse on 161st Street in the Bronx. Last year, she was arrested and found with enough cocaine to send her to jail for a year.

Instead, when she walked out of court on Tuesday, she had graduated: She had gone six months without using any drugs, she was in a rigorous job-training program, and her child, who had been in foster care, was living with her again.

“This is one of the wins,” said Laura Safer-Espinoza, an acting State Supreme Court justice who presided over the woman’s case.

If it was a human triumph, it was achieved by a kind of legal sidestep: the agreement of a prosecutor to move the case into one of the city’s special drug courts. That maneuver bypassed the strict regimen of statutes that New York State has used for nearly 40 years, since Nelson A. Rockefeller was governor, to wrestle with the possession and sale of narcotics.

Now, Justice Safer-Espinoza and 14 other judges who sit in courts throughout the city are circulating an unusual open letter to ask that those laws, modified in 2005, be changed yet again.

They argue that judges — not just prosecutors — should be able to pick among the remedies for nonviolent people who violate the drug law. For some, the judges say, that will be prison. For others, it will be treatment programs overseen by the courts.

“This is not a soft-on-crime issue,” Justice Safer-Espinoza said during a recess on Tuesday. “The point is to give judges more alternatives.”

Anyone looking at the lineup of power in Albany might jump to the conclusion that changes are inevitable. The governor and leaders of both the Assembly and the Senate have come out in favor of reforms. But the New York State District Attorneys Association has argued that its members should continue, in effect, to have power over the sentencing. With Democrats holding the State Senate by a single vote, no one is in a hurry to be accused of coddling criminals.

Under current practices, a prison term can be avoided for many drug offenses only if the prosecutor agrees that the case can be handled outside the ordinary channels.

The existing drug courts are demanding. Participants must attend a treatment program for up to two years, be tested several times a week, and hold down a full-time on-the-books job or attend school.

Among the requirements that Justice Safer-Espinoza said ought to be changed is that participants not be taking methadone, which some treatment programs use as a substitute for more debilitating drugs. In addition, the programs are now limited to nonviolent first offenders.

BETWEEN 12,000 and 13,000 people are serving prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, according to Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who is the chairman of the Codes Committee. The state estimates that public spends about $45,000 per year per prisoner.

“There’s widespread agreement that we have to go to more treatment, and there’s agreement about what works,” Mr. Schneiderman said, adding that that goal can be achieved through different channels. “One of the best programs in the state is run by the Brooklyn district attorney’s office.”

The current struggle is really about whether judges or prosecutors will control access to the alternative programs, and whether second offenders should be eligible for consideration.

“This is a matter of power,” Mr. Schneiderman said, “not good, dispassionate public-policy assessment.”

To expand treatment, he said, would cost about $80 million, much of which he said could come from the federal stimulus bill. “The savings will come back to us in about two years,” he said. “If you are able to close more prisons, then you will have real savings.”

Judges do not usually speak about pending legislation, but they are allowed to comment on policies affecting the court system. Justice Safer-Espinoza said that in 10 years in the drug court, she has seen many people who were unable to complete the programs and had to serve prison time. “Treatment is not for everybody,” she said. “A significant portion of our people do not make it.”

Did any judges decline to sign?

Justice Safer-Espinoza laughed.

“Plenty of them,” she said. “Judges are sitting ducks. We are not allowed to respond to criticisms in the press of our actions.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/nyregion/25about.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

Posted by lois at 02:42 PM | Comments (0)

KS: Johnson County’s prison avoidance operation could lose more than $868,500 from the state

Johnson County’s prison avoidance operation could lose more than $868,500 from the state
Posted:03/21/2009

Mark Winton’s handshake was firm and his voice strong when he said he was a former drug addict on his last chance to stay out of prison.

“I know I can make it,” the Olathe man pledged.

Supporting him is one of the largest prison avoidance operations in Kansas. He’s among about 245 residents at a sprawling site at New Century AirCenter — a $12.8 million-a-year operation funded by Johnson County, the state, grants and user fees.

Most offenders there leave to work and make money. Governments save money.

These kinds of community alternatives are far cheaper than prisons. A recent Pew Center on the States report urged states to use them more and praised Kansas for helping fund the programs.

But when budgets are stressed, money for alternatives tends to shrink. The proposed state budget in Kansas now calls for cutting about $2 million that helps pay for the residential offender programs in Johnson and Sedgwick counties.

Johnson County stands to lose more than $868,500 from the state, and with its own tight budget, the county might have to reduce the $6.1 million it pays, said Betsy Gillespie, director of county corrections.

All that would boost other costs, Gillespie said, when offenders go to jail or prison instead.

It also would be a step back for a Johnson County operation that began with one building and 33 beds in the 1980s and gradually grew to four buildings, hundreds of beds and many operations.

Drunken drivers

Society and governments struggle with what to do with a constant flow of repeat drunken drivers, and the New Century complex provides one option.

Under Kansas law, a felony drunken driver can go to a county jail for up to one year but not to prison. This saves the state money on prisons but throws the cost onto the counties.

Two years ago, Johnson County started a work-release program for those with four drunken-driving convictions or more. The 60-bed unit generally runs near capacity, and 134 people were admitted last year. More than eight in 10 successfully served their time.

Repeat drunken drivers actually have more going for them than many other criminals, said Antonio Booker, a director at the county corrections center.

They tend to be older and have stable jobs, he said.

Michael Sesto, 47, of Shawnee, said last week that he was due for release in two days.

“This was a needed program for me,” the carpenter said, and it allowed him to keep working and keep his house. He got in trouble because he kept trying to meet the right woman in nightclubs, he said, and now he’s part of a church singles group.

For the DUI offenders, he said, alcohol treatment begins when they leave the program and start parole.

“That’s where the rubber meets the pavement,” he said, and more challenges are ahead.

‘Legal side of the law’

Don Womack, 34, breezed down a hallway waving a certificate of completion, which he got after serving 96 days for possessing cocaine.

He was among 155 criminals in another program, which allows them to work while attending self-improvement programs. They stay two to four months.

More than 500 people were admitted to that operation last year. More than three of four graduate successfully, according to past studies.

Here, as in the rest of the complex, residents can be seen by a nurse or mental health worker. Throughout the New Century complex, about 65 percent of residents get medicine for mental illnesses.

Womack, who came to the center from prison, stopped at the credit union on site, where people can deposit or cash checks and save money. Many can’t get a bank account on the outside or have never had one.

Womack found a good job at a Lenexa manufacturing company while serving time at New Century program and saved money toward a car.

“It gave me a chance to live on the legal side of the law,” he said. “I was at a point in my life when I was ready.”

Another building in the complex houses the therapeutic community, which is six months of substance abuse treatment and self-improvement work. It holds 40. Addicted clients can’t leave until they finish the six months. Many then move to work release.

Winton, 37, recently graduated from the treatment community into work release, where he hopes to learn to be an electrician.

He’s a cocaine addict who has been in and out of the system for more than 15 years, he said, including three stints in prison. He said the long drug treatment and improvement work got him past personal problems that fed anger, resentment and bad behavior.

“I came here with low self-esteem,” he said.

Winton said he intended to go straight and be a better father to his nine children by six women. He’ll really do it this time, he said.

He said he got to this point after using drugs while on probation. A judge sent him to New Century as a last chance to avoid prison.

Winton said he would make good on that chance.

So far, Booker said, “he’s done an excellent job.”

If Winton finally stops breaking the law, he’ll save the state the cost of locking him up. The Pew Center study puts the national average at $29,000 a year.

Every little bit helps.

In fiscal year 2008, the study reported, Kansas spent $341 million on corrections, or 5.6 percent of its general fund.
http://m.kansascity.com/kcstar/db_10893/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=A7A42481212D882B1F56AE46E8669453?contentguid=XKtKydiX&storycount=19&detailindex=1&full=true#display

Posted by lois at 02:12 PM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2009

MA Bar Association: MBA-backed criminal reform legislation returns for 2009-10 session

Lawyers Journal
MBA-backed criminal reform legislation returns for 2009-10 session
By Kelsey Sadoff
March 20, 2009

Criminal reform bills that failed to make it through last year’s legislative session are being reintroduced for the 2009-10 session with high expectations for their passage, which would usher in significant changes to the state’s criminal policies.

Last year, the Massachusetts Bar Association championed reforms to both sentencing guidelines and the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law, but the legislation was released from committee too late to advance before the end of the 2008-09 session. Immediate Past President David W. White Jr. made sentencing and CORI reform a priority for his term, and 2008-09 President Edward W. McIntyre has continued the push for reform.

The MBA is supporting a CORI bill that the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and a coalition of groups, under the name of Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI (MARC), are focused on having addressed by the Legislature. The MBA has proposed recommendations for the CORI bill, which includes addressing access (law enforcement access versus non-law enforcement entities), accuracy and sealing old records.

The MBA’s Drug Policy Task Force is also set to issue a report this year that will include comprehensive data and facts that will strongly support arguments for sentencing reform in Massachusetts.

“This new legislative session holds much promise in the advancement of criminal sentencing and CORI reform legislative measures,” said MBA General Counsel and Acting Executive Director Martin W. Healy. “Criminal justice reforms have been identified as a priority area of interest by a number of legislators. We are in the second half of the (Gov. Deval) Patrick administration and the governor is considered a veteran on the Hill. We are hopeful that Patrick will push hard on these greatly needed reforms.”

More than 20 years ago, mandatory minimum sentencing reforms for drug offenders were enacted in Massachusetts to deal with crimes including trafficking, possession with intent to distribute, distribution in a school zone and distribution to a minor. The mandatory minimum sentences effectively ended an offender’s opportunity for parole if incarcerated.

Speaking against the current mandatory minimum sentencing policy at the Jan. 15 MBA House of Delegates meeting, the Drug Policy Task Force received HOD endorsement on two pieces of drug and treatment legislation that the MBA will support during the 2009-10 legislative session.

HOD unanimously voted in favor of the proposed legislation, which would revise the drug sentencing structure by eliminating mandatory minimums for most drug dealing crimes and expand parole and work release opportunities for incarcerated drug offenders, while also enhancing the existing system of diversion of drug offenders to drug treatment programs as an alternative to incarceration.

“The MBA is taking a position because current drug policies have failed; because they are expensive (Department of Correction’s inmate cost is more than $47,000; county jail is $39,000) and growing exponentially,” said MBA President Edward W. McIntyre.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Correction, the state prison population increased by 384 percent from 1980 to 2008 and the number of drug offenders increased 2,394 percent, from 109 in 1980 to 2,610 in 2008. Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing reforms, drug offenders have made up more than 25 percent of the state prison population, as opposed to the 4 percent of drug offenders making up the state prison population in 1980.

“Essentially, the MBA’s position is about deploying a public health approach rather than a failed criminal justices paradigm to drug offenders,” said McIntyre. “It’s about treatment rather than incarceration; about accelerated reintegration into the family unit, the community’s social structure and workforce. Studies from across the country and around the world demonstrate that intelligent policies that move away from the incarceration model to a treatment, accelerated assimilation program, reduce the rate of crime and the staggering cost of incarceration — which is the second most rapidly growing budget item next to health care.”

“Parole is really a function of getting a person in a productive relationship with society and their community,” said MBA immediate Past President David W. White Jr. and founding member of the Drug Policy Task Force. “Offering parole allows prisons to make room for more dangerous criminals, reducing the rate of crime overall by restoring families, neighborhoods and communities by making ex-offenders better citizens, and saves the taxpayers money.”

In the November 2008 general election, Massachusetts citizens voted to decriminalize marijuana. Legislators, who for years have been focused on discussion revolving around the belief that constituents want stronger punishments for low-level drug offenders, now have proof that the public actually wants to reduce the resources designated to punishment of low-level drug offenses. White believes the “commonwealth, now in severe economic crisis, can handle the drug sentencing issues in a way to save millions and millions of dollars.”

Furthermore, current mandatory minimum drug sentences have disproportionately impacted cities and their minority populations. Current school zone laws, which increase punishment drug offenses within 1,000 feet of a school with mandatory sentences — regardless of prior knowledge if school is in session, intent to distribute, time of day or awareness of proximity to a school — have created a situation where almost an entire city can be considered a school zone.

“The result is an impact on minorities,” said White. “The bill didn’t have that intent when it was enacted, but it has discriminatory consequences. We would like the statute changed to 100 feet.” White pointed out that approximately 300 people are sentenced for school zone offenses each year.

“In the commonwealth, we spend more money on jails and prisons then on higher education,” White said. “It is time for more sensible priorities.”
ttp://www.massbar.org/for-attorneys/publications/lawyers-journal/2009/march/mba-backed-criminal-reform-legislation

Posted by lois at 10:07 AM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2009

$1 Spent on Prevention Saves $10, Study Says

$1 Spent on Prevention Saves $10, Study Says
March 16, 2009

ISU report to United Nations conference says drug prevention programs help the economy

AMES, Iowa -- Two Iowa State University researchers have given communities worldwide good reason to implement substance abuse prevention programs. They're economically beneficial, with a nearly $10 return for every dollar invested in prevention.

Richard Spoth, director of the Partnerships in Prevention Science Institute (PPSI) at Iowa State, and Max Guyll, ISU assistant professor of psychology, presented that message last month to substance abuse experts representing approximately 100 countries at a conference in Vienna, Austria, co-sponsored by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Health Organization.

"The primary objective of the conference was to present the state of the art on translating evidence-based prevention and treatment into practice -- to suggest effective strategies for demand reduction (in substance abuse)," Spoth said.

"We showed how prevention can be particularly economically beneficial," he said. "The presentation began by reviewing the evidence on the cost effectiveness and the return on the investment -- or cost benefits -- of prevention programs. I also did a second presentation on the scientific advances and positive outcomes of family-focused prevention, illustrated by our own research."
Applying national, local data in cost analysis

The ISU researchers applied their own and national data to calculate both the cost effectiveness and cost benefit for two of PPSI's intervention programs -- Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), which works on the family level to prevent substance abuse; and the Life Skills Training Program (LST), which was designed for school-based implementation. Spoth defines cost effectiveness as the cost to achieve a particular outcome -- such as the prevention of an alcohol use disorder -- while the cost benefit assesses whether savings generated by prevention are greater than costs spent on prevention.

The longitudinal "Project Family" study recruited 667 families through 33 Iowa school districts. The researchers calculated that the ISFP intervention cost $12,459 per disorder prevented, but resulted in a $119,633 benefit to communities per alcohol disorder prevented -- a $9.60 return on each dollar invested. The "Capable Families and Youth" trial recruited 679 families through 36 Iowa school districts. Researchers found that life skills training intervention cost $4,921 per methamphetamine use case prevented, but produced a $130,013 employer benefit per methamphetamine user prevented -- a $9.98 return on each dollar invested.

"Effective and efficient prevention promises to save possibly billions of dollars per year, provided we can learn how to effectively implement it on a larger scale," Spoth told the conference.

Iowa State was the only American university that had a presenter invited to speak on the topic of prevention. Spoth, who received a commendation from the director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism last year for his prevention work, was also the only expert asked to present twice at the conference.

"I spoke with people there who were very interested in doing family-focused prevention programming, which is evidence-based, in their countries," Spoth said. "Some of them are developing these vast infrastructures, devoting extensive resources. I received a number of requests where they wanted me to get involved in some way with a group that was working on a large scale implementation of prevention programming in their country."
Conference appearance generates international interest

Spoth reports that his conference appearance generated requests from Chile, India, Indonesia, Senegal and a number of other countries for consulting assistance as they implement intervention programs -- possibly modeled after the ones he's successfully implemented through PPSI.

He's also been asked to participate in the meetings by the International Narcotics Control Board, located in Vienna, to work with them to produce their annual report.

"They evaluate international substance issues in depth," Spoth said. "What they would want me to address is the state of the art in effective prevention worldwide."

The complete ISU reports "Prevention's Cost Effectiveness -- Illustrative Economic Benefits of General Population Interventions," and "Prevention of Substance-related Problems: Effectiveness of Family-focused Prevention" are available online at: http://www.ppsi.iastate.edu/press/vienna.htm.

Posted by lois at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2009

TX: Lawmakers considering plan that would cap the number of juveniles being sent to TYC jails and keep them in the county in which they live

Lawmakers eyeing Travis' plan for juveniles
Proposal among many being considered that would reform youth agency, save state money.

By Bob Banta and Mike Ward
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, March 12, 2009

Legislators are studying proposals from Travis and other counties to save the state money by sending fewer young offenders to Texas Youth Commission facilities.

Although some lawmakers warn against diverting too much money from Youth Commission activities, Travis County's plan is part of a trend, sparked two years ago by sweeping reforms at the scandal-plagued agency that were designed to remove youths from remote state-run lockups and place them in community-based treatment programs closer to their families.

So far, Travis, Dallas and a group of 22 Southeast Texas counties have proposed pilot programs to do that — for far less than the nearly $99,000 per year that it costs to keep a youth locked up with the agency. Other counties are considering similar plans.

Under the concept, only juveniles convicted of serious crimes would be sent to the agency. In return, the state would reimburse the counties for each juvenile who is incarcerated and rehabilitated locally.

Youths would have a stronger network of rehabilitative support closer to home than in one of the agency's remote facilities, said Jeanne Meurer, legal management director for Travis County juvenile probation.

"But being able to do that depends on what a county or community's financial resources are," she said. "That's why many local agencies are excited about the possibility of getting funds from the state to keep their kids at home."

It costs Travis County an average $175 a day, or $63,875 a year per child, to incarcerate and provide rehabilitation services, according to the pilot project proposed by Meurer and Estela Medina, Travis County's chief probation officer. If the child were sent to a Youth Commission institution, it would cost the state an average of $270.49 a day, or $98,729 annually per child, they said.

In the 2005 budget year, Travis County sent 119 juveniles to the agency at a cost to the state of $11.7 million. If the 119 had been kept in Travis County facilities, the cost would have been $7.6 million, Meurer and Medina said.

Under the Travis County proposal, a limit would be placed on the number of offenders each county would be allowed to send to the agency each budget year. In the case of Travis County, local probation officials would cap the number of juveniles sent to the agency each budget year at 10. If the county sent more than 10 in that year, the county would pay the agency the cost of taking on those juveniles.

The Travis County plan calculates that the state would pay the county $7.6 million in 2010 and $8 million in 2011.

The plan is one of several being studied by state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, the chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee and a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

"This is exactly what we had in mind when we passed the reforms two years ago," said Whitmire, an author of the reform bill in 2007.

The concept has been initially embraced by Senate budget writers, who last week cut the Youth Commission's proposed funding significantly so it can be put into local diversion programs paid for through the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. House budget-writers have not signed on but have initially approved much of what Youth Commission officials requested.

State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, also an author of the reforms, said while he supports the idea, he is concerned about too much money being taken away from the agency to pay for the local programs.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/12/0312tyc.html

Posted by lois at 09:16 PM | Comments (0)

Real Cost of Prisons Comix (the book)

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix
edited by Lois Ahrens
PM Press
Reviews: http://www.pmpress.org/content/article.php?story=loisahrens#reviews
Ordering info:
https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=48

One out of every hundred adults in the U.S. is in prison. This book provides a crash course in what drives mass incarceration, the human and community costs, and how to stop the numbers from going even higher. This volume collects the three comic books published by the Real Cost of Prisons Project. The stories and statistical information in each comic book is thoroughly researched and documented.

Prison Town: Paying the Price tells the story of how the financing and site locations of prisons affects the people of rural communities in which prison are built. It also tells the story of how mass incarceration affects people of urban communities where the majority of incarcerated people come from.

Prisoners of the War on Drugs includes the history of the war on drugs, mandatory minimums, how racism creates harsher sentences for people of color, stories on how the war on drugs works against women, three strikes laws, obstacles to coming home after incarceration, and how mass incarceration destabilizes neighborhoods.

Prisoners of a Hard Life: Women and Their Children includes stories about women trapped by mandatory sentencing and the "costs" of incarceration for women and their families. Also included are alternatives to the present system, a glossary and footnotes.

Over 125,000 copies of the comic books have been printed and more than 100,000 have been sent to families of people who are incarcerated, people who are incarcerated, and to organizers and activists throughout the country. The book includes a chapter with descriptions about how the comix have been put to use in the work of organizers and activists in prison and in the "free world" by ESL teachers, high school teachers, college professors, students, and health care providers throughout the country. The demand for them is constant and the ways in which they are being used is inspiring.

The Buzz:

"I cannot think of a better way to arouse the public to the cruelties of the prison system than to make this book widely available."
--Howard Zinn

"The Real Cost of Prisons comics are among the most transformative pieces of information that the youth get to read. We take it with us to detention centers, group homes, youth shelters and social justice organizing projects. Everywhere we go we see youth nodding with agreement and getting excited to see their reality validated in print. The Real Cost of Prisons helps youth know what's up and gives them the push they need to get active in the struggle to make interpersonal and community-wide change."
--Shira Hassan, Co-Director Young Women's Empowerment Project, Chicago, IL

Posted by lois at 09:14 AM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2009

Veterans Courts Are An Alternative to Jail

These courts give wayward veterans a chance
The first veterans court opened last year in Buffalo, N.Y.; its success stories have led to more across the country.
By Nicholas Riccardi
March 10, 2009
Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Tulsa, Okla. -- U.S. military veterans from three decades pass through Judge Sarah Smith's courtroom here, reporting on their battles with drug addiction, alcoholism and despair. Those who find jobs and stabilize their lives are rewarded with candy bars and applause. Those who backslide go to jail.

Smith radiates an air of maternal care from the bench. As the veterans come before her, she softly asks: "How are you doing? Do you need anything?" But if a veteran fails random drug tests, she doesn't flinch at invoking his sentence. She keeps a drill sergeant's cap in her office.

Her court is part of a new approach in the criminal justice system: specialized courts for veterans who have broken the law. Judges have been spurred by a wave of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, battling post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries and stumbling into trouble with the law. But advocates of the courts say they also address a problem as old as combat itself.

"Some families give their sons or daughters to service for their country, and they're perfectly good kids. And they come back from war and just disintegrate before our eyes," said Robert Alvarez, a counselor at Ft. Carson in Colorado who is advocating for a veterans court in the surrounding county. "Is it fair to put these kids in prison because they served and got injured?"

The few veterans courts in the nation are modeled on drug courts that allow defendants to avoid prison in exchange for strict monitoring. Most are only a couple of months old, and it is difficult to track their effectiveness, but the results from the first court, which opened in Buffalo, N.Y., in January 2008, are striking.

Of the more than 100 veterans who have passed through, only two had to be returned to the traditional criminal court system because they could not shake narcotics or criminal behavior, said Judge Robert Russell. That is a far lower rate of recidivism than in drug courts.

"It's the right thing to do for those who have made a number of sacrifices for us," Russell said. "If they've been damaged and injured in the course of their service . . . and we can help them become stable, we must."

There are no comprehensive statistics on how often veterans get in trouble with the law, and the majority never become entangled with the legal system. But psychiatrists and law enforcement officials agree that the traumas of combat can lead to addiction and criminality.

Studies have shown that as many as half of the troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer post-traumatic stress and other disorders, and mental health is the second-most treated ailment for returning veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs system.

Since Russell's court started, veterans courts have opened in Orange and Santa Clara counties in California; Tulsa, Okla.; and Anchorage. Pittsburgh, southern Wisconsin, Phoenix and Colorado Springs, Colo., are opening or considering new courts this year. Some in Congress have proposed a federal program to help spread veterans courts across the country.

Most veterans courts admit only nonviolent felony offenders, though some include violent crimes. Defendants are required to plead guilty to their crimes.

In exchange for a suspended sentence that can include prison time, they must consent to regular court visits, counseling and random drug testing. Should they waver from the straight and narrow, their sentence goes into effect.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Wendy Lindley started her veterans court in November after a young Iraq war veteran on her docket died of a drug overdose. "It was horrible," she said.

As in most of the nation's nascent veterans courts, many of the defendants in Lindley's court served in the Vietnam or Persian Gulf wars. But she has seen a few Iraq war veterans, all of whom had clean histories before joining the military but started getting into trouble after they returned.

One of them is Carlos Lopez, 26, who returned to Orange in 2004 after a four-year stint in the Marines and struggled to readjust to civilian life.

Haunted by memories of friends who died in Iraq, he was prescribed antidepressants, fell in with a bad crowd and started using cocaine. He was convicted of a possession charge in 2005. In 2007, Lopez was arrested for drunk driving, a violation of his probation. That's how he landed in Lindley's courtroom.

"It's been a morale booster for me that there are so many people in the legal system who are there to help me," said Lopez, a construction estimator.

Colorado Springs has been distressed by a number of cases involving soldiers from nearby Ft. Carson who have returned from Iraq only to get into legal trouble. Soldiers from one brigade alone have been charged in eight homicide cases in the last two years.

Alvarez, a therapist with the Army's Wounded Warrior Program, recalled some of his more serious cases: a warrant officer who choked his dog to death in front of his young children; a soldier who fought violently to pry a shotgun from his wife's hands so he could kill himself.

"What I keep finding is a pretty normal person, a pretty happy-go-lucky human being who'd go off to war and come back broken," said Alvarez, a former Marine.

Another ex-Marine teamed up with a seasoned court administrator to open the veterans court in Tulsa, Okla. After hearing of the Buffalo court, the two did some quick research on their local population. They found that Oklahoma has among the most veterans of any state.

Then, Matt Stiner, now an aide to the Tulsa mayor, went to local posts of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Over beers and shots of whiskey, he persuaded members to volunteer as counselors and mentors for the court. He knew that veterans would be helped by "the camaraderie of being a veteran."

"When I was in the Marine Corps, we talked about stuff," said Stiner, who left the Marines in 2004 after a tour in Iraq. "Now that I'm out, that's gone. There's a lot of isolation."

Being in a courtroom full of veterans makes a difference to Ira Banks, 60, a Vietnam veteran who was arrested on a charge of marijuana possession. "We're not in with the rest of the crowd, who are just different than we are," he said.

Judge Smith said she had to be extra solicitous of the veterans because they try to hide their problems under a stoic exterior.

"The military personnel, they're less likely to ask for help, they're more likely to tell me everything's fine," she said.

Smith sent Paul Haggerty to jail a couple of times early on. Now the former paratrooper is clean and a veterans court success story.

Haggerty, 37, said he dislocated a shoulder and inhaled poison gas in training exercises in the U.S. and Kuwait during the Gulf War. The VA gave him painkillers of escalating strength, and he gradually became addicted. He would run through his 30-day supply of OxyContin in five days and go to the streets to buy more.

Last year he became so desperate for cash that he stole lawn mowers from outside Home Depot and Lowe's. That landed him in Smith's drug court, and he went with her when she opened the veterans court in December.

The difference between the two courts is striking, Haggerty said.

"In drug court, the atmosphere is down. People don't want to get sober, they're there to stay out of prison," he said. "In veterans court, you have a sense of pride. You don't feel like you're going through this alone."

Posted by lois at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2009

NY: Report backs prison college programs

Sunday, March 1, 2009
By Lee Coleman
Report backs prison college programs
Daily Gazette- Schenectady, NY

SARATOGA SPRINGS — For almost 25 years inmates at the Great Meadow state prison in Comstock were able to earn a college degree through Skidmore College’s University Without Walls.

This program and others like it in prisons across the state ended in the mid-1990s when the state and federal governments ended education grants to convicts.

But there’s some movement to restore the programs, and supporters of the prison college programs say the numbers have always shown that inmates who earned a college degree while incarcerated were much less likely to return to prison.

And, they said, prison inmates who were earning their college degrees caused less turmoil and trouble in the prisons.

The Correctional Association of New York, the state’s oldest criminal justice watchdog organization, released a report earlier this year that examines the benefits of in-prison college programs.

The report, “Education from the Inside Out,” includes a survey of earlier statistically based studies that show in-prison programs help significantly “in reducing recidivism and improving prison management.”

In 1991, the state Department of Correctional Services did an analysis in which the department tracked men and women who had earned a degree in the inmate college program during the 1986-87 academic year. This analysis found that the return rate for degree-earners to be significantly lower than that of participants who did not earn a degree.

“Of those earning a degree, 26.4 percent had been returned to the department’s custody, whereas 44.6 percent of the participants who did not earn a degree were returned to custody,” according to the state’s Analysis of Return Rates of the Inmate College Program Participants study.

The new report urges the state and federal government to reconsider allowing prison inmates to receive state and federal grants to obtain their degrees while behind bars.

made a difference

Teachers and administrators associated with Skidmore College’s inmate higher education program said the program, which ended in 1995, worked and was an uplifting experience for both the inmates and the teachers.

“The years right before they pulled the plug [on the in-prison programs], there was numerical data that showed clearly that providing a college education [to prison inmates] made a huge difference,” said Sandy Welter, now assistant director of Skidmore College’s master of arts in Liberal Studies program. Skidmore College is a private liberal arts college of 2,400 students in Saratoga Springs.

Welter, who taught in the University Without Walls program for 10 years and was administrator of the prison program for its last three years in existence, said it reduced recidivism and also improved the “quality of life inside the prison.”

She said the inmates at Great Meadow state prison in Comstock, Washington County, and at the Washington Correctional Facility nearby became prison “leaders, mentors and tutors.”

Bernice Mennis, who taught literature and composition classes in the University Without Walls prison program for 12 years, has written a new book about her experiences and the inmates’ experiences titled: “Breaking Out of Prison: A guide to consciousness, compassion and freedom,” self-published through iUniverse. “The success of the program was always obvious,” Mennis said.

She said half of the book features the writings of inmate students who were in her classes.

“Their writing shows you can teach people to think,” Mennis said. When the inmates learned how to think, they also learned how “we can be our larger selves, our better selves,” she said.

“I thought their words were so deeply thoughtful,” she said. “They moved me by their honesty and integrity.”

Mennis, who lives in the Adirondacks, taught for more than 20 years in the Vermont College of Union Institute & University.

funding issues

Erik Kriss, a spokesman for the state Department of Correctional Services, said state prison Commissioner Brian Fischer agrees with the Correctional Association of New York that state Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) money should be made available to state prison inmates. “Inmates who earn college degrees [while in prison] are more likely to be successful and not come back,” Kriss said.

However, he said the decision to allow prison inmates to receive state and federal grants for a college education behind bars is up to the state Legislature, the governor, and the U.S. Congress. “There is only so much we can do,” Kriss said.

College courses are offered at eight of the state’s dozens of prisons. All but one of these programs are privately funded.

Bard College in Dutchess County, for example, offers college-level courses in at least four state prisons through private funding, Kriss said. Cornell University expanded its privately funded college program from just Auburn state prison to the Cayuga state prison this past summer.

The only college-level program funded by state money is at the Wyoming state prison, not far from Attica state prison in western New York. The “Consortium of the Niagara Frontier” provides college courses at this medium-security prison through member item allocations from state legislators.

When Fischer was appointed state prison commissioner in 2007, he changed state prison policy allowing any inmate to take college courses, if available, rather than just those inmates with “merit time.”

Under the Gov. George Pataki administration, only inmates who had merited time off their sentences because of good behavior were allowed to take college-level courses, if available.

Robert Gangi, executive director of The Correctional Association of New York, said in 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an anti-crime bill that ended federal Pell Grants to prison inmates interested in taking college courses. Gov. Pataki, when he took office in 1994, ended the state TAP grants to inmates.

Gangi said the idea of returning these grants to prison inmates is support by the facts. “If it weren’t for the fiscal crisis, the odds would be in our favor,” Gangi said.

But Gangi said his association, which was founded in 1844 and brought about some of the first real prison reform in the state’s penal history, is working with leaders in the state Legislature.

fighting chance

“I think we have a fighting chance,” Gangi said about having TAP grants restored to prison inmates in the future. He said there is also discussion in Washington to restore Pell Grants to prison inmates.

“It leads to a better quality of life for the inmates and the communities,” Gangi said.

“The policy of most states and the federal government of locking up thousands of people each year, some for disproportionately long sentences, some for a second or third time, does little to reduce crime and often leads to hazardous conditions of confinement,” Gangi said in a prepared statement. “Our report points government leaders and concerned citizens in a different direction, making the case for the positive value of in-prison programs.”

The three recommendations in the Correctional Association report to New York policy makers include:

u Restore and expand public funding for college programs in prison primarily by lifting the ban on inmate eligibility for Tuition Assistance Program grants.

u Expand access to higher education opportunities for formerly incarcerated people as a means of supporting successful re-entry and community well-being.

u Require New York’s Board of Parole to consider participation in college programs as a qualifying indicator for parole release.

inmates’ view

“The UWW [University Without Walls] was a bright spot in an otherwise dark period,” wrote one student inmate to his teacher, Bernice Mennis. “Many a day has passed when I wanted to reach out and thank you for helping me learn how to release my feelings and express myself through the written word,” he wrote.

“Because of the class I have become a much better writer and person,” wrote another inmate to Mennis.

Both Mennis and Welter of Skidmore College say they still hear from their students from time to time, even though the Skidmore program ended nearly 15 years ago.

Ironically, Skidmore College’s University Without Walls program, a distance learning program that was created in 1971, may be phased out over the next two years. College officials say UWW enrollment is down and it is losing money. A final decision on the UWW is expected within the next six to eight months.
http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2009/mar/01/0301_prisoncoll/

Posted by lois at 10:15 AM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2009

Essay: Read a Book, Get Out of Jail

Essay: Read a Book, Get Out of Jail
By LEAH PRICE
Published: February 26, 2009
NY Times Book Review 12-1-09

In a scuffed-up college classroom in Dartmouth, Mass., 14 people page through a short story by T. C. Boyle. They debate the date at which the action is set: when was the Chevy Bel Air released, and what was the drinking age in New York State that year? They question moral responsibility: when the three friends in the Bel Air assault a girl, should peer pressure be blamed for their impulse, or hormones, drink, sin? To which the man at the head of our table rejoins: “There’s a kind of complexity to human experience that isn’t always recognized. You try to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong, but sometimes both are wrong, right?”

Of the 14 people, a dozen are male. One is an English professor, one is a graduate student, two are judges and two are probation officers. The eight others are convicted criminals who have been granted probation in exchange for attending, and doing the homework for, six twice-monthly seminars on literature. The class is taught through Changing Lives Through Literature, an alternative sentencing program that allows felons and other offenders to choose between going to jail or joining a book club. At each two-hour meeting, students discuss fiction, memoirs and the occasional poem; authors range from Frederick Douglass to John Steinbeck to Toni Morrison, topics from self-­mutilation and family quarrels to the Holocaust and the Montgomery bus boycott.

Robert Waxler, a professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, and the man at the head of the table, founded the reading program in 1991 with Superior Court Judge Robert Kane and Wayne Saint Pierre, a probation officer; since then, it has expanded to eight other states. Led by literature professors, the program has brought thousands of convicts to college campuses even as the withdrawal of Pell grants from prisoners (who were ruled ineligible for federal college financing in 1994) drove a wedge between the two state-funded institutions where young adults do time. Meanwhile, rehabilitative reading has spread from Waxler’s original all-male seminar to similar women-only and mixed-sex groups, to one-time experiments like the seminar on “The Road Not Taken” to which a Vermont judge last year sentenced 28 young partyers who broke into Robert Frost’s old house, leaving a trail of booze and vomit. Picture “Remembrance of Things Past” as a literary ankle bracelet that keeps you chained to the desk for months.

The terms Waxler uses at the opening session have one foot in literary criticism and another in psychotherapy: “exploration,” “ambiguity,” “journeying.” But new-age gerunds give way to old-fashioned imperatives when the professor hands off to the probation officer: good cop, bad cop. Or rather, ambivalent cop.

“I don’t want to be all negative,” the officer begins, “but you have to read this book.” Not as in “This is a must-read,” but “We’ve had people go to jail for not reading.”

Any schoolchild knows there’s nothing new about required reading. But since the Vietnam draft ended, college professors like me have rarely had the obligation, or the opportunity, to hand bad students over to the secular arm. One instructor, Terri Hasseler of Bryant University in Rhode Island, pauses to search for a euphemism before explaining that “it’s a condition of their . . . situation that they have to do the reading.”

Changing Lives Through Literature looks less exotic when you remember how many probation sentences require attendance at 12-step programs. There, too, stories provide a catalyst — with the difference that in Waxler’s program, the narratives belong to fictional characters, not to participants themselves. Here, oversharers are politely cut off; one man whispers the rest of an autobiographical anecdote to the guy next to him, another waits for the break. Yet the professor talks of “working through,” and as I listen to the words students use to describe literary characters, it’s hard not to hear echoes of time spent in rehab: “He made some bad choices.” “She hadn’t figured out a healthy way to deal with the problem.” “He hit bottom before he realized that it just wasn’t him.”

Oprah’s Book Club has taught us all to reduce (or elevate) books to prompts for cathartic discussion of childhood traumas, relationship conflicts and self-esteem deficits. Like Oprah’s reading list, the program’s canon is dominated by fiction and memoir. But the demographics of the program differ substantially from your average book club, which is disproportionately white and even more disproportionately female and middle-class. Even without uniforms, it’s easy to tell who’s a student and who’s an official. The course depends, however, on suspending those differences. “The stories serve as a mirror for everyone,” Waxler told me, “not just the offenders ­— the professors, the probation officers, the judge.” The average court official is more literate than the average convict, but not necessarily more literary: for the judge, too, classroom discussion can be a revelation.

Reading has always provided a lifeline for prisoners, whether for utilitarian purposes or for spiritual searching. (In 2006, when Beard v. Banks upheld a prison’s right to deny inmates access to printed matter, religious and legal texts were among those excepted.) A broader literary tradition stretching from medieval English dream visions to Solzhenitsyn’s novels situates the most intense and uninterrupted reading in prison. (Waxler points out that “cell” can refer to the space in which monks write as easily as to a room in jail.) Traditionally, books have offered virtual escape from physical confinement. In alternative sentencing programs, though, books provide a more literal alternative to incarceration; and the authorities’ job is not to censor books, but to supply them.

It’s easy to dismiss the program as utopian, or worse. Waxler reports being berated by parents paying college tuition for the same classes that felons receive free. If the program works, its economic logic is unassailable: running it costs roughly $500 a head, Waxler says, as opposed to about $30,000 for a year of incarceration. But that’s a big if. The most conclusive study, which shows program participants achieving half the recidivism rate of a control group, involved fewer than 100 people. More important, the literacy level needed to participate makes its population a self-selecting one, and even among those students with the skills to participate, many never make it to the final session. On the day I attended, one man missed class because his halfway house had imposed lockdown, another because a new conviction had landed him back in jail.

“Poetry,” W. H. Auden once wrote, “makes nothing happen.” But Waxler insists that “literature can make a difference” — more specifically, that lives are touched by printed art as they can’t be by the act of sitting around a table arguing about a movie, a song, a self-help book or one’s own childhood. The probation officer begins by telling participants that “this program isn’t a miracle,” but it works in mysterious ways. Perhaps reading stories allows participants to form narratives (whether conscious or not) about their own past and future. In a study of more traditional 12-step programs, the criminologist Shadd Maruna has argued that recovery from addiction requires the ability to distinguish a “before” from an “after.” Searching for terms to explain the mechanism by which literature “changes” readers, participants come up with “turning points,” “epiphanies,” even “grace.” “When it’s working,” Waxler says, “this discussion has a kind of magic to it.”

There’s nothing surprising about the idea that certain books teach lessons, whether the Bible or “The Last Lecture.” Here, though, the medium becomes the message: the act of reading changes — or, as we used to say, converts — the reader, even when the texts being read contain no explicit moral injunctions. Like Sunday school pupils, graduates of Changing Lives Through Literature are given a book along with their diploma. It hardly matters that the traditional leatherette Bible is replaced by a sleek black volume from the Library of America.

Leah Price is a professor of English at Harvard and the author of “The Anthology and the Rise of the Novel.”
Here's the link to Changing Lives Through Literature: http://cltl.umassd.edu/home-flash.cfm
Next Article in Books (20 of 24) » A version of this article appeared in print on March 1, 2009, on page BR23 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/books/review/Price-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&8bu&emc=bub1

Posted by lois at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)

WI: News Republic Editorial: Time to cut state prison population?

Baraboo News Republic (WI)
Sauk County's Daily Newspaper
Saturday, February 28, 2009

News Republic Editorial: Time to cut state prison population?

With our national, state and local economies circling the bowl, legislators at all levels of government are looking to repair the damage and put us back on the road to prosperity.

Nationally, of course, there is President Barack Obama's much-scrutinized $787 billion stimulus plan.

Obama and his Democratic majority in Congress believe their venture is a bold, brilliant, can-do, must-do vehicle that will move people back to work and drive us out of the recession before it morphs into The Great Depression, Part II.

In our state of Wisconsin we have a man with his own budget and some novel ideas tucked between the numbers.

And one of Gov. Jim Doyle's proposals — targeting Wisconsin's prison system — has the big dogs in the state's GOP barking that our state leader is soft on crime. Here's why:

Felons could earn earlier extended supervision, probation for minor crimes would be eliminated and real-time tracking for some sex offenders could end under Doyle's broad-brush changes to Wisconsin's prison policy.

Heard over the roar of Republican carping, Rick Raemisch, the state's corrections secretary, said these moves should ease the crowding in our prisons and better prepare convicts for life after incarceration.

Raemisch said the moves should generate substantial savings for the state, which faces a $5.7 billion shortfall by mid-2011.

States have been pondering alternatives to incarceration for 10 years. At least a half dozen, including California and New York, are considering early release to lessen costs.

Raemisch, of course, was appointed by Doyle so no one should be surprised that he supports the boss's agenda.

"We have a saying — never waste a crisis," Raemisch said. "Some things people wouldn't look at before, they'll take a hard look at now. ... The days of locking people up and forgetting they're in prison are over."

Republicans, the loyal opposition, called Doyle's deal soft on crime.

"It's a let 'em loose early plan," said state Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford. "To sacrifice public safety to save a few bucks, I find appalling."

Suder has a point if, indeed, early release of inmates puts the public in peril.

But when you compare our inmate numbers to the State of Minnesota, you have to wonder if we have too many people behind bars.

Wisconsin's prison population stands at more than 22,000. Minnesota has about 7,000 inmates. Is it because the Gopher State produces a better class of people? Of course not. (After all, let's not forget most of them are Vikings fans).

Or could it be, simply, that Minnesota's prison policy reflects the model Doyle is trying to duplicate.

Certainly, there is money to be saved. Our state prison system has more than 18 institutions and costs more than $1 billion per year. And we've been struggling with overcrowding for years.

According to Raemisch, each inmate costs the state about $29,000 a year to keep caged.

A report released in January found Wisconsin's facilities are in decay. It recommended more than $1.2 billion in upgrades over the next decade, including nearly 9,000 new beds to cope with the crowd of convicts.

But Doyle's budget would reduce the inmate population and also the need for upgrades.

Under the Doyle deal:

* Prisoners could earn "positive adjustment" days for good behavior, and become eligible for extended supervision earlier. Inmates convicted of serious felonies, such as homicide and child sexual assault, wouldn't be eligible for the program.

* Inmates on extended supervision would be able to earn good behavior days, allowing them to finish their sentences sooner. That could mean an estimated 3,000 inmates, according to Raemisch.

* Probation for nonviolent offenders convicted of misdemeanors would be eliminated. Raemisch said about 7,000 offenders could qualify.

* Corrections would decide whether serious sex offenders need real-time GPS tracking after a year or if checking their movements once a day would be appropriate. State law requires real-time monitoring for the worst sex offenders.He said the plan would make work safer for guards by giving them fewer inmates to supervise, allowing them to focus on the most dangerous.

Raemisch said the initiatives would help offenders readjust to society by teaching them how to behave and follow the rules.

"This shouldn't, by any means, be considered opening up the back doors to the institutions or letting people that are violent back out on the streets," Raemisch said. "If I didn't think we could do this safely, I wouldn't be talking to the governor about it."

To be sure, saving money is not a valid reason to release dangerous criminals back into our communities. But if done carefully, as Raemisch promises, this might be a smarter option than long-term incarceration, which some believe fails to rehabilitate and often refines and refocuses the criminal inclination.

After all, if Minnesota can do this without putting its citizens in jeopardy, why can't we?
http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/opinion/440872

Posted by lois at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2009

Report: Prison Rehab Programs Are Working. Prison Population Has Stopped Expanding

Report: Prison rehab programs working
By Mike Ward | Thursday, February 19, 2009
Austin American Statesman

Texas’ prison population has stopped growing for the time being, thanks in part to a controversial changes in corrections policy two years ago that ballooned funding for rehabilitation programs, new statistics indicate.

That means Texas will not have to consider building new prisons that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, at a time when the economic collapse is pinching the state budget, officials said today.

”We put 6,000 treatment beds on line in the past two years … and this is the initial result: Just what we expected,” said Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, who co-authored legislation mandating the greatly-expanded treatment programs in 2007.

Echoing sentiments from colleagues, Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, said the statistics show “a dramatic turnaround.”

Today’s Legislative Budget Board testimony to the budget-writing Senate Finance Committee marked the first public report card on the new programs, which two years ago were championed by corrections advocates as a step forward and opposed by some prosecutors and police groups as too soft on crime.

“Crime is down, the programs are working,” said Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice what operates the 112-prison system. “It’s been proven before that these types of programs have an impact on recidivism, so these new numbers are no surprise.”

Even so, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley while he thinks some of the reforms have proven beneficial, such as expanded drug-treatment slots, he cautioned against reading too much into the new statistics.

“I would be very skeptical from making a connection between the numbers and legislation that passed two years ago, especially if you look back at at the LBB numbers — their predictions weren’t particularly accurate,” he said. “I would agree that the system does seem stable right now. The parole rate in the last five years has been very stable.”

According to the report, the number of convicts in Texas’ state prisons is expected to remain steady this year, and then decline slightly the following year — for the first time in several years.

In 2012, however, the prison population could begin increasing again and by 2014 will grow to almost 158,000 - from the current 154,000.

Billed at the time as the biggest shift for Texas corrections policy in years, the 2007 changes greatly expanded the capacity of in-prison drug and alcohol-treatment programs, opened new transition treatment centers to help convicts succeed once they got out, expanded counseling and specialized drug-treatment programs and opened new lockups designed especially for habitual drunk drivers.

Total cost was more than $227 million.

At the time, while proposing an additional $14 million for rehabilitation and treatment programs, Gov. Rick Perry had asked for $125.8 million to build two new medium-security prisons to add 1,000 beds, and converting a Texas Youth Commission lockup to a prison for adults to add 600 more.

Perry in 2005 had vetoed probation reforms that contained many elements of the 2007 plan.

The adult prisons were never approved, and that funding was diverted to the Whitmire-Madden plan that, at the time, made some legislative leaders nervous. The package beefed up funding for local probation departments to treat and rehabilitate some non-violent criminals in their communities, rather than sending them to a state prison.

“It looks very much like we thought it would at this point,” said state Rep. Jerry Madden, co-author of the plan who at the time was chairman of the House Corrections Committee.

Funding is being sought this year for additional treatment beds, which could further reduce the prison population, he said.

“The numbers clearly show if we worked toward providing adequate programming for alcohol and drug treatment, mental health and probation and other programs, that it can work.”
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2009/02/19/report_prison_rehab_programs_w.html

Posted by lois at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2009

CA: Panel of Judges Rule State must release up to 57,000 prisoners---3 articles

From the Los Angeles Times
Judges back a one-third reduction in state prison population
Jurists issue tentative ruling in lawsuit brought by inmates, who say overcrowding in state prisons violates their right to adequate healthcare.
By Michael Rothfeld

February 10, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento — A panel of three federal judges, saying overcrowding in state prisons has deprived inmates of their right to adequate healthcare, tentatively ruled Monday that the state must reduce the population in those lockups by as many as 57,000 people.

The judges issued the decisionafter a trial in two long-running cases brought by inmates to protest the state of medical and mental healthcare in the prisons.

Although their order is not final, U.S. District Court Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt effectively told the state that it had lost the trial and would have to make dramatic changes in its prisons unless it could reach a settlement with inmates' lawyers.

State officials immediately said they would appeal.

If the state is ordered to reduce the prison population, it would likely be able to do so over two or three years, so it would not have to release large numbers of inmates at once. Some methods of cutting the population include limiting new admissions, changing policies so parole violators return to prison less frequently, and giving prisoners more time off of their sentences for good behavior and rehabilitation efforts.

The judges said these types of measures could save the state more than $900 million a year in prison costs, money that could be used by cities and counties to put those who otherwise would have gone to prison into local jails or treatment programs.

The state's 33 prisons were designed for 84,000 inmates, and they now hold 158,000, nearly double their designed capacity. The rest of the 170,000 in the correctional system are in out-of-state prisons and other facilities. The judges found that with inmates crammed into institutions, they could not receive the care to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution.

"There is . . . uncontroverted evidence that, because of overcrowding, there are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at the level of care they require," the judges wrote in a 10-page decision.

They said that triple-bunking of inmates in prison gymnasiums has increased the risk of infectious disease and that a shortage of doctors, nurses and correctional officers has denied inmates access to treatment and a decent system to keep their medical records in order.

In the ruling, the judges said they believe the state's prisons can safely operate at 120% to 145% of their designed capacity. Based on the current prison population, that would mean a potential reduction of 36,000 to 57,000 inmates. They reserved the right to change their numbers and did not say when their final order might come.

"It's a pretty comprehensive victory for us," said Michael Bien, a lawyer in San Francisco who has fought for mentally ill prisoners. "It was a message -- a very loud, clear message -- that it's time that the public officials in California took responsibility for their own criminal justice system."

Under federal law, judges cannot order the state to lock up fewer prisoners if such a move would endanger the public, and the panel said that would not be the case if reductions were done gradually.

But Matt Cate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's corrections secretary, said the ruling "poses a significant threat to public safety" because it could prevent the state from incarcerating as many criminals as it now keeps in seven to 10 prisons.

"If this panel issues a final decision, we will appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court," Cate said tersely during a news conference in Sacramento.

State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown called the ruling "the latest intrusion" on California's prison system by the federal courts. In a statement, he labeled the order "a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed."

The judges oversaw the trial starting in November and completed it last week. In their decision, they referred to the testimony of Jeanne Woodford, a former corrections secretary under Schwarzenegger, who told them overcrowding made it impossible for prisoners to get mental health treatment and medical exams. They also cited experts from Texas, Pennsylvania, Maine and Washington.

And the judges used Schwarzenegger's words and actions against him, citing the state of emergency the governor declared for the prisons in 2006 -- still in effect -- and quoting him as saying overcrowding had caused "substantial risk to the health and safety" of prison inmates and staff. They noted that Schwarzenegger has made budget-related proposals to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates, and that lawmakers have backed similar ideas.

"We cannot believe that such support would exist if the adoption of such measures would adversely affect public safety," the judges wrote, although the proposals they referred to have not garnered enough support to go into effect.

The state nearly reached a settlement with the inmates last year that would have reduced the prison population by tens of thousands, largely by shifting low-level offenders to local jails and rehabilitation programs. But that deal fell apart when Republican state lawmakers and county prosecutors objected.

Since then, the state has hardened its stance. Schwarzenegger and Brown are now demanding that Henderson terminate court oversight of prison medical care, which he seized from the state in 2006. They say the situation has improved with the hiring of new medical and correctional personnel.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la me-prisons10-2009feb10,0,4380330.story?track=ntothtml

Judges tell state to free thousands of inmates

Bob Egelko,Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

(02-09) 18:48 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- California needs to release tens of thousands of California inmates over the next two to three years to relieve overcrowding that has ravaged prison medical and mental health care, a panel of federal judges said Monday.

In what it labeled a tentative ruling, the three-judge panel said prison populations must be reduced so health care for inmates can be brought up to constitutional standards.

Crowding at prisons can be eased by measures that will not flood the streets with dangerous inmates, such as changing parole policies and sending some low-risk inmates to county custody, the panel said.

"The evidence is compelling that there is no relief other than a prisoner release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions," said the judges, who held a trial on prison overcrowding in San Francisco last fall.

California's 33 prisons hold nearly 160,000 inmates, about twice their designed capacity. The judges said they were prepared to impose a limit of between 120 and 145 percent of capacity, which would require 37,000 to 58,000 prisoners to be released.

The Schwarzenegger administration immediately announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court once the ruling becomes final.

Matthew Cate, secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said at a Sacramento news conference that the judges' order would put thousands of inmates back on the streets, posing "a significant threat to public safety."

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represented the state, said the court "does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed."

But Donald Specter of the nonprofit Prison Law Office, a lawyer for inmates who sued the state, said the ruling validates the group's position that overcrowding is creating dangerous conditions that can be eased only by reducing the prison population.

"Much of the evidence showed that it's been done in other states without having any impact on public safety," Specter said. "It's safe, it's reasonable, it's necessary. It's too bad that it's taken a court to recognize this."

The case arose from past rulings by two of the panel members, U.S. District Judges Thelton Henderson of San Francisco and Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento, that concluded the quality of medical care and mental health treatment in California prisons violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Karlton first ordered improvements in mental health treatment in 1995, and Henderson found that prison health care had been substandard since at least 2002.
Unnecessary deaths

In a 2006 ruling, Henderson said the $1.1 billion medical care system was causing the unnecessary death of one inmate per week. He said the state was incapable of repairing the system and appointed a manager to run it under his supervision.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a return to state control last month. He also has appealed Henderson's order that the state pay the first $250 million of the manager's $8 billion plan to rebuild prison hospitals.

In Monday's decision, the panel, which also includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, agreed with lawyers for the inmates that "crowding is the primary cause" of the constitutional violations.

Because prisons are jammed beyond capacity, there aren't enough doctors and nurses to help all the inmates who need care, or enough staff to make sure they're taking medications, the panel said. Crowding at some prisons is so severe, with inmates being triple-bunked in gyms, that it has increased the risk of diseases spreading among prisoners and staff, the judges said.

They noted that Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for the prisons in 2006, citing overcrowding that endangered inmates and staff. That order remains in effect.

Prison crowding could be eased through a combination of increasing sentence reductions for good behavior, turning over low-risk prisoners to counties for incarceration or treatment, and changing parole policies that now return large numbers of inmates to prison for minor violations, the judges said.

They said the state would save nearly $1 billion a year, money that could be used for local prisoner housing and rehabilitation.
No help in sight

Although prison health conditions are improving under the direction of court appointees, the panel said, inmates are still suffering, with no immediate help in sight. Construction plans will take years to implement, even if the deficit-plagued state can find a way to pay for them, the panel said.

The judges ordered state officials to consult with the prisoners' lawyers and other parties in the case, including prison guards and county prosecutors, on any steps that might be taken to lower the prison population.

Specter, the inmates' lawyer, said he was prepared to resume negotiations, but added that "there's no point in talking" if Schwarzenegger maintains his refusal to consider any such measures.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/10/MNGS15QM8V.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.

==================

Judges tentatively approve prison inmate reduction
dwalsh@sacbee.com
Published Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2009

A panel of three federal judges tentatively ruled Monday that California must reduce its prison population by up to 58,000 inmates in two to three years, saying that "the present state of overcrowding" makes it impossible for the state to deliver health care at a constitutional level.

The judges clearly said there are many avenues available to the state and counties other than an early-release program - like parole reform, increased good time credits and programs to reduce recidivism. They all fall under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act's definition of a "prisoner release order."

They will review the evidence presented at a 14-day non-jury trial and issue a final opinion, but the tentative ruling is meant "to give the parties notice of the likely nature of that opinion, and to allow them to plan accordingly," the judges said.

Inmates' attorneys expressed hope that, in the wake of the ruling, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his administration, legislative leaders, county representatives and all other affected parties will work out a settlement.

Reaction by Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matthew Cate made that seem unlikely. Cate correctly said the 10-page tentative ruling calls for 37,000 to 58,000 fewer inmates within two to three years.

Speaking for himself and Schwarzenegger, the secretary said they "disagree with the panel's ruling," and with the release of that many convicts "onto California streets," which he called "a significant threat to public safety."

Attorney General Jerry Brown labeled the tentative ruling "a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals."

If the ruling becomes permanent, Cate declared, it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. An appeal from the specially-convened panel bypasses the federal appellate level and goes directly to the high court, which could accept the matter for review, or let the ruling stand without review.

"This is not about overcrowding," Cate said. "We are providing a constitutional level of care now; so we have the right to keep these inmates in prison."

By contrast, the three judges said inmates' attorneys "have presented overwhelming evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the underlying constitutional violations."

They said conditions have "substantially increased the risk of the transmission of infectious illnesses among inmates and prison staff."

"It is our present intention," the panel said, "to adopt an order requiring the state to develop a plan to reduce the prison population to 120 percent or 145 percent of the prison's design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a period of two or three years." The judges noted the 33 adult prisons, with nearly 160,000 inmates, are operating at close to 200 percent design capacity.

The judges are Lawrence K. Karlton of Sacramento, who has presided for 19 years over an ongoing class-action lawsuit on behalf of mentally ill inmates; Thelton E. Henderson of San Francisco, who has presided for eight years over an ongoing class-action lawsuit on behalf of physically ill inmates and who put prison health care into receivership in 2006; and Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles, a judge of the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They are considered three of the most liberal judges in the nine-state appellate circuit.

"The state has a number of options Š that would serve to reduce the population of the prison Š without adversely affecting public safety," the judges said. "It could also use the savings that will result from the implementation of a population cap to provide for any increased burdens on the counties."

The judges acknowledged the state's $42 billion budget deficit and the fiscal implications of their final decision "are of the most serious order. There are simply no additional funds Š being made available by the state to deal with the critical problem created by prison overcrowding."

California legislators expressed mixed views Monday about releasing inmates, but declined to specifically address the tentative ruling because they had not read it.

"I don't think we should be releasing prisoners early," said Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville. "I think they're in prison because they created a threat to society. And I think we should do everything we can to keep them behind bars."

But Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, who sits on the Assembly Public Safety Committee, said that some prison inmates can be rehabilitated and released, thus relieving prison overcrowding without impairing public safety.

"I know there is a percentage of inmates who are in for less serious offenses who would not endanger the public directly, but there are always exceptions, and that's where we get in trouble," Ma said, adding that early release deserves scrutiny.

Inmate lawyer Michael Bien said the ruling "sends a message to the state to Š work out a solution that is win, win, win - that is good for public safety, good for sick prisoners and helps solve the budget deficit.

Steven Fama, an inmate attorney, pointed to proposals by Schwarzenegger in the past two years - "parole reform," "release of about 20,000 inmates over about 20 months."

He said of the 140,000 inmates released each year, most served only a few months.

"It's just a matter of finding the ones that would create the least risk if released a couple of months early," Fama added.
ShareThis
Call The Bee's Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189. The Bee's Jim Sanders also contributed to this report.
==================

Posted by lois at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)

February 09, 2009

Singing the prison blues Incarceration rate has direct impact on Florida's finances

The News-Journal
February 08, 2009

Singing the prison blues

Incarceration rate has direct impact on Florida's finances

Everyone in Florida government is singing the Budget Blues. But underlying the melody is a drumbeat many state leaders profess not to hear: The sound of countless prison doors slamming shut. Like it or not, the state's incarceration policies have a direct and growing impact on the current budget crisis.

AN EXPENSIVE HABIT

Florida's prison system is growing faster than that of any other state. According to a report by the Pew Charitable Trust, corrections (which includes state prisons and probation) consumed 9.3 percent of the state budget in 2007. The only states to allocate a greater portion of their budget were Oregon and Michigan.

And that only accounts for direct prison and probation spending -- it doesn't encompass increased public support for the families prisoners leave behind, or the burden on city and county governments that have to build additional jail space and employ more public-safety workers. Meanwhile, the state -- whose daily average prison population is projected to top 100,000 this year -- will need to build new facilities this year or face overcrowding. Department of Corrections Secretary Walter McNeil has requested $439.2 million in the coming budget year to add capacity.

Few people are pushing for dangerous murderers and rapists to be released. But neither can they dispute that Florida's incarceration spree occurred at a time when crime rates were actually trending downward. Florida hasn't become a more dangerous place to live, it's just become one that has become politically addicted to the idea of increasingly harsh punishments.

HANDCUFFING JUDGES

One of the more important checks against legislative excess has been hobbled. Lawmakers have significantly eroded the ability of judges to determine fair, justifiable sentences for a wide range of crimes.

Florida, like many states, adopted sentencing guidelines as a way to keep sentences relatively fair across geographic and racial lines. After sentencing guidelines passed in 1983, courts used a "score sheet" that added points for the particulars of an offense, the criminal background of an offender and other relevant considerations. The resulting score was then matched to a "guideline" range of prison and/or probation time -- but judges could depart from the guidelines if they found good reason to do so. That approach used fairness as a base line, giving judges the ability to tailor sentences to circumstances.

That changed in the mid-1990s, when the Legislature passed a series of laws aimed at stripping discretion from judges. There were "minimum mandatory" laws that demanded specific sentences for specific crimes, regardless of circumstances. Habitual offender statutes added more prison time, again taking away judges' discretion and resulting in cases like that of a burglar who received a life sentence for stealing a handful of children's videotapes.

In 1997, the Legislature erased the "ceiling" for guideline sentences; judges were not allowed to sentence a defendant to a sentence lower than the guidelines called for, but were permitted (even encouraged) to levy the statutory maximum sentence even if the guidelines called for a much lower penalty. As a result, the state could see a dramatic growth in sentencing disparity, with more politically minded judges levying unnecessarily harsh sentences in an attempt to appear tougher.

A final change -- setting zero-tolerance policies for many prisoners on probation -- has pushed thousands more people back behind bars, often for relatively minor offenses.

FINDING A SOLUTION

Restoring the intent of Florida's sentencing guidelines, and returning discretion to judges, would be a good start. The state also can ease the burden on prisons by matching offenders with programs that reduce the chances that they will commit more crimes. Specialized courts -- such as drug or mental health courts -- generally operate outside sentencing guideline requirements. And these programs work, significantly reducing the number of offenders who are rearrested.

Last month, the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee heard about other measures that could reduce prison population -- such as a controlled release program or prison diversion measures. These are worth exploring, but they would be no replacement for a careful, analytical approach to each case that a judge could offer.

Undoing these dubious reforms would restore equity to sentencing in Florida, and help restore the emphasis of the state's correctional mission -- to reform prisoners and turn them away from a life of crime -- and reducing the burden on Florida's taxpayers, who are feeding ever-increasing sums of money into a prison system that doesn't make them any safer.

By The Numbers

· 9.3 percent -- portion of Florida budget (2007) spent for corrections (prison and probation)

· 100,000 -- state's projected daily average prison population for 2009

· $439.2 million -- requested in coming budget year to add capacity
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN86020809.htm

Posted by lois at 05:45 PM | Comments (0)

February 08, 2009

Five Big Ideas We Should Be Talking About (including closing some prisons)

Published on OurFuture.org (http://www.ourfuture.org)
Five Big Ideas We Should Be Talking About
By Sara Robinson
Created 02/04/2009 - 1:19am
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020604/five-big-ideas-we-should-be-talking-about
Summary:

This is a moment for a big vision, painted in bold strokes. We need our own shelf full of challenging new ideas that will shake up people's assumptions, change the terms of the discussion, and expand the country's ideas about what's possible in this unique moment. Here are five Big Ideas we can use to get started.

Most progressives understand by now that the battle over the stimulus is, at heart, a philosophical debate over whether we're going to continue with 30 years of failed conservative economic policies, or chart a new direction for the country's future, built on an economics that's grounded in investment in the common good.

Given the stakes, it's frustrating to watch the discussion in Washington and on the news shows wander away from obvious solutions ("Buy American" policies, mortgage renegotiation, and increased oversight of bailout beneficiaries are such no-brainers it's hard to believe anybody serious would actually waste precious time debating them) and end up mired in ridiculous distractions and nit-picky details. This is a moment for a big vision, painted in bold strokes. We need our own shelf full of challenging new ideas that will shake up people's assumptions, change the terms of the discussion, and expand the country's ideas about what's possible in this unique moment.

Here are five Big Ideas that deserve to have a much wider hearing if we're really serious about getting America back up and running.
I am skipping to the one on prisons...for the full list, go to the URL above...
4
Close some prisons.

As I noted in a recent article , state governments are having a rough time right now in no small part because so many of them are bound by balanced budget amendments that prevent them from resorting to deficit spending as an option in bad times. Many of them are running deficits anyway, in direct violation of their own constitutions.

Given that state prison spending grows faster than education every year—and that prison costs are devouring state budgets from coast to coast, even as crime hits record lows—the first, best step toward balancing unstable state budgets may be to take a good hard look at how much we spend on prisons, and whether we're actually getting our money's worth.

And it may be an idea whose time has come. A recent poll in California found that voters of both parties ranked the public schools and health care as number one and two, respectively, on their list of public goods that must be protected during the state's financial crisis. Prisons, on the other hand, were at the very bottom of their list. They're more than ready to let this go.

Still finding the political will to do this is incredibly hard. Like defense contractors, the prison industry has a tremendous constituency, especially in the growing number of small towns where the prison is now the only major employer. Closing prisons throws thousands of people out of work. But it's also not the kind of public infrastructure investment that pays off in the long run.

As CAF research director Eric Lotke pointed out in a recent post:

Even as states spend nearly $50 billion on prisons every year and counties spend over $20 billion on jails, we build additional locked capacity. Even with U.S. incarceration rates at seven times historical and international norms, we build. Even as crime continues on its 15-year descent to levels not seen in 40 years, we find money to build even more.

The sacrifices we make to build these prisons are astonishing. Between 1987 and 2007, state spending on prisons increased by 40 percent (as a percent of the general fund). State spending on higher education decreased by 30 percent. We are financing our prisons by cutting our colleges.

We continue to build even though prisons are often disappointing for economic development. The best jobs go to people from out of town, and dollars spent on prisons have little “multiplier” effect. They don’t generate future additional dollars of economic activity, as do dollars spent on transportation, schools and so forth. Every dollar invested in highway construction generates $2.50 of gross domestic product in the short term. Raising teacher wages by 10 percent is associated with a 5 percent decrease in drop-out rates. But still we shortchange our schools and other rural enterprise, and build new prisons....

That’s where federal assistance can come in. Part of the infrastructure/investment/stimulus money can be directed to cover transitional costs out of the prison economy. A few billion dollars of federal money in the short term can help states break the prison hammerlock, and free them to redirect tens of billions of state dollars to other purposes—from schools to roads to hospitals.

Cutting money for schools, colleges, and hospitals pretty much guarantees that we're going to need more prisons down the road. The current crisis may be the moment we've been looking for to tell the private prison companies and corrections unions that enough is enough. We don't need what they're selling us anymore. And we can't afford it, either.

========================
These are just a few examples. The point is that in the middle of these tough times, things are becoming possible that have never been possible before. Small risks, small actions, or small ideas are unworthy of the moment, and of us. It's time for us to get beyond the old assumptions, and start to think big enough to stir the soul of the country.

Bernie Horn, Eric Lotke, Susan Ozawa, and David Sirota all participated in the development of this article.
Campaign For America's Future

Posted by lois at 08:38 PM | Comments (0)

February 06, 2009

NY: Sentencing Commission Calls for Drug Law Reform and Critical Response from NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver

Sentencing Commission Calls for Drug Law Reform
February 3, 2009

Panel also recommends determinate sentencing, graduated sanctions for parole violators

A bi-partisan panel that spent nearly two years studying New York State’s sentencing statutes today called for further reforms to the state’s drug laws and provided the Governor, Legislature and Judiciary with several different options for historic reform.

The Commission on Sentencing Reform agreed on five major principles of drug law reform:

* Community-based drug treatment, especially when required in a criminal justice setting where the offender faces clearly defined sanctions for program failure, works and should be an available option in every region of the state.

* The state’s network of existing diversion programs and drug courts has been effective for thousands of drug-addicted offenders, and any new diversion model must be structured so as not to undermine these programs.

* New York should adopt a comprehensive plan to provide statewide access to substance abuse treatment programs.

* New York must continue to reserve costly prison resources for high-risk offenders and make greater use of alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders while not jeopardizing the state’s significant gains in public safety.

* While New York has a large network of successful drug treatment courts and prosecutor-based diversion programs (such as DTAP – “Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison), these programs are not always made available to deserving offenders in need of treatment. The result is a “hit-or-miss” system that leaves many non-violent, drug-addicted offenders ─ and particularly persons of color – without access to this potentially life-changing alternative. To help close this gap, the Commission supports the adoption in statute of a uniform statewide drug diversion model.

The Commission considered several different alternatives for achieving those objectives and included five different options for reform.

Under one of the proposals, the “judicial diversion” model, judges would have discretion to divert certain addicted, non-violent first- and second-felony drug offenders into treatment programs rather than prison. The Commission noted that if this model had been in place in 2006, approximately 3,000 offenders – 89 percent of them African American or Hispanic – might have been diverted from prison and instead steered toward treatment.

Other options are: the Court Approved Drug Abuse Treatment (CADAT) model that is part of a comprehensive drug reform bill pending in both houses of the Legislature; judicial diversion, but only with the consent of the prosecutor; and two variations of a proposal that would allow first-time Class B drug felons to receive a probation or local jail sentence in lieu of a one-year state prison term.

Denise E. O’Donnell, chair of the Commission and Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, said all of the five proposals have benefits and drawbacks that the Legislature should take into account before implementing drug law reform.

“The Commission has heard from the prosecution, the defense, and the judiciary,” Deputy Secretary O’Donnell said. “We have solicited advice from advocates and renowned experts from around the nation. We held public hearings in New York City, Albany and Buffalo. We formed focus groups. We studied drug courts and drug diversion programs around the state and visited drug treatment facilities and New York State’s prisons in an effort to determine which approaches are most successful at ending the cycle of addiction and incarceration.

“I believe our report provides Governor Paterson and the Legislature with the balanced, objective and evidence-based information they need to make informed decisions about the future of New York’s drug laws,” Deputy Secretary O’Donnell added.

The 11-member Sentencing Commission, which was established by Executive Order in March 2007 to perform a comprehensive review of New York’s sentencing statutes, also recommended:

* Adopting a largely “determinate” sentencing system to promote greater uniformity, fairness and truth-in-sentencing. Currently, New York utilizes a hybrid of “determinate” sentences where the court imposes a fixed sentence, and “indeterminate” sentences where the court imposes a minimum and maximum term and the Parole Board decides when the offender is actually released. Under a determinate sentencing system, defendants, crime victims, judges and the public have a clear understanding of how long an offender will actually spend behind bars. The Commission reviewed more than two decades of sentences that had been imposed through the indeterminate system and used that data to construct a proposed range of sentences for particular offenses.

* A comprehensive system of graduated responses, which would allow parole officers throughout the state to respond quickly and proportionately to technical parole violations. Since incarceration is an expensive and, often, unnecessary response to parole violations, the Commission recommends expanded use of “graduated sanctions” – such as curfews, electronic monitoring, increased reporting – coupled with use of evidence-based risk assessments to identify parolees who pose the greatest risk to public safety.

* Expanding effective and cost-efficient “shock incarceration” and “merit time” initiatives that reduce recidivism and reserve costly prison space for the most dangerous offenders.

* Enhancing the rights of crime victims. The Commission recommends moving all of the various victim’s rights statutes into a single article of law, or cross-referencing to a single article, so that victims, judges and practitioners can readily ascertain the rights and benefits that may be available. Additionally, the Commission recommends enhancing victim’s rights training requirements for prosecutors and judges, as well as new laws to enhance the ability of victims to collect restitution.

* Establishing a permanent sentencing commission. Over the past 40 years, portions of New York’s sentencing statutes have been amended and altered countless times, resulting in an overly complex, Byzantine structure replete with the potential for injustice. The Commission recommends the establishment of a permanent body of experts to advise the Executive and Legislative branches on proposed legislation.

Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the “Sentencing Commission has performed a valuable service, at a critical time in the state’s history.”

“By focusing squarely on the connection between public safety and sentencing policy, the Commission has provided a roadmap that will guide the state during difficult fiscal times,” President Travis said. “The Commission’s recommendations, if followed, will bring clarity to our patchwork quilt of accumulated sentencing reforms, improve reentry outcomes, and support more rational uses of our prisons and our parole system.”

Deputy Secretary O’Donnell said the report is “the product of an extraordinary effort by an extraordinary group of professionals.”

“This comprehensive report reflects the wide diversity of experience represented on the Commission, and the seriousness with which every member approached this very difficult and time-consuming mission,” Deputy Secretary O’Donnell said. “Although we come from different areas, different professions and different backgrounds, our overarching goals were identical – justice, fairness and public safety. I believe that, with this report, we have met that goal.”

Also on the Commission were: Anthony Bergamo, Chairman, Federal Law Enforcement Foundation, Inc.; Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Michael C. Green, Monroe County District Attorney; Joseph R. Lentol, member of the New York State Assembly; Michael P. McDermott, O’Connell and Aronowitz in Albany; Judge Juanita Bing Newton, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives; Felix Rosa; Executive Director, New York State Division of Parole; Eric T. Schneiderman, member of the New York State Senate; Tina Marie Stanford, Chair, New York State Crime Victims Board; and Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer in Manhattan

“A lot of talented people put a lot of work into this report, which I believe will serve as a positive stepping stone for the legislature as we consider reforms to our state’s costly ─ and at times overly-punitive ─ criminal justice system,” said Senator Schneiderman, the new chair of the Senate Codes Committee. “I am especially heartened by the fact that the Commission is recommending by nearly unanimous agreement that judges be given the power to divert drug-addicted offenders to treatment, even without prosecutorial consent.”

Added Karen Carpenter-Palumbo, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services: “I applaud the Governor and the Sentencing Commission for recognizing addiction is a chronic illness that is better to treat than to incarcerate. We know that 72 percent of state parolees have a substance abuse problem and effective treatment is the best way to help them return to their communities, not to prison.

“OASAS is proud to partner with the Governor and Legislature on insuring that appropriate treatment is available to those individuals who can be diverted from State prison to our not-for-profit system of care,” she added. “New York State is a national leader in diversion programs, such as drug courts, and the action of this Commission once again puts New York in the forefront.”

Commissioner Fischer said the “shock incarceration” and “merit time proposals would build upon effective and cost efficient programs already being utilized by the Department of Correctional Services.

“Expanding eligibility for shock incarceration and creating limited credit time for good behavior and enhanced program participation during prison are sound, common-sense ideas based upon many years of practical experience in what works best,” Commissioner Fischer said.

“Shock has saved state taxpayers nearly $1.3 billion directly over two decades through reduced need for prison space, in addition to lowering recidivism by better preparing its participants to return to society,” he added. “Credit time would build on our very successful merit time program by providing incentives that have been shown not only to help in the rehabilitative process for offenders but also to make our correctional facilities safer and to enhance public safety.”

Added Ms. Stanford, Chair of the Crime Victims Board: “I am pleased to note that victims’ rights and concerns were studied and considered as part of the extensive process of reviewing sentencing in New York. The final product reflects fairness and forward thinking in an effort to share practical suggestions and best practices to achieve just results.”

Mr. Vance said that the “Commission’s report provides sound and bold recommendations to reform New York’s complex, sometimes unfair and often incomprehensible sentencing laws. We hope our work will be a roadmap to a more fair and effective criminal justice system for all of us.”

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/pio/press_releases/2009-02-03_pressrelease.html
Critical Response to Report from Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the NY Assembly
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/11304/silver-thumbs-down-on-dru g-law-reform-report

Silver: Thumbs down on drug law reform report
February 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm by Casey Seiler

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has wasted no time in calling the drug law reform commission’s report a “missed opportunity.” Here’s his letter to commission Chairwoman Denise O’Donnell:

Dear Commissioner O’Donnell:

I write to express my deep disappointment with the final report of the Commission on Sentencing Reform. Unfortunately, the Commission’s report represents a historic missed opportunity to advance meaningful reform of New York’s antiquated “Rockefeller-era Drug Laws”. The Commission held in its hands a unique opportunity to help undo thirty-five years of failed drug policy and set New York on the path to establishing a more just, more humane and more effective approach to combat drug crime and drug abuse.

I am saddened that it failed to do so.

More than 35 years after they were enacted, it is clear that the Rockefeller laws have failed to combat drug abuse or effectively impact the incidence of violent crime across New York State. Rather, they have succeeded in imprisoning tens of thousands of low-level non-violent offenders, who are predominantly African-American and Latino, with no history of committing violent crimes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers. By restoring to judges their discretion not to mandate a prison sentence when they deem it inappropriate, non-violent drug offenders and taxpayers will be
better served by driving resources toward strategies that have been proven far more effective at combating substance abuse and the street level crime associated with it.

Fore nearly a decade, the New York State Assembly, led by Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubry, has passed legislation to reform these laws, with an emphasis on restoring discretion to judges and providing alternatives to incarceration where appropriate and drug treatment for offenders where needed. Policy reforms encapsulated in that legislation were proposed to this Commission by Assemblymember Joseph Lentol. I was very sorry to learn
that the Commission rejected them.

I am troubled that the Commission’s report fails to address a system that has ignored, and still ignores, the health and societal implications of drug abuse, and has ignored the failed laws that have led to African- Americans and Latinos constituting 90% of those incarcerated in our state prisons for drug offenses. This profound discriminatory impact is even more shocking when the rates of illicit drug use are 8.1 percent for Whites, 7.2 percent
for Latinos and 8.7 percent for African-Americans.

In 2004, under the leadership of the New York State Assembly and drug law reform advocates, New York undertook an important first step in correcting failed policies by lowering maximum prison sentences through converting indeterminate to determinate sentences, eliminating life sentences, doubling weights for the top 2 classes of drug offenses and providing other sentencing relief. Further amendments have enabled some of those who were previously sentenced under the laws to seek limited reconsideration of their sentences.

But still, more than 35 years after enactment of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, individuals convicted of a class B felony drug offense must go to state prison, often regardless of the quantity, quality or type of drugs involved and regardless of other options that combat drug crime and drug abuse.

While I believe the Commission missed a historic opportunity to address these issues, the Assembly is committed to ensuring that in 2009, New York finally enacts real reform of the Rockefeller-era Drug Laws. We believe the following principles should guide any efforts at enacting reform:

Mandatory minimum sentences for low-level non-violent offenders must go. Judges must have the discretion to impose sentences that make sense. Mandating that judges sentence drug users and very low level street sellers to state prison has not appreciably impacted crime or
reduced addiction but, rather, has led to a massive increase in New York’s prison population with a disproportionate number of Latinos and African-Americans being incarcerated. Thus, real reform means untying the hands of our judiciary by ending mandatory minimum
prison sentences for Class B felony drug offenses and second time,
non-violent drug offenders, and placing an emphasis on probation,
alternatives to incarceration, and treatment. Except for the most serious and violent crimes, judges in New York already have had and continue to have the discretion to fashion appropriate sentences for criminal acts. Judges should have the ability to make an informed decision whether circumstances warrant imposing a state prison sentence in drug crimes just as they do in cases of many assault, larceny, property damage and any number of other crimes.

Illegal drugs should remain illegal. Adults who sell drugs to children, individuals who use guns in drug deals, and drug kingpins deserve harsh punishment. In addition, existing maximum
determinate sentences for first and second class B level felony and below offenders should also be maintained so that if a judge decided circumstances warrant, those who commit the crime will do serious time.

District Attorneys should continue to play a key role in the process, but they should not be able to veto a judge’s discretion. Indeed, to the extent there are district attorney-sponsored initiatives, such as Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) programs that have proven success rates with the limited populations they serve, judges will have the discretion to continue them.

This approach is fair, sensible and cost effective. We spend almost $45,000 per year incarcerating each drug offender in state prison, many of whom are non-violent individuals suffering from substance abuse. This is money that could be spent on breaking the cycle that has driven New York’s apparent addiction to sending people to prison rather than ending the drug abuse and recidivism.

I reiterate my disappointment at this missed opportunity. I remain
committed to eliminating the most ineffective and inhumane aspects of the Rockefeller-era Drug Laws. I am hopeful that this year my colleagues in the Legislature can create a partnership with the Governor to complete this work.

Sincerely,
Sheldon Silver
Speaker
New York State Assembly

Posted by lois at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)

February 03, 2009

Call for Papers: The International Prison Privatization Experience: A Transatlantic and Transpacific Dialogue, Houston, TX, August 6-8, 2009

The International Prison Privatization Experience: A Transatlantic and Transpacific Dialogue, Houston, TX, August 6-8, 2009

Call for Papers

The Barbara Jordan Institute for Policy Research, the BJ-ML School of Public Affairs Administration of Justice Department, and Justice Strategies will convene the first international conference on prison privatization. The conference will highlight the inimical impact these prisons are having on women, minorities, and the poor. Scholars will explore alternative economic development strategies to sustain rural communities before they turn to prisons—private or public.

Papers should investigate comparative aspects of prison privatization and grassroots initiatives geared toward reducing prison privatization. Proposals should also examine critical issues such as race, gender and crime and the impact on families’ and prisoners’ communities. Papers should fit into one of the following categories:

Session 1: Financial and Social Costs of an Increasing Use of Imprisonment

Session 2: Commodification of Prisoners and Human Rights

Session 3: Constitutional Implications of Private Prisons

Session 4: The Commercialization of Justice

Session 5: Interjurisdictional Issues and Common Concerns

Session 6: Demystifying Prison Privatization

Session 7: Privatized Detention of Immigrants

For more information contact:

Prof. Byron E. Price, the Conference Chair at 713-313-4809. Please send proposals, preferably as a Word or pdf attachment, to pricebe@tsu.edu by April 1st of 2009.

Committee members:

Byron E. Price, Texas Southern University—Houston, TX
Helen Taylor Greene, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX
Judy Greene, Justice Strategies—Brooklyn, NY
Elycia Daniel, Texas Southern University—Houston, TX

Posted by lois at 05:55 PM | Comments (0)

PREVENTING CRIME 101: MORE COLLEGE IN PRISONS

PREVENTING CRIME 101: MORE COLLEGE IN PRISONS
Increasing higher ed opportunities behind bars lowers recidivism rates and incarceration costs over the long run, say advocates.
> By Jarrett Murphy

City Limits WEEKLY #673
February 2, 2009

At a time when Gov. David Paterson is proposing the closure of four New York prisons as part of wide-ranging budget cuts, an advocacy group is calling on the state to spend money in order to save money—by funding college courses for more of the 61,000 inmates in state prisons.

The Correctional Association of New York (CA), a nonprofit organization that inspects prisons and recommends policy, says in a new report that college courses save taxpayers money because inmates with college degrees are less likely to return to crime—and prison—after their release.

Currently, about 1,200 inmates at the state's 69 prisons are enrolled in college programs, which receive almost no public funding. In 1994, President Clinton signed a federal bill that spent billions building prisons but, at the insistence of Republican members of Congress, eliminated inmates' eligibility for federal Pell Grants. The following year, New York Gov. George Pataki prohibited inmates from participating in the state's Tuition Assistance Program.

Correctional Association executive director Robert Gangi attributes those policy decisions to "the very short-sighted political view … 'Why give prisoners access to college education when so many people on the outside have to work so hard to come up with the money so they can pay for their children to go to school?'"

That's short-sighted, Gangi says, because inmates who earn a degree are less likely to end up back in prison, where it costs the state around $40,000 a year to house them. A 1991 study by the state Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) found that 26.4 percent of inmates who earned a degree in 1986-1987 ended up back in prison by 1991, compared to 44.6 percent of released inmates who did not participate in the college program. Other studies have reported similar disparities.

The reason for that impact is simple, Gangi says. People with college degrees are more likely to be employed and to make a decent living. "They have a much better capacity to reconnect with families, to hold a job, to become tax-paying, law-abiding citizens," he says.

College courses also reduce prison violence by giving prisoners an incentive for good behavior—only those with relatively clean disciplinary records can take classes—and by producing "a stream of mature, well-spoken leaders who have a calming effect on other prisoners and guards," Gangi says.

Currently, there are college program in 17 prisons across the state. Among them is the Bard College program at Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County. The New York Theological Seminary offers inmates at Sing Sing a two-year Masters of Professional Studies in religion degree. There is also the Niagara Consortium—a joint effort by Niagara University, Canisius College and Daemen College that runs a program at Wyoming Correctional Facility in Attica. The Consortium is the only prison college program that receives public funding – a modest $227,000.

DOCS also offers GED, adult basic education and bilingual education classes at most facilities; those courses now serve more than 16,000 inmates, and their GED passing rate is 77 percent, well higher than the national average. Vocational education is also available at some prisons. Seven prisons offer a "certificate in ministry and human services" program and 14 run special education classes. These non-college offerings cost DOCS $64.9 million a year. They are a mix of classroom instruction and correspondence courses.

According to DOCS spokesman Erik Kriss, 181 state inmates earned college degrees in 2007, up from 139 in 2006. Kriss says DOCS Commissioner Brian Fischer has made it easier for inmates to obtain college credits by expanding the pool of inmates eligible to attend and increasing the number of prisoners who can apply federal Youth Offender funds toward education. "The commissioner is actively looking for private partnerships now to expand college opportunities for inmates without costing the state anything," Kriss says, pointing to a recent agreement in which Cornell University, with help from the Sunshine Lady Foundation (run by Warren Buffett's sister, Doris Buffett), agreed to expand its college program at Auburn Correctional Facility to also reach inmates at Cayuga Correctional Facility.

So far, prison education services haven’t been targeted for budget cutting. Gangi says allowing inmates to receive TAP funding would cost the state $5 to $10 million up front, but save money later on by preventing recidivism. It's unclear how many more prisoners would participate in college courses if funding were available, or exactly how much the state would save if those efforts prevented future crimes, but one study estimated that every $1 million spent on prison education prevents 350 future crimes – and the associated costs of incarceration for perpetrators caught and convicted.

"Even with the fiscal crisis, we think we have a shot at moving the issue in New York," he says. At the federal level, efforts are underway to get the new president and new Congress to reverse the ban on prison Pell grants.

Kriss says that while the legislature must make the decision, DOCS would support restoring inmate eligibility for TAP. "We are sensitive to the fact that a lot of people—law-abiding citizens—have to work hard and reach deep into their pockets to pay for education," he says. "But if an inmate is eligible for TAP just as anyone else would be, it’s a good thing," because it works to prevent released inmates from returning.

When former Gov. George Pataki imposed the ban on TAP funding for inmates – which occurred as the governor was slashing state spending in general – his conservative supporters took a hard law-and-order line to defend the move. A spokesman for the now-defunct Change-NY lobbying group said of the TAP grants: "This is a classic prison perk that must go. Taxpayers should not be financing higher education for criminals." The Pataki administration, however, painted the move more as a bid to make fairer use of smaller budgets.

Fourteen years later, the political atmosphere around crime has changed: Even conservative Republicans are supporting programs to better equip inmates for re-entry to the community. Last year, President Bush signed the "Second Chance Act," calling for more funding for prisoner counseling and education, which the House had passed with overwhelming GOP support. But the budget environment is, if anything, worse than in 1995. That, says Gangi, is the greatest obstacle for the Correctional Association proposal to clear.

In its report, the CA also calls on the New York State Division of Parole to make educational attainment an explicit factor in parole decisions.

Heather R. Groll, director of media relations and public affairs for the Division of Parole, agrees that education is an important factor in preventing released inmates from returning, and calls for more educational opportunities in prison. But that's not the whole story, says Groll: "The Board of Parole takes many factors into consideration when making their release decisions including academic achievements, the nature of the crime, the inmate's institutional record including all program accomplishments, vocational education, work assignments and interpersonal relationships with staff and inmates. In addition, the Board must look at the impact of the crime on the victim or the victim's family and evaluate the inmate's proposed residential and employment plans."

Next week, the state Division of Criminal Justice Services is due to release the final report of the Commission on Sentencing Reform. In a draft report released in late 2007, the commission in a split vote called for an end to parole altogether. Gangi says that even if parole ends, inmates could still be given credit for taking college courses when "merit time" is calculated. Merit time is a way for inmates who have earned a GED, obtained a vocational training certificate or accomplished other goals to shave up to a sixth off their minimum sentence.

Gangi acknowledges that those inmates who are motivated and well-behaved enough to attend college classes in prison would probably fare better after their release than other inmates, whether they took college classes or not. But he contends that the statistical evidence shows too large a gap between the recidivism rates of degree-earners versus others to ignore.

The goal, says Kriss, is to try to reach inmates who might be less inclined to improve themselves. "College can maybe benefit these less-than-stellar inmates as much, perhaps more, than those who are well-motivated," he says. Preventing crime, he says, "takes a change in thought. That's what it comes down to."

- Jarrett Murphy
CA Report: http://www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/ppp/Higher_Education_Full_Report_2009.pdf
"Correctional Education as Crime Control": http://www.ceanational.org/PDFs/ed-as-crime-control.pdf
http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3695&content_type=1&media_type=3

Posted by lois at 09:57 AM | Comments (0)

January 30, 2009

MI: Sacred Cows Block Real Prison Reform

Wednesday, January 28,2009
Sacred cows block real prison reform
by Kyle Melinn
Don't claim to be a Korean War veteran if you're not. In Michigan, it's a three-year felony.

Sodomy is still a crime in Michigan, as is dueling, adultery and compelling a woman to marry.

Yet, trying to get Republicans to strip these arcane crimes from the books or to be a bit more sensible on sentencing for real crimes like low-level drug offenses, forgery and counterfeiting is like trying to make real reform in the state's prison system.

It’s next to impossible.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration told legislative Republicans 18 months ago that if it was serious about cutting corrections costs, there's really only one way to do it: Lower the state's comparably enormous prison population with realistic sentences that aren't driven by political opportunism.

But in order to do it, the Democrats have to give too, and that means lessening labor costs in the union-driven prison system.

Everybody wants to cut the Department of Corrections these days, but for different reasons.
During last May’s swank Detroit Chamber of Commerce shindig on Mackinac Island, Granholm pledged that if the business community got the Legislature to cut prison costs, she’d roll back the new Michigan Business Tax surcharge.

So off to work they went. The Detroit Chamber and other business groups spent the next several months tearing apart the state’s prison budget, trying to find a way to imprison our bad guys for less money.

If you haven’t heard yet, Michigan’s prison system is huge, like $2 billion huge. The biggest in the Midwest by far and by any measuring stick you want to use. We lock up more prisoners than any of our neighbors and at a higher cost.

During the economically flush 1990s, then-Gov. John Engler made prison construction a cottage industry. Get-tough-on-crime Republican lawmakers were more than happy to fill these new facilities by jacking up prison sentences and installing more mandatory minimums.

Ah, but public safety comes at a price. In the fear-driven culture in which we live, where any middle-class child abduction or spousal murder has the potential to make national headline news for weeks on end, no amount of money is too much to lock up the crooks.

Until, the piggybank is empty, that is.

And in Michigan, the state piggy bank has been collecting dust bunnies since 2001. We’ve shifted money here and there. Cut money to cities, townships, universities, and certain parts of state government. Taxes were raised in 2007, and the business community was ticked.

That returns us to the Detroit Chamber, which came back last October with $800 million in prison reform, more than enough to cover a business tax surcharge. Their plan was to cut sentences and cut labor costs.

The governor and the Legislature stared at each other. The stand-off began.

The Republican-led Senate is all about privatization and slashing the union-driven labor costs within the state’s prison system, but not giving up their "bad-guys-are-going-to-kill-you-in-your-bed-in-the-middle-of-the-night” fear card.

The Democrats are OK letting out non-violent offenders as long as they’ve served their minimum sentences. They’re also fine with giving judges more sentencing discretion, but not if they have to throw their union buddies under the bus by cutting labor costs.

The Council of State Governments’ Justice Center was called in to help. It called in the Republicans, Democrats and DOC officials and went to work.

Last week, amid much bipartisan fanfare, the report was released. What did Republicans and Democrats come up with?

Squat.

Not only did the Council only find $16 million in savings for next year (less than 1 percent of the entire DOC budget), but it suggested that the money saved go toward local police and DNA crime labs. So much for rolling back the business tax.

Faced with the charge of fixing state government, the Republicans and Democrats came back with a tin can and square tires.

Now the state has a $1.4 billion budget hole, the little sister to a $1.8 billion hole of two years ago that required major tax increases to fill.

Prison cuts must happen this year. The “Obama-bucks” won’t balance the state budget in the long term.

The sacred cows need to be led to the slaughterhouse. Republicans need to pitch the "lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" mentality, but Democrats will need to give a little, too, even if it means less overtime or fewer union workers in prisons.

To not meet halfway can't be an option.
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2562-sacred-cows-block-real-
prison-reform.html

Posted by lois at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)

January 22, 2009

Michigan can save millions on prison costs, group says

Thursday, January 22, 2009
Detroit News
Michigan can save millions on prison costs, group says
Gary Heinlein and Charlie Cain / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING --Michigan can save $262 million in five years on prison spending with new policies that include targeted crime fighting and expanded job services for probationers and parolees, a national study group said today. The Council of State Governments also recommends the state reduce its crime lab backlogs and respond to probation violations with "swift, certain and proportional sanctions."

Corrections Director Patricia Caruso said the policy options presented today are "a critical step toward an affordable and effective corrections system that helps us go beyond what we have achieved in cost savings since 2003." Council findings included:

• Violent crime arrests dropped 22 percent between 2000 and 2007, while such crime dropped only 2 percent.

Advertisement

• 50 percent of people on probation and 50-70 percent of those on parole lack jobs.

• People released from prison have served, on average, 127 percent of their original minimum sentences.

The recommendations come from the council's Justice Center, which is involved in a 2- to 3-year study to help Michigan trim its $2-billion corrections budget.

The recommendations are a first step toward trimming Michigan's $2 billion prison budget.

Michigan runs the nation's sixth-largest prison system at a cost of $5.48 million a day or about $200 a year for each resident. The state also is one of just four that spends more on prisons than on state universities -- $1.19 on prisons for each $1 spent on schools.

There's a growing sense that the prison system, at its current size, no longer is sustainable, given the state's longstanding fiscal problems.

The state's corrections budget is under closer than usual scrutiny as lawmakers and Gov. Jennifer Granholm look for ways to resolve a projected $1.6 billion revenue shortfall in the state budget year that starts Oct. 1.

The Legislature has resisted making any major changes in sentencing and parole policies, expressing worries the result would be more crimes by inmates set free before they were rehabilitated. But the study by the prestigious council could provide justification for significant overhauls in the prison system.

In a two-day special series last April, The Detroit News reported:

• The prison population has grown four-fold in the last quarter-century and now numbers nearly 50,000.

• The $31,325 it costs to house a Michigan inmate for a year could pay three years worth of tuition for a student at a state university.

• Michigan incarcerates inmates at a higher rate than any other Midwest state and estimates are that the state could save $500 million annually if it locked-up criminals at a rate more like its neighboring states.

• Mushrooming prison spending has not stopped the state from ranking 10th among the states in the rate of violent crimes -- the only Midwestern state in the top 10.

• Today's prison population equals the combined populations of Ferndale, Mount Clemens and Harper Woods.

• Because of Michigan's stringent parole practices, about 12,000 inmates who've served their minimum sentences remain locked up.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090122/METRO/901220434/1
409/METRO

Posted by lois at 07:01 PM | Comments (0)

January 19, 2009

OK: Report: Rethink corrections policies or risk federal oversight

Report: Rethink corrections policies or risk federal bout

by Marie Price, The Journal Record
January 14, 2009
http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=95123

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma’s swelling inmate population shows the
need to rethink corrections policies to avoid another bout with
federal-court oversight of the prison system or a state budget
where corrections needs crowd out funding for others, members
of the Oklahoma Academy were told Tuesday.

In the organization’s report “Oklahoma’s Criminal Justice
System: Can We be Just as Tough but Twice as Smart?” a key
recommendation is a hard look at a state law that requires
those convicted of certain serious crimes to serve at least 85
percent of their sentence before being considered for parole.

Report Co-Chairman Marc Edwards, an Oklahoma City attorney,
said the “85-percent rule” was initially adopted in 1996 along
with a new sentencing matrix, which was jettisoned while the
85-percent requirement remains in place.

Neville Massie, executive assistant to the corrections
director, said a recent audit showed that most of the growth in
the state’s prison population is attributable to the longer
sentences required under laws such as the 85-percent rule.

Other recommendations include reducing incarceration of women
and preventing people from entering the prison system through
increased use of alternatives such as drug courts, more
regional and community alternatives and addressing addiction
and mental health issues.

Academy Chairman Howard Barnett said the report is the result
of work that began at a three-day town-hall conference in
Ardmore last October.

Secretary of State Susan Savage said the academy took on a
tough issue, one that is always at the forefront of legislative
and budgetary matters.

Savage said addressing some issues can only be accomplished
over the long term.

“It is not a quick fix,” she said.

Former state Rep. David Braddock said improving the state’s
criminal justice system is the right thing to do, but a
difficult task from which some lawmakers shrink for political
considerations.

Braddock said Oklahoma’s “tough on crime” stance has been used
by opponents to defeat some more reform-minded legislators.

“Our job, if anything, is to point out that the system is not
working,” he said.

Braddock said statistics such as being number one in the
incarceration of women are unacceptable.

“We need some common-sense, intelligent reforms that will serve
us better for the future,” he said. “We can change Oklahoma’s
criminal justice system, but it has to be ‘we.’”

Braddock said the state is in for a “huge train wreck,” with
the possibility of a $1.5 billion corrections budget in 10
years, if nothing is done.

Former state Sen. Cal Hobson said the state has pulled back on
laws that provided for some relief on the prison population by
releasing some inmates early, as well as adopting the
85-percent rule, which originally targeted only severe crimes
deemed the “seven deadly sins.” He said it now covers about 19
offenses.

“There’ll be more by May,” Hobson said, referring to the end of
the legislative session.

Hobson said Oklahoma’s corrections budget is “number three and
battling to be number two.”

He pointed out that the cap law was enacted in the early 1980s,
when the state faced a fiscal problem due to plummeting oil
prices.

“This problem will only be solved in a time of crisis,” Hobson
said.

Lawmakers were recently told they will have much less to
appropriate this session than last.

Commissioner Terri White, of the Oklahoma Department of Mental
Health and Substance Abuse Services, outlined her agency’s
“Smart on Crime” proposal, which calls for addressing addiction
and mental illness as the diseases science has proven them to
be, to stem the flow into the prison system of individuals who
suffer from them.

“If we locked up people for having diabetes, there would be a
public outcry,” White said.

The proposal also calls for screening, prevention and
intervention strategies to identify these issues early on, as
well as treatment of those incarcerated.

The agency estimates that the plan will cost about $30 million
per year.

White also said that 76 percent of women in Oklahoma prisons
have some form of mental illness, compared with about 40
percent of men.

Massie said meeting the needs of women in prison involves
addressing issues such as trauma and abuse, which many female
inmates have experienced in their private lives, as well as
their responsibilities regarding children.
Bruce DeMuth, chief of staff with the Oklahoma Department of
Career Technology and Education, stressed the need to improve
Oklahoma’s educational statistics, as a way to reduce the
prison population.

He said that in Oklahoma about 62 percent of inmates are high
school dropouts.

Improving the state’s graduation rate by just 6.4 percent would
increase overall income by $830 million, the gross state
product by $2 billion and state revenues by $76 million, DeMuth
said.

The Rev. Stan Basler, director of Criminal Justice and Mercy
Ministries at Oklahoma Conference United Methodist Church, said
the best policy is to keep people from going to prison in the
first place. However, he said the state needs to do more to
assist those just-released from prison, who face hurdles in
securing housing, jobs and other support, as well as basic
items such as driver’s licenses.

Posted by lois at 11:18 PM | Comments (0)

January 14, 2009

THE PEOPLE’S AGENDA: VIRGINIA PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY

THE PEOPLE’S AGENDA

Adopted unanimously Jan. 10, 2009, by the VIRGINIA PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY

In this time of deepening economic crisis, the working people of Virginia are looking to the government to protect our interests. Instead, it is the Big Banks and Corporations that are receiving bail-outs, while we are faced with more layoffs, more cutbacks and more attacks on our standard of living. Obviously, the rich and powerful have their representatives. The working people need ours.

On Jan. 10, 2009, nearly 100 representatives from dozens of organizations and communities throughout Virginia met in Richmond to found a People’s Assembly to protect and promote the interests of working-class people and communities of color. After much discussion and listening to each other’s concerns, the delegates unanimously adopted this People’s Agenda which we are presenting to the Virginia General Assembly. Our first demands are the following:

Don’t Balance the Budget on the Backs of Virginia’s Workers!

We demand a Moratorium on Cutbacks, Layoffs, Evictions & Foreclosures!

We know there are alternatives to cutting the state budget. Virginia’s 6% corporate tax rate is the 7th lowest in the country and hasn’t been raised in more than 30 years. Raise it! Reinstate parole for Virginia prisoners so the state’s prison population can be reduced. Close the barbaric and unnecessary Red Onion SuperMax prison. No more state money to promote slavery-defending Confederate traitors. Bring home Virginia members of the National Guard and Reserves now stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we demand the following:

LABOR

No layoffs of public employees — Remove all legal restrictions to the right to collective bargaining and the right to organize (HJ-60) — Pass a living wage bill — Create permanent, sustainable employment for all Virginians willing and able to work; promote “green” jobs — Equal pay and pay equity for women and people of color — Provide economic protection for retirees — Promote equal opportunity in all facets of state government — Support passage of the federal Employee Free Choice Act — Support repeal of the federal Taft-Hartley Act — Support the repeal of the federal NAFTA and CAFTA trade treaties

BLACK COMMUNITY

Remove barriers to effective support of the development and sustenance of neighborhood, community-based initiatives that will effect youth development, continuing education and/or job skills — Promote training and apprenticeships and small business and nonprofit organizational development to meet the needs of the community — ake Juneteenth an “Emancipation Day” state holiday; form a state-level Juneteenth Commission to coordinate cultural and educational programs — Increase procurement contracts to minority-owned businesses — For every dollar spent on Confederate culture commemoration, a matching dollar should be spent to fund Black culture and achievement commemoration, especially in regards to science, math and history

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

Declare a moratorium on anti-immigrant raids, deportations and foreclosures — Respect the right of residents to remain with their families — Prohibit local enforcement of the Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act — Prohibit public funding for the implementation of UNJUST migratory laws — Prohibit the use of abstract and nonspecific legal terminology like “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” that allow racial profiling and indiscriminate arrests — Prohibit police from using individual interpretation of laws for their own implementation — Stop linking illegal immigration and terrorism — Respect the human rights of immigrant detainees and prevent inhumane treatment — Prohibit detention centers like the planned Farmville Detention Center — Enforce and expand labor & wage protection laws — Allow in-state tuition for undocumented Virginia residents — Allow people to obtain a driver’s license or identification without presenting a Social Security number, to prevent arrests, criminal records and deportations — Allow all Virginia residents to benefit from social programs -- health, education and other social services; no denial because of lack of a Social Security number — Prohibit public service workers from denouncing people because of their migratory status — Prohibit the use of the term “illegal alien” and any official use of discriminatory terms or concepts against people of color or immigrants

EDUCATION

Restructure public education to focus on critical thinking and practical life skills along with promotion of both higher education and vocational training, rather than test-taking skills to the exclusion of all others — Include worker and labor history in public education — Include partnerships with local initiatives in the standard curriculum for skills building and self-sufficiency — Build in vocational learning connected to local employment industries starting in middle school — Improve accuracy of the history and social studies curricula — Improve relevancy of civics in public schools curriculum by providing hands-on engagement with local government and school board processes from kindergarten through 12th grades

HEALTH CARE

Support universal health care — Promote real access to health care — Protect access to safe abortions and birth-control — Stop the privatization of health care services — No cutbacks in Medicare — No cutbacks in the WIC program — Provide for realistic explanation of patients’ legal medical rights — Stop stigmas based on morals related to health care — Stop the closing of the Commonwealth Center for Children and Adolescents — Legalize needle exchange — Provide condoms in prisons — Make “queer bashing” a hate crime — While paying proper attention to child welfare, allow people to freely parent and give birth in any method they prefer, including those in prison and on welfare

PRISONER ADVOCACY

Pass the Prisoner Literacy and Rehabilitation with “EARNED” Sentence Credit Allowance for Virginia state prisoners under the non-parole sentencing law who seek an “earned” second chance in society — Parole Board Oversight Committee to ensure fair and responsible parole for 9,000 prisoners remain incarcerated 13 years after parole abolishment. Remove barriers to medical care in prisons and jails — Recognize the right of prisoners to education — Revamp state law to allow for the speedy restoration of civil rights of convicted felons — Close the Red Onion SuperMax prison — Reform drug crime laws — Raise the pay for public defenders assigned to indigent defendants.
VPA Real Prison Reform Representatives:
Janet (Queen Nzinga) Taylor: OneRastaQueen@hotmail.com
Cassandra (Imani) Shaw: Shawthesavvy1@aol.com
Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy: RIHD23075@aol.com

STUDENTS

Make academic programs and faculty/staff wages the first financial priorities — Protect and expand tuition financial aid programs — Ensure academic diversity through equal support for academic programs — Ensure job security and fair pay for faculty and staff — Create a more democratic system of oversight at the state level and in universities — Promote college and university expansion that takes into account the needs of the host communities

ANTI-WAR

Bring Virginia GIs and National Guard members home now — Support veterans when they get home — End the “poverty draft” and fund alternatives to military service; fund “green” civilian corps with same benefits as military service — Divest state funds from Israel until it complies with UN resolutions — Mandate truth and full disclosure in recruiting — Forbid military recruiters from entering public schools — Make higher education affordable

OTHER

Raise the state corporate tax rate — Repeal the Dillon Law — Redraw Virginia’s voting districts so they are equitable and not based on race — Promote ecology and environmental conservation and protection; increase spending on state parks — Cancel the Wise County power plant — Stop coal extraction while meeting the economic needs of the people of Appalachia — Ensure available, affordable housing — Make Virginia friendlier to small businesses.

VIRGINIA PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY
PO Box 38441, Richmond, VA 23231
Web: www.RichmondJwJ.org

Posted by lois at 12:01 PM | Comments (0)

January 01, 2009

NY State Law requires employers to provide jobseekers with criminal records with anti-discrimination info

In 2008, the first bill drafted by the David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy (DRCPP) at the Fortune Society, The Employer Education Act, was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Paterson. The law:

(1) Requires employers to provide a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law—which makes it illegal to automatically deny employment to qualified job seekers with criminal records and provides guidance on how criminal history information can be appropriately and legally considered amidst the hiring process—to job seekers when relying on a criminal background check during the hiring process; and

(2) Requires the conspicuous posting of Article 23-A in the workplace.

After months of working on implementation, including sending letters about the new law to employment law practices, business that produce workplace signage and other businesses in NYS, DRCPP is pleased to report that the Labor Law Compliance Center (LLCC), one of the largest suppliers of Labor Law Posters in the United States, is now contacting all of its NYS customers to advise them to purchase the updated 2009 poster with the requirements specified in the Employer Education Act. According to LLCC's corporate office, they have "thousands of employers in NYS that rely on LLCC to be in compliance."
DRCPP is currently working on a larger education and communications campaign, which will further educate New York State employers, jobseekers and other stakeholders about the Employer Education Act. We look forward to touching base with you when the campaign rolls out in 2009.

The Fortune Society
David Rothenberg center for Public policy

Posted by lois at 11:18 PM | Comments (0)

December 25, 2008

Needle and Syringe Programs Reduce HIV in Prisons. Methadone treatment also effective in reducing injection drug use and HIV in prison

Needle and Syringe Programs Reduce HIV in Prisons. Methadone treatment also effective in reducing injection drug use and HIV in prison
Modern Medicine: December 24, 2008
WEDNESDAY, Dec. 24 (HealthDay News) -- Reducing injection drug use in prison to reduce HIV transmission is most effectively done by needle and syringe programs and methadone treatment, according to a review in the January issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Ralf Jurgens, Ph.D., a consultant for HIV/AIDS, Health, Policy and Human Rights in Quebec, Canada, and colleagues from the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, reviewed studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions to reduce injection drug use and HIV transmission in prisons.

The researchers report that an estimated 10 to 60.4 percent of prisoners use drugs. Needle and syringe programs and opioid substitution treatments (mostly methadone maintenance therapy) are particularly effective in reducing HIV risk behaviors in prisons without adverse consequences for the health of prison staff or prisoners, the authors note. Bleach and decontamination strategies to sterilize needles and syringes can be effective, but are generally not performed effectively in prison, the investigators found. Drug-free units, separate living units that focus on limiting the availability of drugs, have been shown to be effective but little is known about their long-term effectiveness, the report indicates.

"The renewed emphasis on HIV and broader health issues in prisons represents a recognition that 'public health can no longer afford to ignore prison health,'" Jurgens and colleagues conclude. "Recognizing that 'prison health is public health,' that 'prisoners are entitled to a standard of health equivalent to that available in the outside community, including preventive measures' and that protecting and promoting the health of prisoners benefits not only prisoners, but also prison staff and the communities outside prison, implementation of evidence-based HIV programs in prisons is an important component of national AIDS programs that can no longer be neglected."
http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/Modern+Medicine+Now/Needle-and-Syringe-Programs-Reduce-HIV-in-Prisons/ArticleNewsFeed/Article/detail/573166?contextCategoryId=40146

Posted by lois at 10:15 AM | Comments (0)

December 22, 2008

The Evidence Gap Drug Rehabilitation or Revolving Door?

December 23, 2008
The Evidence Gap
Drug Rehabilitation or Revolving Door?
By BENEDICT CAREY
NY Times

ROSEBURG, Ore. — Their first love might be the rum or vodka or gin and juice that is going around the bonfire. Or maybe the smoke, the potent marijuana that grows in the misted hills here like moss on a wet stone.

But it hardly matters. Here as elsewhere in the country, some users start early, fall fast and in their reckless prime can swallow, snort, inject or smoke anything available, from crystal meth to prescription pills to heroin and ecstasy. And treatment, if they get it at all, can seem like a joke.

“After the first couple of times I went through, they basically told me that there was nothing they could do,” said Angella, a 17-year-old from the central Oregon city of Bend, who by freshman year in high school was drinking hard liquor every day, smoking pot and sampling a variety of harder drugs. “They were like, ‘Uh, I don’t think so.’ ”

She tried residential programs twice, living away from home for three months each time. In those, she learned how dangerous her habit was, how much pain it was causing others in her life. She worked on strengthening her relationship with her grandparents, with whom she lived. For two months or so afterward she stayed clean.

“Then I went right back,” Angella said in an interview. “After a while, you know, you just start missing your friends.”

Every year, state and federal governments spend more than $15 billion, and insurers at least $5 billion more, on substance-abuse treatment services for some four million people. That amount may soon increase sharply: last year, Congress passed the mental health parity law, which for the first time includes addiction treatment under a federal law requiring that insurers cover mental and physical ailments at equal levels.

Many clinics across the county have waiting lists, and researchers estimate that some 20 million Americans who could benefit from treatment do not get it.

Yet very few rehabilitation programs have the evidence to show that they are effective. The resort-and-spa private clinics generally do not allow outside researchers to verify their published success rates. The publicly supported programs spend their scarce resources on patient care, not costly studies.

And the field has no standard guidelines. Each program has its own philosophy; so, for that matter, do individual counselors. No one knows which approach is best for which patient, because these programs rarely if ever track clients closely after they graduate. Even Alcoholics Anonymous, the best known of all the substance-abuse programs, does not publish data on its participants’ success rate.

“What we have in this country is a washing-machine model of addiction treatment,” said A. Thomas McClellan, chief executive of the nonprofit Treatment Research Institute, based in Philadelphia. “You go to Shady Acres for 30 days, or to some clinic for 60 visits or 60 doses, whatever it is. And then you’re discharged and everyone’s crying and hugging and feeling proud — and you’re supposed to be cured.”

He added: “It doesn’t really matter if you’re a movie star going to some resort by the sea or a homeless person. The system doesn’t work well for what for many people is a chronic, recurring problem.”

In recent years state governments, which cover most of the bill for addiction services, have become increasingly concerned, and some, including Delaware, North Carolina, and Oregon, have sought ways to make the programs more accountable. The experience of Oregon, which has taken the most direct and aggressive action, illustrates both the promise and perils of trying to inject science into addiction treatment.

Evidence-Based Treatments

In 2003 the Oregon Legislature mandated that rehabilitation programs receiving state funds use evidence-based practices — techniques that have proved effective in studies. The law, phased in over several years, was aimed at improving services so that addicts like Angella would not be doomed to a lifetime of rehab, repeating the same kinds of counseling that had failed them in the past — or landing in worse trouble.

“You can get through a lot of programs just by faking it,” said Jennifer Hatton, 25, of Myrtle Creek, Ore., a longtime drinker and drug user who quit two years ago, but only after going to jail and facing the prospect of losing her children. “That’s what did it for me — my kids — and I wish it didn’t have to come to that.”

When practiced faithfully, evidence-based therapies give users their best chance to break a habit. Among the therapies are prescription drugs like naltrexone, for alcohol dependence, and buprenorphine, for addiction to narcotics, which studies find can help people kick their habits.

Another is called the motivational interview, a method intended to harden clients’ commitment upon entering treatment. In M.I., as it is known, the counselor, through skilled questioning, has the addict explain why he or she has a problem, and why it is important to quit, and set goals. Studies find that when clients mark their path in this way — instead of hearing the lecture from a counselor, as in many traditional programs — they stay in treatment longer.

Psychotherapy techniques in which people learn to expect and tolerate restless or low moods are also on the list. So is cognitive behavior therapy, in which addicts learn to question assumptions that reinforce their habits (like “I’ll never make friends who don’t do drugs”) and to engage their nondrug activities and creative interests.

For Angella, this kind of counseling made a difference. She spent several months in a program run by Adapt, an addiction treatment center here in Roseburg, a small city about 175 miles south of Portland.

In treatment, she said, she learned how to “just be with, and feel” bad moods without turning to drink or drugs; and to throw herself into creative projects like collage and painting. The program has helped her reconnect with her father and to enroll in college beginning in January.

“I want to be a teacher, and someone at the program is advising me on that,” she said in an interview. “That’s the plan, to just move out and away from my old life.”

A friend of hers in the program, Alex, a 16-year-old from Roseburg, said that the therapy helped him monitor his own emotional ups and downs, without being swept away by them. The counselors “are always asking about our stress level, our anger, so you become more aware and have a better idea what to do with it,” he said.

Almost 54 percent of Oregon’s $94 million budget for addiction treatment services now goes to programs that deploy evidence-based techniques, according to a state report completed last month. The estimated rate before the mandate was 25 to 30 percent. The state has not yet analyzed the impact of this change on clients.

“Before the mandate, most programs had some evidence-based practices, and since then there has been a lot more interest and awareness of them,” said Traci Rieckmann, a public health researcher at Oregon Health and Science University, who is following the policy implementation with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Culture Clash

Yet interest and awareness may not translate into good practice, and Dr. Rieckmann says it is not at all clear how many rehabilitation programs claiming to use evidence-based techniques actually do so faithfully. About 400 programs receive state money, and most of them are small, rural outfits that are already stretched to provide counseling, to say nothing of paying for extensive training.

“You’re talking about therapies, like cognitive behavior therapy, that take time to learn,” said John Gardin, the behavioral health and research director at Adapt in Roseburg, who travels the country to teach the skills. “Most places don’t have a person like me to do that training, so they’re getting two to three days of training, if that; and that’s just not enough time to get it.”

In studies looking at hundreds of programs nationwide, researchers have found a similar gap between what programs may want to do and what they’re able to do. “For instance, most programs don’t have an M.D. on staff,” said Aaron Johnson, a sociologist at the University of Georgia who has led many of the studies. “Without that, of course, you can’t prescribe any medications.”

Tim Hartnett, the executive director of a Portland treatment program called CODA Inc., which does its own research on patient outcomes, said that the mandate had raised the level of conversation statewide, but that true reform would mean “an integrated system that tracks clients as they move from residential to outpatient treatment, and that defines clear targets” for what a person should expect from each kind of program.

“Our goal at CODA is to create a system of care that uses evidence-based practices at just the right dose and just the right time,” Mr. Hartnett said. “As with many chronic diseases, figuring out dosage and timing are critical.”

For some addicts, a standard program may not help at all, according to Anne Fletcher, who for her book “Sober For Good” interviewed 222 men and women who had been clean for at least five years. “A lot of these people overcame an alcohol problem on their own, or with the help of an individual therapist,” Ms. Fletcher said.

To complicate matters in Oregon, the state mandate has stirred a kind of culture clash between those who want reform — academic researchers, state officials — and veteran counselors working in the trenches, many of whom have beaten addictions of their own and do not appreciate outsiders telling them how to do their jobs.

“I’m a counselor, and I’d be defensive, too: ‘What do you mean, all this stuff I’ve been doing my entire life is wrong?’ ” said Brian Serna, director of outpatient services at Adapt, who has traveled the state to monitor the use of scientific practices. “So the challenge is to build a bridge between what the science says is effective and what people are already doing.”

One way to do that, some experts now believe, is to combine evidence-based practice with “practice-based evidence” — the results that programs and counselors themselves can document, based on their own work. In 2001 the Delaware Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health began giving treatment programs incentives, or bonuses, if they met certain benchmarks. The clinics could earn a bonus of up to 5 percent, for instance, if they kept a high percentage of addicts coming in at least weekly and ensured that those clients met their own goals, as measured both by clean urine tests and how well they functioned in everyday life, in school, at work, at home.

By 2006, the state’s rehabilitation programs were operating at 95 percent capacity, up from 50 percent in 2001; and 70 percent of patients were attending regular treatment sessions, up from 53 percent, according to an analysis of the policy published last summer in the journal Health Policy.

“We basically gave them a list of evidence-based practices and told them to pick the ones they wanted to use,” said Jack Kemp, former director of substance abuse services for Delaware, in an interview. “It was up to them to decide what to use.”

For those who are trying not to use, it doesn’t much matter how rehab services are improved — only that it happens in time. “Honestly, you just don’t care how or why something works for you,” said Ms. Hatton, the 25-year-old from Myrtle Creek, Ore. “Just that it does.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23reha.html?_r=1

Posted by lois at 09:36 PM | Comments (0)

December 19, 2008

OH: State could invest in half-way houses rather than more prisons

Ohio bill seeks to ease prison crowding
By JULIE CARR SMYTH AP Statehouse Correspondent
Thursday Dec 18, 2008
Akron Beacon Journal
Non-violent drug offenders could spend more time in halfway houses instead of in prison. Well-behaved inmates who earn their GEDs could get out early. Others could serve the final months of their sentences outside prison while wearing GPS devices.

These are just some of the options Gov. Ted Strickland's administration is considering to contend with crowded prisons amid forecasts of plummeting state revenues.

"To me, it comes down to a simple formula," said state prisons director Terry Collins. "Either we spend a whole lot more money on building a whole lot more prisons to lock up everybody in Ohio, or we can figure out some other solutions so that all those other programs _ like social services, education, Medicaid _ have the money they need."

In a document recently shared with state lawmakers, Collins outlined 15 options for reducing the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's 51,000-prisoner population _ and its hefty annual budget of about $1.8 billion.

The document's final page included a subtle reminder to lawmakers: Collins has the ability to declare a prison overcrowding emergency that could result, with legislative or gubernatorial approval, in the reduction of sentences in 30-, 60- and 90-day increments to alleviate the problem. Collins said it's a matter of state spending priorities.

"I'm just saying why don't we look at something different, so my grandkids and other people's grandkids in this state can get some education?" Collins said in an interview. "I'm not looking to empty the prisons. I'm looking to be smart about it."

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said care would have to be taken if prison housing guidelines were rewritten. He said some low-level felons, such as first time drunken drivers or people who have assaulted a domestic partner, are susceptible to repeat offenses.

"Those powder keg kind of people are low-level offenders today that tomorrow could be a homicide," he said.

In Ohio, prisons are at 133 percent capacity. He said the lack of personal space leads to more violence and more dangerous conditions for both prisoners and staff.

He said he'd be happy if capacity were narrowed back to 100 percent again.

"That's like Santa Claus would bring me everything I wanted for Christmas," he said.

Some of Collins' recommendations were included in a sweeping law enforcement bill passed late Wednesday and sent to Gov. Strickland's desk. The bill gives judges broader discretion in sentencing 3rd-, 4th- and 5th-degree felons to community-based facilities instead of prison, particularly those with drug addictions.

The proposal passed the Senate 28-3 and received its final sign-off from the House.

The U.S. prison population is the largest in the world, largely due to tougher sentences states have imposed in recent years on drunken drivers, drug offenders, sex offenders and others.

Collins said he views the bill as a foundation to build on. Among other scenarios his department is exploring are:

_Allowing low-level, non-sex offenders serving 12 months or less to spend a third of their sentence in prison, a third in a halfway house, and a third with a GPS monitor. Savings: 3,083 prison beds, $19 million over the biennium.

_Increasing prison diversion programs paid through the Community Corrections Act. Savings: Up to 2,804 prison beds, and, for a $5 million expenditure, $14.8 million in unneeded construction costs.

_Allowing offenders serving the shortest sentences, less than 30 days, to serve their time in local custody, with the state paying counties incentives for the service. Savings: 160 prison beds, $725,849.

_Stepping down low-level, non-violent, non-sex offenders directly to GPS supervision, rather than to community programs, for their final 90 days. Savings: 700 prison beds, $1.3 million.

_Trimming sentences by up to 15 percent for those who complete classes or recovery programs behind bars. Savings: 800 prison beds, $1.7 million.

_Diverting those serving time for child support violations to community-based facilities. Savings: 438 prison beds, $3.4 million.

_Equalizing powder and crack cocaine offenses, in a manner the federal government recently recommended. Savings: 1,450 beds, $10.4 million.

Collins cautioned that all the scenarios are in the brainstorming stages. None is a formal budget proposal.

O'Brien said such creative solutions may be needed to free up the cash to avoid closing prisons, which he sees as a far worse option. But he said halfway houses also require cash.

"The money has to there to build, operate, maintain and staff those community-based corrections facilities," he said. "You can't just say more people need to be sent there and not fund them."

___

On The Net:

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections: http://www.drc.ohio.gov
http://www.ohio.com/news/ap?articleID=1301917

Posted by lois at 02:43 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2008

MA: Marijuana Law Comes With Challenges

December 18, 2008
Marijuana Law Comes With Challenges
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
NY Times
BOSTON — Last month, voters approved a statewide measure decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Now, wary authorities say, comes the hard part. They are scrambling to set up a new system of civil penalties before Jan. 2, when the change becomes law. From then on, anyone caught with an ounce or less of marijuana will owe a $100 civil fine instead of ending up with an arrest record and possibly facing jail time.

It sounds simple, but David Capeless, president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said the new policy presented a thicket of questions and complications.

One of the most basic, Mr. Capeless said, is who will collect the fines and enforce other provisions of the law. For example, violators under 18 will be required to attend a drug awareness class within a year, but it is unclear who will make sure that they do so. The fine increases to $1,000 for those who skip the class.

A complicating factor, said Mr. Capeless, the district attorney in Berkshire County, is that state law bans the police from demanding identification for civil infractions.

“Not only do you not have to identify yourself,” he said, “but it would appear from a strict reading that people can get a citation, walk away, never pay a fine and have no repercussion.”

Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, says he anticipates that many violators will lie about their identities.

“You can tell us that you’re Mickey Mouse of One Disneyland Way,” Mr. Sampson said, “and we have to assume that’s true.”

The authorities, he said, will also have to be sure that the substance they hand out citations for is marijuana, which will involve sending it to the State Police crime laboratory.

“You’re going to appeal it and go to the clerk’s hearing,” Mr. Sampson said, “and if we don’t have an analysis from the drug lab, the clerk is going to throw the case out.”

Mr. Sampson predicted that the law would result in de facto legalization of marijuana because it would prove too difficult to enforce.

“I would argue that the proponents knew these complications right from the beginning,” he said.

About 65 percent of state voters supported the decriminalization measure, which was promoted by a group that spent more than $1.5 million on the effort.

The group, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, said that in addition to ensuring that people caught with marijuana no longer have a criminal record, the change would save about $29.5 million a year that it estimates law enforcement currently spends to enforce existing drug laws.

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, which supports the drug’s legalization and created the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy to get the ballot question passed here, said that judging from the experience of other states with civil penalties for marijuana possession, Massachusetts officials were exaggerating the challenges.

“I can’t help but think that the real difficulty in implementing it,” said the spokesman, Dan Bernath, “is they don’t want to do it.”

Eleven states have decriminalized first-time possession of marijuana, though in most it is technically a misdemeanor instead of a civil offense.

In Nebraska, where possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is punishable by a $300 civil fine, the process has worked smoothly for three decades, said Michael Behm, executive director of the Nebraska Crime Commission.

In New York, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is a noncriminal violation but is still processed through the criminal system, said Robert M. Carney, the district attorney in Schenectady County.

“They are brought down to the police station so their identity is established,” Mr. Carney said of violators, “but they are not fingerprinted because it’s not an arrest.”

In Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Public Safety is working with state and local law enforcement and court officials to determine how to apply the changes. Mr. Capeless said education officials were also in on the discussions because it was unclear whether public schools and universities could forbid marijuana possession under the new law.

A spokesman for the public safety office said its legal counsel was considering “a lot of questions” as the deadline drew near. But the spokesman, Terrel Harris, would not elaborate.

“We are just trying to make sure we have all the answers,” Mr. Harris said.

Mr. Capeless said that in particular the department needed to address a clause in the new law that said neither the state nor its “political subdivisions or their respective agencies” could impose “any form of penalty, sanction or disqualification” on anyone found with an ounce or less of marijuana.

“It appears to say that you get a $100 fine and they can’t do anything else to you,” he said. “Can a police officer caught with marijuana several times get to keep his job and not be disciplined in any fashion? Can public high schools punish kids for smoking cigarettes but not for having pot?”

Mr. Bernath agreed that the law was “not completely clear” on how to handle such situations, but predicted that they would be rare.

“I think the resistance has to do with dealing with something new,” he said. “We’re pretty confident that once this gets going and the newness of it wears off, a lot of the apprehension will go away.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/18marijuana.html?scp=2&sq=marijuana&st=cse

Posted by lois at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2008

LAC Releases New Drug Law Reform Costs Savings Report (Very good study whether or not you are in NY)

■ LAC Releases New Drug Law Reform Costs Savings Report (Very good study whether or not you are in NY)

The Legal Action Center has just completed a new study, Drug Law Reform 2008 - Dramatic Costs Savings For New York State, which finds that New York would save over a quarter billion dollars a year by reforming the Rockefeller-Era Drug Laws. When drug law reform is fully operational, it is estimated that New York would save $267,660,000 a year. Even in the first year, estimates show that New York would realize tens of millions of dollars in savings. The study calculated the cost savings that would accrue to New York State by diverting addicted individuals charged with second, non-violent, non-sex felony offenses from prison to community-based treatment, as they comprise the vast majority of individuals who are mandated into prison under current law. LAC believes such individuals should be diverted into mandated treatment if the laws are reformed. The study excludes people charged with Class A felonies. The findings take into account savings generated by the elimination of costs associated with incarceration; savings related to reduced foster care, health care and welfare costs; and increased tax contributions. To see the full study,
http://www.lac.org/pdf/RDL08_Cost%20Savings%20Report%2012_08.pdf

Posted by lois at 01:13 PM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2008

WA: Policy that lets prisoners serve half their sentences reduces money and doesn't increase crime

Tacoma, WA - Monday, December 8, 2008
News Tribune
Policy that lets inmates get out early might stay
JOSEPH TURNER

A policy that has allowed many Washington inmates to get out of prison after serving only half of their sentences may be extended by a cash-strapped Legislature because the program saves money and doesn’t increase crime.

Since mid-2003, many inmates who are sent to prison for nonviolent crimes such as burglary, theft and drugs have been allowed to accrue “good time” equal to 50 percent of their sentences. Then-Gov. Gary Locke and the Legislature approved that change to the “time off for good behavior” policy that previously had been limited to no more than one-third of an inmate’s sentence.

Then, as now, the governor and Legislature were facing a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, and were looking for ways to cut state spending.

A recent study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy concludes the state saves more than $10,000 for every inmate who is let out early, partly because they spend fewer days in prison and partly because they are even less likely to commit more crimes when they do get out.

Sens. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, and Adam Kline, D-Seattle, say they are heartened by the study’s conclusion and plan to introduce a bill to extend the 50 percent good time policy. The 2003 law that increased the amount of time off for good behavior also set an expiration date of mid-2010. Some lawmakers were afraid that letting inmates out of prison might just give them more opportunities to commit more crimes. Their new bill would get rid of the expiration date, also called a sunset provision.

Hargrove is chairman of the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee. Kline is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

“It’s cheaper and it has a positive effect on recidivism,” Kline said. That should make keeping the policy more attractive to a Legislature that is facing a projected $5 billion deficit for the 2009-11 budget cycle, he said.

“I expect there’s going to be some opposition from the tough-on-crime folks,” he added.

Indeed, there will be.

Tom McBride, executive secretary for the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said prosecutors objected to the 2003 change because it further misleads the public about how much time offenders actually spend in prison.

“It’s a truth-in-sentencing issue,” McBride said. If a judge sentences someone to prison for two years, the public thinks that’s what happens, he said. But in actuality, that inmate probably will serve only half of that sentence, and there’s a good chance that only six months of it will be in prison and the other six months would be in a work-release center, he said.

Prosecutors will continue to oppose the longer good time policy, McBride said. If the Legislature wants to save money, they should use a more “honest” approach and just shorten prison sentences for crimes, he said. But lawmakers should be concerned about more than just saving money, he said. Part of the reason for sentences is punishment, he said.

It costs an average of $98 a day to house an inmate in a Washington prison.

Elizabeth Drake, the analyst who studied the effect of the 2003 law, said inmates who were released under the new good time provision spent an average of 63 fewer days in prison. That accounted for nearly $6,300 in cost savings per inmate. In addition, those offenders were less likely than other inmates to commit crimes when they got out.

Of the 2,614 inmates who were released during the first 14 months of the new good time policy, 49 percent were convicted of another crime within three years of their release, compared to 53 percent of a comparison group of offenders.

Because they committed fewer crimes resulted in additional savings to taxpayers and victims, which boosted the overall savings to $10,743 per inmate, Drake said.

Washington has released 40,820 inmates over the past 51/2 years, since the larger good time policy took effect. Only 21 percent of them – 8,440 – were eligible to have prison sentences reduced by as much as 50 percent.

Inmates convicted of violent sex crimes, domestic violence or other crimes against people are not eligible for any time off greater than one-third of their sentence. In fact, the same 2003 law reduced the amount of good time that sex offenders could earn to 10 percent from 15 percent.

Dick Van Wagenen, who was Locke’s criminal justice adviser in 2003, said the governor’s original proposal gave more good time to nonviolent offenders who committed property crimes like commercial burglary and theft. The Legislature expanded that group to include drug offenders to save even more money, he said.

The state Department of Corrections recently was on a pace to spend $30 million more than it was budgeted for 2007-09, largely because of overtime expenses. Although Gov. Chris Gregoire has ordered state agencies to find up to 20 percent in cuts, the prison system is largely exempt from that exercise because it deals with public safety.

The Legislature is likely to look at other sentencing provisions, too, since those are the main ways it can control costs.

“We’re always looking at sentencing laws,” Kline said.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printerfriendly/story/560995.html

Posted by lois at 02:10 PM | Comments (0)

Calif.'s Prop 5 Battle Exposes Fault Lines Between Treatment Groups, Drug Courts

Calif.'s Prop 5 Battle Exposes Fault Lines Between Treatment Groups, Drug Courts
December 5, 2008
News Feature
By Bob Curley

The battle over California's recently defeated Proposition 5 has led to a schism between drug courts and addiction treatment providers -- putative allies in the drive to shunt drug offenders into treatment rather than prisons -- with advocates on both sides lamenting a lost opportunity to reform a justice system that most agree places too much emphasis on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation.

When the Nonviolent Offenders Rehabilitation Act (NORA) was shot down by about a 60-40 margin in November, it was partly due to the advocacy efforts of drug-court judges, who allied themselves with law enforcement, prison guards, and some prevention groups in opposing the measure. NORA backers, who undertook a low-key campaign to build on and improve the Proposition 36 reforms approved by state voters in 2000, instead suffered a unexpected and crushing defeat.

NORA opponents cast Prop 5 as the work of drug-legalization groups like the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), saying it diluted drug-court judges' power to hold offenders accountable if they failed in treatment. In announcing its opposition to NORA, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) cited concern that the measure would "extend DPA's influence at the expense of public safety, proven judicial interventions, and DPA's political and philosophical adversaries; [and] endorse treatments and practices associated with the harm-reduction and legalization movements that are unproven and objectionable."

The pro-NORA forces were indeed led by the DPA (which does not officially endorse drug legalization but has championed medical marijuana and marijuana decriminalization laws nationally). Supporters and opponents of the measure described the drafting of the measure as a closed process, with those outside DPA learning details of the plan only when it was certified for the state ballot.

"We did discuss the contents with experts in academia, judges, some in law enforcement," said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, DPA's deputy Prop 5 campaign manager and deputy state director in California, "but it's absolutely correct that we did not seek the consensus of the addiction field or law enforcement."

Regardless, the ranks of Proposition 5 supporters included the bulk of the "mainstream" addiction groups in California, including the California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, the Coalition of Alcohol and Drug Associations, the California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators, and prominent individual groups like Phoenix House and a pair of NCADD chapters.

A review of the No on Proposition 5 website shows that NADCP was joined by law enforcement groups, some state lawmakers and civic groups, and prevention organizations such as D.A.R.E. America, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Californians for Drug Free Schools, and a variety of conservative antidrug groups, including the Drug Free America Foundation.

'Locking Horns'

Doug Marlowe, chief of science, policy and law at NADCP, was dismissive of the state treatment community's support for NORA. "There were some California providers in favor of NORA because they would have benefitted [financially] from it," said Marlowe.

Marlowe expressed concern, however, that the battle over NORA had driven a wedge between drug courts and treatment providers. "There is no drug court without treatment," Marlowe said. "To say that we are locking horns may be true, unfortunately, but it's not what we want."

"We are very clear that we are in favor of treatment and that drug courts are an alternative to incarceration," he added. "We're not a law-enforcement group, we're not a punishment group -- we are a treatment-support group."

NORA supporter John DeMiranda, executive director of the National Association on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability and Pacific Southwest regional representative for Faces and Voices of Recovery, said that the treatment community in California "jumped on the bandwagon and talked about NORA as a treatment initiative," even though DPA mainly cast Prop 5 as a drug-policy reform effort. Some California treatment providers were reluctant to back NORA, but DeMiranda contended that this had less to do with DPA's involvement than fear of bucking the criminal-justice programs that control their funding.

"If we were to do our own initiative it would be very different, and the politics would be very different," said DeMiranda. However, he scorned the state's drug courts for failing to embrace the reforms embodied in NORA. "We need wholesale decriminalization, not retail decriminalization," said DeMiranda, noting the relatively small number of clients currently served by drug courts.

For DPA, Tried-and-True Meant Go-it-Alone

Both DeMiranda and Marlowe said that DPA erred in not allowing the addiction field and drug courts greater involvement in drafting NORA, although DeMiranda said that the compromises that likely would have resulted -- such as allowing for more sanctions or removing language related to marijuana decriminalization -- probably would have cost DPA the financial backing needed to forward the measure.

"George Soros doesn't want to expand treatment -- he wants progressive reform," DeMiranda said.

Marlowe said that the "all or nothing" approach taken by DPA forced drug courts and others to choose sides rather than compromising. "As a result, groups that have shared interests couldn't come together," he said.

NADCP has a long list of concerns with NORA, but Marlowe said there were a number of areas of agreement, including the initiative's general philosophy of providing treatment rather than incarceration, greater emphasis on needs assessment, and added accountability for offenders compared to California's earlier attempt at shunting more offenders to treatment, Prop 36.

"Drug courts could have had common ground with [DPA], but it was too late," said Marlowe.

Building a broader coalition might have helped neutralize opposition to NORA, but Dooley-Sammuli pinned blame for NORA's overwhelming defeat largely on ballot language that emphasized the cost of Prop 5, combined with the economic collapse in October.

She said DPA based its go-alone strategy on a string of previous successes with ballot initiatives in other states, and added that while "we're not afraid to try to talk to folks," the group had felt burned by the experience of working with drug-court judges on a bill that modified Prop 36 -- and ultimately included jail sanctions opposed by DPA. "We made a good-faith effort, but in the end it was a case where consensus meant wanting us to agree with them," she said.

Post-NORA: Confronting California's Looming Budget Crisis

The defeat of NORA may have been seen as a victory by some in the prevention and drug court community, but few are celebrating the loss of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in new state spending on treatment that would have been mandated by Prop 5.

Moreover, the treatment community is facing potentially catastrophic budget cuts as California grapples with a $28-billion budget shortfall, with continued treatment funding possibly hanging on legislative approval of an alcohol tax increase proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

DPA officials, members of the California treatment communities, and other NORA backers met on Dec. 3 to discuss the future of drug-policy reform efforts in the state.

"We are definitely open to compromise going forward," said NADCP's Marlowe, who said he was unaware of the meeting. "NORA did take some steps forward in terms of accountability and sanctions, but in our opinion erected too many barriers to applying them ... We are absolutely open to a conversation about shared interests and values with DPA."

"We'd love to have an amazing coming together of NORA opponents and supporters, but time is running out," responded Dooley-Sammuli. "I don't know how it's going to play out when we're looking at dramatic budget cuts in the next few months."

DeMiranda expressed a similar hope for cooperation around the state budget issue but also said that California's treatment and recovery movement needs to find it own voice on drug-policy reform issues, such as by pushing forward its own "people-powered" treatment-funding ballot initiative in 2010.

In the wake of the NORA defeat, "It's no longer possible for [the treatment and recovery community] to piggyback on public sentiment," said DeMiranda. "We have to get our people to the ballot box so it's not so easy ... to demonize this kind of initiative."
http://www.jointogether.org/news/features/2008/califs-prop-5-battle.html?print=t

Posted by lois at 01:54 PM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2008

Fiscal Cost Forcasting for Criminal Sentencing

Sentencing laws needn’t drain us
By Rachel E. Barkow and Joshua J. Libling |
Saturday, December 6, 2008 Op-Ed

Massachusetts, like most states around the country, is in fiscal crisis. Gov. Deval Patrick announced more than $1 billion in midyear spending reductions last month. At the same time, the prison system is bursting at its seams: Almost 12,000 state prisoners are living in space built for fewer than 8,000, and the prison commissioner has announced that prisoners in maximum-security facilities may have to double-bunk.

Studies show that putting inmates in such close quarters increases violence. But this policy is flawed for an even more fundamental reason: A patchwork solution like double-bunking fails to offer a long-term, fiscally responsible approach to criminal justice. Despite stable crime rates, the prison population is rising, and unless some sentencing laws are reconsidered, overcrowding is not going away.

Simply building more prisons isn’t a feasible solution. An across-the-board release of prisoners or lowering of sentences is obviously unappealing. But the combination of the state budgetary and prison overcrowding crises offers Massachusetts an opportunity to become smarter in its sentencing policy and to adopt the best solution: using fiscal-cost forecasting for criminal sentencing.

Fiscal cost forecasting makes sentencing policy more rational in the real world of limited resources. Minnesota’s sentencing commission has developed computer models to predict the impact in terms of dollars and prison population of all changes to the state’s laws affecting criminal sentences. This early-warning system has empowered - indeed, forced - officials there to consider the costs of sentencing proposals prior to enacting them, which has allowed that state to avoid the prison overcrowding that has plagued Massachusetts.

Minnesota’s system is so successful that virtually every state with a sentencing commission has followed suit, including Washington, North Carolina, Virginia and Alabama. Washington alone has saved $45 million per year as a result. Indeed, these cost projections are so successful that the American Bar Association has included cost forecasts as an integral part of its proposed model law of sentencing.

Massachusetts has a sentencing commission, but the Legislature hasn’t adopted the guidelines the commission suggested years ago. Nor has the Legislature paid any attention to cost estimates produced by the commission or any other group. But ignoring these costs leads to a situation like the one Massachusetts is in right now: Too many prisoners, not enough beds and not enough money. No aspect of state policymaking should be immune from a rational consideration of costs and benefits, and that includes criminal justice.

Significantly, fiscal cost forecasting doesn’t dictate higher or lower sentences. Sometimes states raise sentences in light of cost data, knowing that they have the resources to afford the financial outlay. Other times, states lower sentences for some crimes (particularly nonviolent crimes) in order to reserve space for violent crimes and achieve the same overall reduction in crime, but at a lesser cost.

Cost data allow more informed, more efficient and more rational use of resources. When $1 billion is being cut from the Bay State budget and violent felons are sharing bunk space, getting more bang for the prison buck makes common sense.

Rachel E. Barkow is Beneficial Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University School of Law. Joshua J. Libling is a fellow at the center.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1137094

Posted by lois at 09:18 PM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2008

Boston MA: A $26m try to tame city's crime hot spots New program's workers may have rough pasts

A $26m try to tame city's crime hot spots
New program's workers may have rough pasts

By Maria Cramer, Boston Globe Staff | December 4, 2008

The Boston Foundation and city officials are preparing to flood a 1.5-square-mile section of the city with massive crime-fighting resources over the next six years, pinpointing about 2,000 young criminals who they believe drive more than three-quarters of the city's violence.

The $26 million effort, which will be formally announced later this month, will dispatch 25 new street workers - or "violence interrupters" - into five neighborhoods along or near Blue Hill Avenue, to make contact with gang members and try to defuse conflicts.

Unlike street workers hired by the city, these interrupters will not be disqualified if they have a criminal past. This background, community leaders say, could deepen their understanding of what drives people to crime and give the workers more credibility with young people caught up in violence.

The street workers, who have yet to be hired, would be clustered in areas of Roxbury, the South End, Lower Roxbury, and Dorchester, where 78 percent of the city's shootings and homicides occur.

"This thing has a lot of ambitions, but it is very sharply focused on achieving sharp reductions in murders, aggravated assaults, and robberies in these communities," said Paul S. Grogan, president of The Boston Foundation, which is putting $1 million a year of its own money toward the effort. "That's what this thing is all about."

Mayor Thomas M. Menino has instructed city agencies, including the Boston Police Department, the Department of Public Health, and the Boston Center for Youth and Families, to cooperate with the initiative on the plan, said his spokeswoman, Dorothy Joyce

"The mayor has always made it a priority of getting young people who may be at risk engaged in positive, productive opportunities," Joyce said. "This program will hopefully help them to that end."

The unusual public-private initiative, known as StreetSafe Boston, will concentrate on 1,400 to 2,200 people between 16 and 24 years old who live along or near the Blue Hill Avenue spine and are former offenders, gang members, actively involved in violent crime, or involved with the Department of Youth Services.

Specifically, it would focus on Dudley Square and Grove Hall in Roxbury, the South End and Lower Roxbury area, and two Dorchester hot spots, in the area of Morton and Norfolk streets, and Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue.

StreetSafe would also target 4,000 young people who may not be involved in violent crime but are vulnerable, like dropouts, drug dealers, pregnant teens, and runaways.

The money also would go toward the development of job training programs and mental health services for young people. The foundation has raised close to $7 million and hopes to get the rest through donations from national and local foundations and individual contributors.

"We don't want to just see young people decide, 'I'm not going to shoot anymore,' but they're still not in school," said Marc H. Germain, a foundation associate who described the program at a neighborhood meeting in Dorchester yesterday. "We're looking for improvement in their lives."

The street workers program will be overseen by the Black Ministerial Alliance, the Boston TenPoint Coalition, and Chris Byner, who runs the city's street worker program.

"I'm convinced it will work," said the Rev. Ray Hammond, chairman of the Boston Foundation, who compared it to efforts in the 1990s that led to the so-called Boston Miracle. "This kind of strategy was a major piece of the successes of the '90s - collaborative and comprehensive. And it's targeted. All of our kids need attention, but if violence is the issue, then we know it's a very a small population that needs a lot of attention."

The geographical area was picked not only because of the violence it experiences, but also because of economics.

"With limited resources, you have to be judicious," Germain said.

Still the program buoyed activists who have been alarmed by the growing list of cuts to youth programs.

"It's the largest commitment of funds to the most difficult-to-work-with group that I've ever seen," said Emmett Folgert, head of the Dorchester Youth Collaborative. "The focus population is quite small, and the amount of resources is high, so there is a good chance of success here."

But others expressed skepticism that the initiative will lead to a long-term reduction in violence.

"I really want this to work," said Ralph Ortiz, youth program coordinator at the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Association. "My concerns are that these things have been done before in the past."

The violence interrupters will need to receive formal, technical guidance in how to deal with young people traumatized by violence, he said.

"It won't be effective unless street workers are trained to become more clinical in their approach to young people," Ortiz said.

Hammond said he expects the street workers will not only be trained to help young people cope with trauma, but will also be taught skills to help them avoid the burnout that often comes with working with troubled youths.

Robert Lewis Jr., vice president for program at the foundation, said the violence interrupters - as well as the street workers already deployed in city neighborhoods - will receive new, specialized training under the same model and taught skills like mediation.

Lewis said he expects to start recruiting the interrupters in January. Criminal background checks - known as Criminal Offender Record Information, or CORI, checks - will not stand in the way of hiring, he said.

"You have to put the best workers out there. Period," Lewis said. "What we don't want to do is allow CORI to be a reason why we couldn't put the best worker out on the street."

The city employs about 23 street workers, down from about 40 in the 1990s. The ranks were once swollen with former gang members who spent late nights persuading their younger peers to drop their guns and pursue a peaceful life.

But in the late 1990s, the street workers became unionized, and the hours were changed so that workers were not out later than 9 p.m. Soon after, the state mandated that anyone working with children have a clean record, which precluded most former gang members from being in the program.

Some community leaders said those changes created a program of street workers out of touch with gang members and offenders.

Lewis, who started the city's street worker program in 1990, said the violence interrupters will work from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. The goal will be to hire men and women who can relate to the city's troubled youth and are not afraid to stay out late and work with difficult, even dangerous people. Because the interrupters will not be city employees, they will not be beholden to state or union rules.

Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project RIGHT in Grove Hall, said he was thrilled CORI would not be a factor.

"It gives an opportunity for folks who have been in the criminal justice system to do some work in the community and reestablish themselves in the community," he said.

It will also help young offenders see they can move past their criminal record, Martinez said.

"Now you can say that it's not a barrier," he said. "If you're in the life, it's a perfect opportunity to look up and see someone in a similar situation actually succeeding."

Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com.

Posted by lois at 08:38 PM | Comments (0)

December 02, 2008

NY: A new tack on drug policy could save the state billions

A new tack on drug policy could save the state billions
Posted by The Readers' Page
November 30, 2008 5:00AM

By Gabriel Sayegh

While New York reels from the most severe budget crisis since the Great Depression, Gov. David Paterson and the Legislature are scrambling to close ever-expanding deficits. So let's stop spending over $500 million every year on ineffective, wasteful policies like the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

These laws represent a misguided and ineffective regime for addressing drug use and addiction -- health issues, not criminal issues. Imagine if we incarcerated people for being addicted to cigarettes, or for having diabetes.

Passed in 1973, the laws mandate harsh, mandatory-minimum prison terms for even low-level drug offenses; people convicted of first- and second-time drug offenses often receive eight to 20 years. There are shocking, inexcusable racial disparities -- more than 90 percent of the people incarcerated are black or Latino, though whites use and sell illegal drugs at equal or higher rates.

These laws did not stop the crack epidemic of the 1980s. They are completely incapable of stemming the accidental drug overdose epidemic hitting New York City and Long Island today. And they have turned the Department of Corrections into the state's largest, most costly and ineffective treatment provider.

The state spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year on policies that both criminal justice and public health experts -- as well as the majority of New Yorkers, according to the polls -- say don't work. It costs over $35,000 a year to keep someone in prison. Factor in policing and court costs, and that number rises to nearly $50,000.

Lawmakers, do the math: There are nearly 14,000 people incarcerated under these laws. Meanwhile, spending on community-based drug treatment is pitifully low, and is facing cuts in this economic crisis.

Recent DOC figures show the slight reforms made to the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 2004 and 2005 saved the state at least $90 million. That doesn't include additional savings from related parole reforms. Meanwhile, crime in the state has gone down.

Conservative estimates of savings from Rockefeller Drug Law repeal are around half-a-billion dollars -- much higher once court and policing costs are factored in.

With crisis comes opportunity. A governor who as Senate minority leader engaged in civil disobedience to protest the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws could promote a smarter, more effective, cost-efficient approach: Re-invest a portion of the savings from repeal in prevention, community treatment, harm reduction, alternative-to-incarceration programs and related services. The state would still save hundreds of millions in the short term, billions over the long term, and we could finally stop trying to incarcerate our way out of this problem.

This process is already under way. Earlier this year, the six Assembly committees held historic joint hearings to begin outlining a public health approach to drug policy. Experts explained New York had the required programs and services largely in place -- only appropriate funding is needed.

The governor should follow President-elect Barack Obama's fiscal advice: Cut what doesn't work, keep what does. Given the abysmal failure of the "war on drugs," a public-health approach is both long overdue and fiscally prudent.

Gabriel Sayegh is a policy director at the Drug Policy Alliance, based in Washington, D.C.
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2008/11/a_new_tack_on_drug_policy_coul.
html

Posted by lois at 04:29 PM | Comments (0)

IN EPIC FISCAL STORM, NEW STRATEGIES RISE

"There's an oft-neglected candidate: corrections. Because of politically motivated mandatory sentencing legislation, prisoner rolls have been growing rapidly, reaching world-leading shares of the total population.

Complains Maricopa County, Ariz., Manager David Smith: "We have 40,000 felony cases yearly and corrections costs us $819 million! We built a very large big new jail, and it's full again. We're going broke slowly with this criminal justice system." "

IN EPIC FISCAL STORM, NEW STRATEGIES RISE
November 30, 2008
By Neal Peirce

WASHINGTON -- The recession is driving America's city governments into an epic fiscal storm. Unlike earlier downturns, all three big revenue sources -- income, property and sales taxes -- are falling together. Cumulative budget shortfalls are already in the tens of billions and rising.

Among America's 87,500 governments, only Washington can print money. In a pinch, the only real option for cities and states is to spend less -- thereby taking money out of the economy and deepening a recession. With more than 20 million employees, 14 percent of the total American work force, states and cities are a significant part of the total national economy.

This recession seems sure to be so serious, say urban finance experts, that many cities will be forced to go well beyond their familiar tight-times reductions in park and library budgets. A growing possibility: to cut into that historically inviolate sector -- police officers and firefighters.

Together, police and fire operations consume the lion's share of most local budgets. And the fire operations represent the most wastefully managed part of local government, according to municipal experts who spoke as a panel at a National Academy of Public Administration meeting last week.

A leading critique: three-man crews on fully rigged fire trucks rushing to the scene of all alarms, all but a tiny fraction of which -- given modern wiring, sprinklers and other fire-prevention techniques -- turn out to be false.

Equivalent safety results, say the municipal critics, could be accomplished by dispatching one firefighter in a single car to an alarm scene, rapidly summoning major-scale equipment and crews when there's a truly serious fire emergency.

In fire departments that offer emergency medical care, 80 percent of the budget is spent on the 20 percent of the activity that's actual fire suppression, said John Shirey of the California Redevelopment Assn.

Another panelist added: "The one thing that exceeds the inefficiency of fire departments is the political power of the fire unions."

The most logical step would be merging of police, fire and emergency services, with all personnel cross-trained. Fire and police unions won't hear of such multitasking. But in a prolonged, tough recession, resistance could weaken.

In Vallejo, Calif., public safety spending got so out of hand that the city declared bankruptcy in May. And small wonder -- police captains are paid more than $200,000. After five years of service, Vallejo public safety officers and their families get lifetime health coverage. And after working 30 years, it's 90 percent of last pay for life -- all benefits unthinkable in the world of fast-disappearing defined-benefit pensions that most tax-paying citizens face.

Another headache for cities and states: the erosion of the pension funds they have invested in to pay future retiree benefits. Before the recession, many funds had serious unfunded liabilities. Now declining stock values -- 20 percent in both California and Virginia pension funds, for example -- are impacting harder. The investment payback most localities had assumed -- around 8 percent a year -- now looks chimerical. And they know they face a mega-wave of retiring baby boomer workers, meaning a rising tide of retirement benefit demands.

The nation's municipal bond markets -- relied on by states and localities to even out revenue flows or finance capital projects -- are now virtually shut down. Yet it's not municipal lending that triggered the national financial havoc of the last several weeks, notes Shirey. He appropriately blames the shenanigans of the private financial sector, with the major national credit rating agencies asleep at the switch. Municipalities rarely default, but they are having to take a big part of the hit, obliged to streamline and economize as never before.

How to do it? There's an oft-neglected candidate: corrections. Because of politically motivated mandatory sentencing legislation, prisoner rolls have been growing rapidly, reaching world-leading shares of the total population.

Complains Maricopa County, Ariz., Manager David Smith: "We have 40,000 felony cases yearly and corrections costs us $819 million! We built a very large big new jail, and it's full again. We're going broke slowly with this criminal justice system."

So Smith has launched a major prisoner re-entry program in South Phoenix, a 10-block area with 300 ex-felons and people still on parole. "We call it the $50 million ZIP code," he says, because of the costs the criminal justice system incurs there. Smith has co-located 15 services for homeless people in the area, partnering with churches and nonprofits. The program: help released prisoners get identification, find needed services, put some money in their pockets if they stay out of trouble, and find jobs.

The same approach, applied to corrections nationally, could likely save stunning sums over time. It's needed more than ever in tough times.

Redrawing borders and merging some city and county governments, going "green" with energy-saving fuels and carbon-conserving buildings -- all sorts of ideas, too controversial for normal times, may now have their day.
In dark times, it won't all be bad news.

Posted by lois at 09:21 AM | Comments (0)

November 24, 2008

Tired of the Guilt, Fugitives Line Up to Give Up

November 24, 2008
Tired of the Guilt, Fugitives Line Up to Give Up
By KAREEM FAHIM

CAMDEN, N.J. — A church served as the police station house, and central booking was set up in a community center. An apartment building for the elderly doubled as the courthouse. And though many of the hundreds of people who lined up in the cold last Thursday were fugitives from the law, the authorities said most of them would not be sent to prison.

That still didn’t calm all the nerves. “I got my long johns on in case they lock me up,” said a 34-year-old man who gave only his first name, Anthony. He owed thousands of dollars in parking tickets.

Last week, Camden became the 12th city in the country to hold a federal program that encourages primarily nonviolent fugitives to surrender, promising them at best a clean slate, and usually a favorable hearing by a judge. In the three years that the program, called Fugitive Safe Surrender, has been in existence, more than 17,000 people have turned themselves in at churches from Nashville to Rochester.

The program was started after a police officer in Cleveland was shot and killed in 2000 by a man wanted on a parole violation. Camden, an impoverished city of 79,000 with a crime rate that sometimes ebbs but never seems to really drop, was seen as an especially good candidate for the initiative. So far this year, 48 people have been killed in the city, giving it a homicide rate more than 10 times that of New York City.

“We arrested thousands of people here,” said James T. Plousis, the United States marshal for New Jersey, who was behind the notion of bringing the fugitive program to Camden. “We had to do something. We couldn’t arrest our way out of being the most dangerous city.”

So over four days last week, more than 2,200 people waited outside the Antioch Baptist Church on Ferry Avenue, waiting for a chance to start again. They were not just from Camden: There are about 10,000 outstanding warrants in the towns surrounding Camden, according to a spokesman for the Camden County prosecutor’s office.

The people in line included young men wanted on minor drug charges, and mothers taking care of lapsed parking fines. A man convicted of sexual assault came to turn himself in, and so did plenty of people who mistakenly thought there were warrants out for their arrest.

The turnout last week stunned officials, who said it was higher than in any city where the program has been held except Detroit, which is about 12 times the size of Camden. When the four-day program was held in Philadelphia in September, 1,200 people turned out.

In Camden, there were many people like Renee Felton, 48, who had spent more than a decade in the shadows and was finally ready to see a judge.

In 1995, Ms. Felton said, she was pulled over and an officer found marijuana in her car. After she failed to show up for a court date, the charge became a warrant, and a red flag on background checks by employers.

Her niece saw a flier for the fugitive program, and encouraged Ms. Felton to turn herself in. She had been skeptical, and called the Rev. Michael T. Mannion, the community relations director for the Camden Diocese, whose name she had found on a Web site for the fugitive program. He eased her mind, she said.

Now, as she sat waiting for Judge Robert T. Zane, Ms. Felton started to cry. It was almost over. Besides fearing background checks during job interviews, she also had not been able to drive because her license had been revoked. “You know how many times I wanted to turn myself in? But I’ve never been to the jailhouse,” she said.

The judge called her forward, and dismissed her old charges, noting that they had not been prosecuted in a timely fashion.

“Aren’t you glad you came in today?” he said to Ms. Felton, who loudly thanked the judge and Jesus.

Not all the endings were so happy. About 10 people were arrested after turning themselves in, including Domingo Placencia, a 37-year-old cook who had pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a minor in 1992, but who never showed up for his sentencing.

His court-appointed lawyer, Michael Friedman, argued that Mr. Placencia could have left the country long ago, but instead was here, turning himself in. “We’re starting fresh,” Mr. Friedman said. But the judge ordered Mr. Placencia held without bail.

The fugitive program took years to come to Camden. A plan to bring the initiative to the city in 2006 was scuttled when the chief justice of State Supreme Court at the time, Deborah T. Poritz, forbade judges to participate because of concerns about court proceedings in a church. A compromise fixed the problem, and last week the makeshift courts were set up across the street from the church.

So many people showed up in Camden that officials had to send hundreds away, telling them to appear — with the same promise of favorable treatment and with their paperwork already processed — for future court dates.

According to nationwide statistics compiled at nine of the program sites other than Camden, 46 percent of the people who surrendered said they would have done so only at a church, and more than 60 percent of the people came with another family member. As for the reasons people give themselves up, respondents said, in order of highest percentage, that they wanted to start over, get a driver’s license, feared getting arrested, or did so for their children.

For Eric Frisby, 28, surrendering was a chance to escape from a self-imposed prison. “You limit yourself. You stay in the house,” said Mr. Frisby, a contractor who had come to sort out warrants for traffic fines and a drug offense.

Elsewhere in line, Joanne Derry, 50, a nurse, worried perhaps a bit too much about the punishment she would receive for unpaid parking tickets. “They don’t say ‘amnesty,’ ” she noted, wondering if she might be locked up.

It was Thursday, and Mr. Frisby and Ms. Derry stood near the end of a long line. Tempers flared at the front of the line, and a 50-year-old volunteer named Michael Williams tried to calm everyone. “It’s worth staying in this line,” he said. “You can walk the streets again. You don’t have to worry about harassment.”

He knew of what he spoke: Mr. Williams said he had spent half his life in prison, and had gotten some of his own outstanding warrants dismissed last week.

In the courtroom across the street, Judge Zane adjudicated cases at an impressive clip. “This is justice on the fly,” he said. Some of the charges that came before him veered toward the absurd. One fugitive had an open charge for failing to properly validate a ticket on the River Line, the train that runs from Trenton to Camden. “That charge is dismissed,” Judge Zane said.

Mr. Frisby finally had his day — his moment, really — in court, and seemed happy that some of the charges were dismissed. “I feel good,” he said outside the courtroom.

With a grin, he added: “Standing amongst police officers.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/nyregion/24fugitive.html?scp=1&sq=Camden%20New%20Jersey&st=cse

Posted by lois at 03:24 PM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2008

MA: "Reform is Needed" letter by Barbara Dougan of FAMM

Letters to the Editor - The Boston Globe
Reform is needed
November 23, 2008

"PRISON TO double-bunk inmates" highlights the urgent need for sentencing reform in Massachusetts. Our prisons are bursting, due in large part to costly and inflexible mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Almost 17 percent of state prisoners are serving a mandatory sentence, a 32 percent increase over the past 10 years. Many are serving these harsh sentences for first-time, nonviolent offenses. These prisoners are also ineligible for parole or participation in work-release programs, which are key tools to relieve prison overcrowding.

Massachusetts currently spends, on average, about $48,000 per year on each state prisoner. Building new prisons is costly too - about $1 million for each new prison bed. Repealing mandatory minimums for drug offenders would lead to significant savings of taxpayer dollars.

Harold Clarke, commissioner of the Department of Correction, is correct to say that costly prison space should be for those who pose a public safety risk, not for those needing drug treatment or for low-level offenders. The coming legislative session offers the Commonwealth an opportunity to save money by adopting sensible sentencing reform.

Barbara J. Dougan
Newton
The writer is Massachusetts project director with Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

Posted by lois at 02:42 PM | Comments (0)

November 18, 2008

MS: Southern Poverty Law Center Calls for Closing Mississippi Youth Prison

11/17/2008
SPLC Calls for Closing of Mississippi Youth Prison

The Southern Poverty Law Center today called for the state of Mississippi to abandon the use of large youth prisons following a report showing that after almost four years, the state's Oakley Training School has made virtually no progress in ensuring that children held at the prison are safe and receiving effective suicide prevention and mental health treatment.

"It is time for Mississippi to face the facts — large training schools that warehouse children do not work," said Bear Atwood, director of the SPLC's Mississippi Youth Justice Project. "They are an expensive and ineffective relic of the past. We must stop wasting the taxpayers' money and actually start helping these youths."

The state spends $300 a day per child at Oakley, where approximately 76 percent of the children are non-violent offenders. A substantial number of these children could safely go home and receive treatment in their community at a cost of about $23 a day — a more efficient use of tax dollars during the current economic downturn. The remaining youths at Oakley could go to smaller, regional facilities, Atwood said.

"Mississippi's youth court judges should be aware that children are not getting the help they desperately need when they are sent to Oakley," Atwood said.

Nearly four years ago, Mississippi agreed to stop the abuse and neglect of children detained at its youth prisons. The latest report by court monitors was filed Nov. 12. They inspected Oakley to determine if the state is meeting the conditions of a consent decree with the Department of Justice.

The report found the state is in "substantial compliance" with only 16 percent of the consent decree's provisions almost four years after the agreement. This is a 1 percent increase since March 2008. It also found the prison has been stagnant on 69 percent of the provisions — showing neither progress nor decline.

The report noted that Oakley still does not have adequate staff to monitor and supervise its residents. The report noted the staff is "creating an unsafe environment, and encourages a culture in which youth become afraid and instinctively resort to violence."

Oakley is in compliance with only 22 percent of the suicide prevention provisions. It found that "youth are not being appropriately identified at risk of suicide" and that treatment plans for suicidal youths are not being developed. The report also noted it is unacceptable that the director of program services described the daily assessments of suicidal youths as a "work in progress."

Oakley is in compliance with only 4 percent of the provisions for mental health care and rehabilitative services. The monitor said that the mental health staff is not aware of what occurs in psychiatric treatment, and individual behavior modification plans are not being written. Also, not all of the youths requiring individual therapy are receiving it.

Only 70 percent of the youths referred to substance abuse groups are receiving treatment, the report found.

Four months after the last inspection of Oakley, it remains in a state of disrepair. The report found that the "cottages are in such disrepair that if they cannot be repaired to proper specifications, they should be demolished."

The monitors toured the facility during the last week of September and into early October. Their previous visit was in early June. This was the first monitors' report since the closing of the Columbia Training School, which came in response to a lawsuit filed by the SPLC.

The consent decree with the Department of Justice lawsuit came after a 2003 department study that found shockingly inhumane conditions at Oakley. In addition to being hog-tied and left for days in pitch-black cells, children ages 10 to 17 were sometimes sprayed with chemicals during mandatory exercises and forced to eat their own vomit. Others were forced to run with automobile tires around their necks or mattresses on their backs.
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=1&aid=347

Posted by lois at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

November 16, 2008

MN: Veterans taking care of their own with new business center Founded by former soldiers, center will help vets start — and sustain — businesses

Rubén Rosario: Veterans taking care of their own with new business center
Founded by former soldiers, center will help vets start — and sustain — businesses
By Rubén Rosario, Pioneer Press
Article Launched: 11/16/2008 12:01:00 AM CST

Jimmie Lee Coulthard remembers them still. One was a former Twin Cities firefighter. The other was another Vietnam War veteran from the South. Both were homeless. Both were dealing with substance abuse and other ills.

As a licensed chemical-dependency counselor and advocate for homeless military veterans, Coulthard had seen potential and talent and aspirations in many a troubled soul.

He saw it in bundles in both men, excellent cooks, particularly in Southern cuisine.

"I know if they had a restaurant, you couldn't have gotten inside their place, that successful it could be," Coulthard said last week. "But they were dealing with the other stuff. They talked about it, but it was too big of a thing for them."

Years later, on Friday, Coulthard and a group of similarly minded military veterans stood inside Building 11 at the VA Medical Center campus at Fort Snelling. The men alongside Coulthard this day — Guy Gambill, Jack Scharrett, local attorney John Baker and others — were there to get the word out of their plans to give entrepreneurial-minded veterans in Minnesota the business.

"I had a five-year plan for this back in 1998,'' Coulthard, 63, said of the Veterans' Initiative Center & Research Institute. Its acronym — VICTRI — is pronounced "victory."

"But there were lack of resources and other veteran priorities, like finding places for the homeless and setting up sober houses," Coulthard added.

VICTRI, slated to open in
Advertisement
January, is being billed as a one-of-a-kind, state-of-the-art nonprofit venture that could become a national model. It will help veterans and their family members start, build and sustain successful businesses or initiatives through education, services and support.

Staffed by veterans and their relatives, the center has already partnered with public and private universities to offer a short-term business education course. It also will provide needed tools to navigate the world of small business, subcontracting and other ventures.

The goal: help veterans to not only put up a shingle but also to keep it there and watch the business grow.

IT WORKED IN IRAQ

Center staffers note that 90 percent of all startup businesses fail in their first year. Scharrett, 39, a business-development consultant and major in the U.S. Army Reserve's Civil Affairs division, said the reasons for the belly-ups have little to do with passion and energy. They have more to do, he said, with the owner's lack of business acumen, which includes skills to set up financial statements, manage cash flow and understand tax laws.

Scharrett, a West Point graduate and New York native, said the intent of the center parallels that of a similar center he helped establish while stationed in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. The Kirkuk Business Center was set up in that city as a business development and incubation center managed and staffed by Iraqi residents in an attempt to jump-start the war-torn nation's small-business economy.

Scharrett helped establish and maintain seven Iraqi-owned ventures. Perhaps the most ambitious is what is now Iraq's largest agricultural cooperative, including 750 member families and stretching over 6 million acres.

Scharrett returned to Minnesota with thoughts that such an effort easily could be set up here to benefit veterans seeking to open businesses following their deployments.

After doing some research, he said, "I was shocked to find that although there are many veteran service organizations out there, I could not find one that was focused on helping veterans to start and sustain businesses."

What he did find were fellow vets like Coulthard who had similar ideas jelling.

Besides a business library set up in partnership with the James J. Hill Reference Library in St. Paul, the center will provide computers, phones, office space and a boardroom for use by vets as they shape their startup businesses.

It also will include a research institute, another reported first, that will produce, assist with or critique studies on veterans and related issues.

Gambill will head the institute. He's another Vietnam-era veteran who was a member of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Task Force for the Minnesota National Guard, and he serves as an advocacy coordinator and lobbyist for the nonprofit Council on Crime and Justice.

The center, which has received the backing of federal and state government officials and various veterans groups, is seeking corporate or other funding for the building's infrastructure.

A CONCRETE VISION

Coulthard is well aware of the funding difficulties ahead in a time of a recession and economic instability. But he has taken on battles before.

The Iowa-raised farm boy survived numerous skirmishes as a combat infantry rifleman in Vietnam with Company C, 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry, 196th Light Infantry Brigade.

As CEO of Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans, Coulthard developed and helped build 200 units of permanent housing for homeless veterans on two VA campuses and three outstate centers. Two sections of those units sit squarely behind Building 11, which once served as the home of the VA director.It's all about can-do with this bunch of local vet-loving vets — damn the torpedoes or the challenges.

"I believe what many returning veterans possess is a great desire to catch up with their peers again," said Coulthard, who founded the center and will serve as board treasurer and the center's director. "They also bring a lot of energy and are very mission-focused. We hope this place is where they can come and get the help they need and have someone always there to help them walk through things."

The number of the building is a promising sign: In numerology, 11 stands for higher ideals, invention, fulfillment and vision.

Rubén Rosario can be reached at rrosario@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5454.

ONLINE

To learn more about the Veterans' Initiative Center & Research Institute, go to victri.org.

Posted by lois at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2008

CA: Prop. 5 and 6 defeated in election

2 of 3 CA crime measures fail at polls
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
AP

LOS ANGELES -- Two of three crime initiatives on California's ballot were rejected Tuesday by voters who may have been deterred by the hefty cost to taxpayers in hard economic times.

In a one-two punch, voters defeated two competing measures that appeared consecutively: Proposition 5, which would have increased drug rehabilitation programs, and Proposition 6, which would have cracked down on gang crimes.

They were narrowly favoring a third measure that would write crime victims' rights into the state Constitution.

Proposition 5 failed with 62 percent voting in opposition and 38 percent in favor with 28 percent of precincts reporting. The measure would have diverted an estimated 84,000 drug offenders - including those able to convince judges that their serious crimes are drug-related - into treatment programs each year.

Proposition 6 failed with 69 percent opposed and 31 percent in favor, also with 28 percent of precincts in. The initiative would have stiffened penalties for many gang crimes, including allowing gang members as young as 14 to be tried as adults. It would have made methamphetamine possession a felony.

A majority of voters were favoring Proposition 9, however. The measure was leading with 54 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed with 28 percent of precincts tallied. The measure would expand on the "Victims' Bill of Rights" approved by voters in 1982 while making it more difficult for criminals to be paroled.

Both of the failed measures carried hefty price tags at a time when California faces a growing state budget deficit.

"I think they both signify more money and I think people are tightening their belts," said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who opposed Proposition 5 and favored 6 and 9.

Proposition 5 would have eventually cost $1 billion a year for expanded rehabilitation programs for 84,000 drug offenders annually, projected the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

However, incarcerating fewer offenders would cut the number of inmates in California's crowded prisons by 17 percent, the analyst estimated. That could have eventually saved the state $1 billion in annual prison costs and $2.5 billion for new prisons.

The initiative was backed by billionaire investor and liberal activist George Soros, who also sponsored a less sweeping drug diversion measure approved by California voters in 2000.

Critics - including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and all four of his living predecessors - say the measure is one step in a nationwide drive to decriminalize drugs.

"I think people saw through that initiative," Baca said. "Those who perpetuate the crimes, because they're drug users, are almost given an incredible free ride."

They likely rejected get-tough Proposition 6 after opponents highlighted its cost to taxpayers, Baca said.

Proposition 6 would have cost the already stressed state budget $500 million a year in increased payments to local police, prosecutors, probation and rehabilitation services, plus $500 million for new prisons, the state analyst projected. It also includes $15 million to monitor the movements of sex offenders through global positioning systems.

Costs were tougher to project for Proposition 9, the crime victims' rights measure.

The initiative would require state and local officials to spend whatever it takes to avoid releasing inmates early to ease crowding in prisons or jails. That sets up potential legal conflicts with federal court orders capping the number of inmates who can be housed in 20 jails throughout the state.

"I think the empathy is on the side of the victims," Baca said, though he expects the crime initiative to face court challenges.

Both 6 and 9 were backed by billionaire Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III, who was indicted in June on federal securities fraud and drug charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6489380

Posted by lois at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

November 05, 2008

MA: Voters approve marijuana law change

The Boston Globe
QUESTION 2
Voters approve marijuana law change
By David Abel, Globe Staff | November 5, 2008

Voters yesterday overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying dozens of joints will no longer be reported to the state's criminal history board.

With about 90 percent of the state's precincts reporting last night, voters favored the Question 2 proposition 65 percent to 35 percent. (from Lois: MA presidential tally: Winner Obama- 1,838,746 or 62% McCain,075,007 or 36%)

"The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy," said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. "They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense."

The proposition will become law 30 days after it is reported to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they have done with prior initiatives passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Opponents of the proposition said they are concerned about the potential consequences of the vote. "The administration is clear in its opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana, and we are concerned about the effects of ballot Question 2's passage," Kevin Burke, secretary of the state's Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, said in a statement.

He would not comment on whether the administration will try to repeal the law, which will require violators younger than 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.

Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record.

The opponents, who include the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence.

In a statement, the Coalition for Safe Streets, which opposed the initiative, blamed the loss on being outspent by supporters of Question 2, which included the billionaire financier George Soros, who spent more than $400,000 in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

"Now these pro-drug special interests will move on to another state as part of their plan to inflict a radical drug-legalization agenda on as many communities as possible," said the statement.

The Rev. Bruce Wall, pastor of Global Ministries Christian Church in Dorchester, was among several prominent black ministers in Boston who called on fellow clergy to oppose the initiative.

"I guess there are a lot of people smoking the stuff, and they don't see what we see," Wall said.

The initiative's success last night sparked loud cheers from supporters gathered at the Silvertone Bar & Grill in downtown.

"I think this points to how our Legislature is unwilling to represent their constituents on these issues," said Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.

Globe correspondent Matt Negrin contributed to this report.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/voters_approve_marijuana_law_change/

Posted by lois at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2008

CA: Prop 5 vs. the prison-industrail complex

From the Los Angeles Times
Prop. 5 vs. the prison-industrial complex
The officials and special interests who oppose the drug rehabilitation measure are doing so to protect their own power and money.
By Ethan Nadelmann
November 3, 2008

If Proposition 5 goes down to defeat on Tuesday, the five governors who lined up to condemn it Thursday will have won a Pyrrhic victory. Not one has offered an alternative to Proposition 5 for dealing responsibly with California's prison overcrowding crisis, the exploding prison budget or the outlandish power of a union whose interests lie in incarcerating as many of their fellow citizens as possible.

Each of them has given lip service to the need for treatment instead of incarceration in dealing with drug convictions and other nonviolent offenders with drug problems. But not one of them has shown any willingness to take seriously decades of empirical research on what works best in reducing drug addiction, crime and recidivism.

This has always been an area of government action in which rhetoric drives policy. But what's so depressing about this Gang of Five's united opposition to Proposition 5 is their combination of dishonesty and myopia.

A duplicitous TV ad that features Sen. Dianne Feinstein and is paid for by the prison guards union, beer distributors and casino interests tell us that Proposition 5 will cost too much. But those ads do not acknowledge, cite or even bother to challenge the analysis of the state's legislative analyst's office. Estimated annual cost: $1 billion. Estimated annual savings: $1 billion. One-time savings in capital outlay costs: $2.5 billion. That makes Proposition 5 a wash on annual costs and a true bargain for taxpayers. In fact, it's only the third ballot initiative in the last decade that contains quantifiable cuts to state spending. Only one of those ballot initiatives has passed: Proposition 36, California's first treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative, which voters passed in 2000.

So why the effort to deceive voters?

It's all about -- no surprise -- resources and power. Why is the prison-industrial complex rearing its fearsome head right now? Because Proposition 5 would effectively transfer $1 billion from prison and parole to treatment and rehabilitation. That means fewer jobs in a massive prison system now consuming about 10% of the state's budget and more resources for programs proven to reduce drug abuse, crime and recidivism more cheaply and effectively than prison and parole.

The opposition to Proposition 5 is grounded in America's tragic exceptionalism when it comes to incarcerating its own citizens. The United States makes up less than 5% of the world's population but claims almost 25% of the world's incarcerated population. We rank, shamefully, first in the world in reported per-capita incarceration rates. But not one of those governors stops to ask why California, with rates of drug use and nonviolent crime roughly equal to those in other advanced industrialized countries, relies on incarceration at a rate five to 10 times higher.

Proposition 5's opponents keep claiming, falsely, that the initiative would make it impossible to hold nonviolent offenders accountable. In reality, Proposition 5 is chock full of accountability, not just for the offenders who get a second chance to get their lives together but also for those charged with enforcing the laws. Ask why California has evolved from the state of higher education into the state of higher incarceration. Ask why the state has built just one new University of California campus but 21 new prisons over the last 25 years. It's because the prison-industrial complex has exercised its political power to ensure that it is never held accountable -- that its budgets grow unchecked and that its exercises of discretion and prejudice are never balanced by independent oversight and objective judgment.

Proposition 5 would provide just that balance. Its provisions incorporate several of the major expert recommendations on prison, parole and treatment diversion reform as put forth by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's hand-picked advisors, the Deukmejian commission, Schwarzenegger's Rehabilitation Strike Team, the governor's Corrections Independent Review Panel, UCLA experts, the Little Hoover Commission, the state Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections' Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming, the VERA Institute of Justice and others.

That's what ultimately makes Proposition 5 unacceptable to powerful vested interests within the political and criminal justice system. It dares to speak truth to power and take the politics out of criminal justice -- which is why that motley crew of statehouse residents ganged up Thursday to condemn it. Now it's the voter's turn to lead.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance Network (drugpolicy.org), a major proponent of Proposition 5.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-nadelman3-2008nov03,0,3924232.story

Posted by lois at 07:05 PM | Comments (0)

October 30, 2008

MN: Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder present challenges for the criminal justice system. Alternatives put into place.

"Minnesota is ahead of the curve when it comes to making concessions for veteran offenders. With help from veterans’ advocate Guy Gambill, the state Legislature this year amended a state statute to take into account the mental health status of veterans during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.
Now, if a defendant in Minnesota is convicted of a crime, it’s recommended that the court ask if he or she is a veteran. If the defendant is a veteran and has been diagnosed as having a mental illness, the court may consult with the federal or state Department of Veterans Affairs to determine treatment options in lieu of or along with a jail sentence."

Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder present challenges for the criminal justice system
by Dan Heilman Associate Editor
Minnesota Lawyer
October 24, 2008 9:50 AM CST

• As of Sept. 10, 1.717 million U.S. troops have been deployed to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• About 300,000 have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
• A further 320,000 have been diagnosed with symptoms related to traumatic brain injury.

When Hector Matascastillo found himself in an armed standoff with eight police officers on the front yard of his Lakeville home early in 2004, in his mind he was doing what he’d been trained to do, and what came naturally to him: operating on survival mode, with no thought for the context of his actions.

It was only after he was arrested and jailed that Matascastillo, a Bronze Star recipient who served in Iraq with the 75th Ranger Regiment of the U.S. Army, realized first-hand the challenges that veterans face on their return to society, and the precarious position more and more of them find themselves in when they encounter the criminal justice system.

Matascastillo, who now works as a veterans’ employment representative for the state Department of Employment and Economic Development, told a recent seminar sponsored by the Ramsey County Bar Association that some combat veterans have “an addiction to chaos” that can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD, in turn, can often lead to conflicts not only within the veteran’s home life, but also with authorities.

“We have a mentality that says there’s nothing we can’t do, and that we have to be on 100 percent of the time,” he said of combat veterans. “We have to be in survival mode.

“One of the soldiers I served with is facing jail time for two DWIs in two months. Another one gets in fights in bars because he can’t stop wanting to fight,” Matascastillo said. “Neither of them was like that before they joined the military.”

A new kind of veteran

PTSD — or what used to be called by such less euphemistic names as combat fatigue and shell shock — has been a reality of war for centuries. In “The Iliad,” which dates back to the 8th or 9th century B.C., Homer depicts Achilles’ psychological breakdown during the Trojan War.

But the abolition of the draft has brought about a new kind of veteran, one who is called up for two, three and sometimes more tours of duty. According to experts who spoke at the seminar, the criminal justice system is due for a flood of offenders with military backgrounds unless something proactive is done to get them the help they need.

“We’ve had 1.7 million people deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and almost half of them have gone back more than once,” said Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Brockton Hunter, who works extensively with veteran defendants. “About 600,000 of those people have PTSD or TBI [traumatic brain injury], and less than half of them get the help they need. Those are the ones who pop up in the criminal courts.”

Hunter said combat trauma can be linked to criminal behavior in two ways: Symptoms of PTSD can incidentally lead to criminal behavior, or offenses can be directly connected to the trauma the veteran experienced. For example, he noted, hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans are homeless, addicted or incarcerated 35 years after the last American troops were brought back from that war.

The numbers from the Iraqi and Afghani wars are shaping up to be even more troubling. Recent figures from the U.S. Veterans Health Administration show that more than half of the veteran patients are being treated for disorders deriving from PTSD and other mental health issues.

“We’ve asked more of [troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan] than we’ve asked of any force in history,” Hunter said. “To me, the path these people follow is a no-brainer: self-medicate, hair-trigger temper, encounter with police. We will pay the price in the long run.”

Progress in Minnesota

Strides are being made in how the criminal justice system deals with veterans, but, for a number of reasons progress is slow.

For one thing, a veteran’s pride in his military career will often keep him from identifying himself in criminal court, for fear of dishonoring his uniform. Also, because veterans come from a warrior culture, they often see a diagnosis of PTSD as a concession to weakness, so often mental illnesses among veterans go undiagnosed.

“What’s helpful in war isn’t so helpful in society,” said Lt. Col. Cynthia Rasmussen, a mental health nurse in the Army Reserves. “Vigilance in war means being suspicious of everyone. In war, anger is useful and protective. Back here, those mindsets get you in trouble.”

Fortunately, Minnesota is ahead of the curve when it comes to making concessions for veteran offenders. With help from veterans’ advocate Guy Gambill, the state Legislature this year amended a state statute to take into account the mental health status of veterans during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.

Now, if a defendant in Minnesota is convicted of a crime, it’s recommended that the court ask if he or she is a veteran. If the defendant is a veteran and has been diagnosed as having a mental illness, the court may consult with the federal or state Department of Veterans Affairs to determine treatment options in lieu of or along with a jail sentence.

The amended bill was unusual in that it had broad, bipartisan support — not only from Republicans and Democrats, but from such naturally contrary bodies as the Minnesota County Attorneys Association and the Minnesota State Public Defenders.

The amended statute was modeled in part on a 2007 California initiative that lets judges depart from presumptive prison sentences in cases involving veterans with PTSD, and, when suitable, order treatment in lieu of jail time.

While the Minnesota bill is somewhat stripped down in that it doesn’t provide for a registration system for veterans with PTSD or for psychological evaluations, it’s a good start, said Gambill.

“We’re in the lead in the country when it comes to this,” he said. “It gives the court treatment options it didn’t have before.”

Hunter said that the military is doing more to screen and treat PTSD. The Veterans Administration is also expanding its treatment capacity, he added.

Rasmussen, who often speaks on behalf of veterans’ issues, said the key to preventing veterans from becoming criminal defendants is to create an understanding that when they come home, they’re entering what has become a foreign world.

“Going off to war is easy,” she said. “Coming home, nobody knows what to expect.”

http://www.minnlawyer.com/article.cfm/2008/10/27/Returning-veterans-with-posttraumatic-stress-disorder-present-unique-challenges-for-the-criminal-jus

Posted by lois at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

October 27, 2008

MA: State cuts endanger jail diversion program

State cuts endanger jail diversion program
By Dan McDonald/Daily News staff
The MetroWest Daily News
Posted Oct 21, 2008 @ 11:44 PM
FRAMINGHAM —

Gov. Deval Patrick's recent budget cuts effectively eliminated an innovative jail diversion program that aimed to help the mentally ill in town.

The program partnered the police department with the nonprofit agency Advocates Inc. Lauded as a first-of-its-kind initiative and a model for other departments in the state for the past six years, the program saw $60,000 of its funding, or 50 percent, cut in last week's Beacon Hill belt-tightening, meaning the program will likely end Dec. 31.

The original $120,000 state allotment had allowed Advocates to have two medical clinicians respond with police to situations that may involve the mentally ill.

"It's almost like a paramedic going to the scene of a medical emergency," Deputy Police Chief Craig Davis said yesterday.

Once engaged, clinicians can connect the mentally ill with key services, said Advocates President and CEO Bill Taylor.

"We carry the ball carefully to make sure they're involved with treatment before we let go of them," said Taylor. "But we don't provide the ongoing treatment."

In 2007, Davis said, there were 457 joint interventions of police and clinicians under the program.

That same year, 82 people were diverted from arrest for nuisance-related crimes.

"We wanted to deliver compassionate justice for the mentally ill," said Davis.

The program is designed to divert individuals with mental illness, substance abuse or behavioral problems from the more expensive and less effective criminal system to the less expensive and very effective human services system for appropriate treatment and case management, wrote Taylor in an e-mail.

It was established with private foundation money six years ago and received state funding for the last three.

Now in its sixth year, the collaboration has evolved into a nationally recognized pilot program replicated by numerous other communities.

Framingham Police have traveled to Milford, Lawrence, and Quincy to advise those police departments about the program.

"We had established ourselves as a proven commodity and we're confident that this is a proper approach that we hope is a model not only in a state but nationally," he said.

He added,"Now more than ever it's a crucial partnership."

Taylor had similar thoughts.

"The seed must remain to be replanted, once funds are again available," wrote Taylor in an e-mail. "At $120,000 per year, only $60,000 stands between closure and an ongoing Jail Diversion program in Framingham and Massachusetts."

Funding for a handful of other jail diversion programs was also cut in half, said state Rep. Ruth Balser, D-Newton. Balser is the house chairwoman of the joint committee for Mental Health and Substance Abuse.

"Rather than just prosecute and incarcerate there's a growing awareness of the phenomenon of the mentally ill people...that comes from closing hospitals and treatment centers," said Balser.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x849595537/State-cuts-endanger-jail-diversion-program

Posted by lois at 03:42 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2008

VA: Editorial: A sensible call for sentencing reform

"The cost to build and operate the prisons needed to hold all of these people is enormous: States spent about $2 billion on construction alone in 2006."

Editorial: A sensible call for sentencing reform
Virginia's junior senator insists on taking an honest look at the high cost of the war on drugs.

Sen. Jim Webb will be moderating a symposium Wednesday on illegal drug trafficking and the nation's hugely expensive fight against it.

The symposium at George Mason University could not be more timely for Virginians and their policymakers, who last week heard Gov. Tim Kaine's latest -- but by no means last -- budget cuts to match steep shortfalls in state revenues.

Webb's interest, of course, is at the federal rather than state level, but the concerns he has been raising -- during two earlier Senate hearings and now at the upcoming symposium -- apply equally in both spheres.

Webb is gathering law enforcement and criminal justice experts, along with advocates of sentencing reform, both to collect facts and to educate the public about a policy failure most politicians consider too politically dangerous to broach:

The so-called war on drugs has produced the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world -- 750 inmates for every 100,000 people. Most criminal justice experts attribute a leap in imprisonments since 1991 to tougher sentencing laws, particularly for drug offenses, that have ensnared a whole lot of low-level, nonviolent offenders.

Webb cites statistics that show four out of five drug arrests in 2005 were for possession, one out of five for drug sales.

The cost to build and operate the prisons needed to hold all of these people is enormous: States spent about $2 billion on construction alone in 2006. And the cost to society is compounded by the loss at an early age of lives that might have been productive, but end up in a cycle of sharply limited opportunities, recidivism and reimprisonment.

In a phone interview last week, Webb was careful to state, "I'm all for incarcerating violent offenders and people involved in gang activities." Given the electorate's enthusiasm for tough-on-crime rhetoric, he knows his congressional colleagues will be loath to take up sentencing reform: "People running and in office get nervous.

"But we have to be able to address the dynamic in some way because it's all so skewed."

Webb has no legislative fix in his back pocket, but insists on having the conversation to get the country working toward one. That's necessary and brave.

In the midst of painful budget cuts, Virginia lawmakers should ponder the problem and heed Kaine's pointed suggestion to look for policy changes that would yield long-term savings, such as prison reform.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/180264

Posted by lois at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2008

MA: DOC Commissioner Seeks More Work-Release

“As you well know, we are crowded and that’s why we need to better manage our system with an eye toward re-entry. That’s why work release is important,” said Clarke, who became prison chief last November. “We ought to be locking up folks we are afraid of, not folks that we’re mad at.” MA DOC Commission Harold Clarke.

Chief: ‘Angry’ felons to be freed
Swamped prisons seek work-release programs
By Laura Crimaldi | Sunday, October 12, 2008
Boston Hearld

Faced with exploding costs and a record-high inmate population, the state prison chief is warning that Massachusetts can’t afford its incarceration rate and must alter laws or deliver “angry and unprepared” felons back to society.

“The message to policymakers is we have very limited resources to continue to incarcerate at the rate we’re doing so now,” Department of Correction Commissioner Harold W. Clarke said in an interview with the Herald. “As we speak, I believe we’re right about 144 percent of capacity in the DOC. All the sheriffs will tell you that they are also very crowded. Where are we going from here?”

Clarke is pushing to better prepare inmates to return to society by setting up more work-release beds, implementing a new method of tracking prisoners’ readiness for release, and promoting a Patrick administration proposal to let certain drug offenders participate in work release. The state’s Anti-Crime Council is supposed to develop a re-entry plan by December.

“As you well know, we are crowded and that’s why we need to better manage our system with an eye toward re-entry. That’s why work release is important,” said Clarke, who became prison chief last November. “We ought to be locking up folks we are afraid of, not folks that we’re mad at.”

The state’s inmate population reached a record 11,445 on Sept. 29, a 10 percent increase since 2005. Of those inmates, there is a waiting list of 120 prisoners vying for 250 full pre-release beds, said Deputy Commissioner Veronica M. Madden. The DOC’s budget is $530 million, a giant jump from last year’s $474 million spending plan.

Last year, 2,562 inmates were released from prison, including 158 that went to the street from maximum security, the DOC said. National studies show that 97 percent of inmates return to society.

Clarke cited statistics that show 50 percent of inmates were unemployed when they were jailed and 80 percent are drug addicted or in prison because of drug crimes.

Non-violent drug offenders convicted of a drug crime that carries a mandatory sentence are prohibited by law from participating in work release. As of Sept. 22, there were 1,917 inmates serving a mandatory minimum sentence for a drug offense, the DOC said.

Patrick filed legislation to let drug offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences participate in work release, but lawmakers did not take up the measure.

“We have seen again, not just in Massachusetts but elsewhere, that mandatory sentences can unnecessarily crowd systems,” said Clarke. “Inmates are not going to benefit from just sitting there. And it’s going to impact their attitudes as well. They are going to leave there angry. Who’s well-served then?”

Steve Kenneway, president of the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, said a push for more inmate work-release opportunities is risky.

“Although an inmate might be eligible to go down to a lower-security, he may not be suitable for moving down,” Kenneway said. “That’s how the Willie Hortons happen. Inmates can escape from lower security when they should not have been there in the first place.”

State Sen. James E. Timilty (D-Walpole), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and Security, said it’s in the state’s “best interest to see a low recidivism rate,” but added, “I hope this effort isn’t just to solve overcrowding. I think the mission is always to punish and protect,” he said.

Leslie Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, said “real work needs to be done with the governor and Legislature to modify sentencing laws.”

“If there were fewer prisoners in prison, the deparment would be able to devote resources to drug treatment, education and job training in an effort to prepare prisoners to reintergrate into their home neighborhoods,” she said.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1125030

Posted by lois at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)

October 10, 2008

FL: Juvenile justice: Don't ignore girls

The Florida Times-Union
October 4, 2008
Juvenile justice: Don't ignore girls

Lock 'em up.
That's the approach Florida has been taking to an extreme in recent years.

This expensive approach to justice has been so overused that prisons now are providing much of the mental health treatment in the state.

Juvenile justice is overlooking smart treatment that is less expensive and more effective than prison-style treatment facilities, the Blueprint Commission on Juvenile Justice reported several months ago.

So it's no surprise that girls are caught in the same backward dynamic.

Overly harsh

Too many girls with minor infractions are being referred to programs for serious offenders, reports the Children's Campaign, an impressive collaboration of the Women's Giving Alliance, the Jacksonville Community Foundation and the Jessie Ball duPont Fund, among others.

This hard approach away from rehabilitation to a more punitive approach began in 1999, reported the National Council on Crime and Delinquency in a report titled "Educate or Incarcerate," which focused on girls in Duval County. It was funded by the Jessie Ball duPont Fund.

This approach resulted in the tragic case of the Florida Institute for Girls, a maximum security prison, which was closed in 2005 after a grand jury found evidence of abuse and victimization of the girls.

The result of the hard-edged approach is twofold:

1. Too many girls are not receiving the help they need.

2. When they do get help, it is much more expensive than necessary.

The Children's Campaign is trying to target more effective treatment.

"The philosophy of the Children's Campaign is that local communities are best suited to develop and implement local solutions based on their unique and personal perspectives," the campaign reported in a press release.

Duval County needs to be the center of such studies for good reasons. This county leads the state in the number of girls admitted for misdemeanors and non-law violations, though Duval is far from the most populous county in the state.

Statewide, over half of the girls admitted to residential programs had committed minor offenses such as disobeying a court order, reported the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability in 2006.

And girls are more likely to be admitted for less serious offenses than boys.

Too little treatment

The admissions often are made because the facilities have the only treatment programs.

"The Legislature could achieve savings by reducing beds in residential delinquency programs and creating community treatment programs for at-risk girls," the accountability office reported.

The state office proposed that community-based programs with records of success would cost less than placing girls in facilities.

Lawanda Ravoira, former president of the PACE Center for Girls, is director of the Children's Campaign's Justice for Girls: Duval County Initiative. This project is designed to promote more effective treatment of girls in the juvenile justice system.

Better models

One role model comes from PACE, with its amazing record of success; about 90 percent of its graduates stay free of the justice system.

The Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability proposed eliminating 50 beds in girls' facilities and replacing them with community programs that have shown success.

That makes sense. The wonder is that this more cost-effective approach takes so long to implement throughout the juvenile justice system.

Girls have special treatment needs. Roughly two-thirds of girls in commitment programs have experienced abuse or neglect, the state reported. Over 90 percent have mental health problems.

There is hope, however. A group of 319 girls who participated in the 2006 National Council on Crime and Delinquency study showed resiliency. Many did well in school, staying drug-free and having a positive self-image.

These girls often need mental health and substance abuse treatment, family-focused services, specialized medical care, educational and job placement help, and transitional placement.

As a society, we have taken imprisonment to the extreme, resulting in too much cost and too little effectiveness.

"A major issue is the fact that every year the Legislature increases the budget for adult corrections and the budget for juvenile justice from the inception has been woefully inadequate," Ravoira said in an e-mail.

"Public safety should start with kids, and we need a Legislature that will invest in juvenile justice at the same parity/level that we invest in adult prisons."

The Children's Campaign is on the right track and deserves wide support. preventive spending Floridians are willing to spend money on crime prevention programs.
A scientific poll conducted in 2005 for the Children's Campaign and the Eckerd Family Foundation produced these key results: - 60 percent of Floridians believe first in prevention and rehabilitation to fight juvenile crime.
- 81 percent believe in early intervention with juveniles with behavioral or mental problems.
- 91 percent believe we would have fewer adult criminals if we did a better job helping juveniles in trouble.
- 76 percent believe in specially targeted programs for young women in trouble.
Source: Barcelo & Co. Telephone survey in 2005 of registered active voters. Margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percent. Lockups Girls' admissions to juvenile facilities for minor infractions: Duval: 61 Hillsborough: 48 Pinellas: 47 Palm Beach: 40 Miami-Dade: 48 Source: 2006 report from the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability

This story can be found on Jacksonville.com at http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/100408/opi_339977858.shtml.

Posted by lois at 06:07 PM | Comments (0)

October 09, 2008

WI: Jail expansion not as urgent

Jail expansion not as urgent
By Cheryl Scott
Daily News staff writer
Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 11:27 AM CDT
Alternative programs, rough economy make waiting a better idea

JANESVILLE - Rock County Sheriff Robert Spoden has delayed plans for a jail expansion because alternative programs have reduced the number of inmates and because a costly project would burden taxpayers too much during tough economic times.

Instead of a one-time expansion, the county will spend $42,500 to study a phased construction approach, which should be presented by the end of the year, Spoden said. When The Samuels Group of Wausau, Wis., finishes a phasing plan, the county board can decide whether to undertake any construction.

The areas of the jail that would be addressed in phases include the kitchen, medical area, booking and storage; the housing tower; and sheriff's administrative area, Spoden said.

Jail expansion studies have been done for the last 10 years, but Spoden said the phased construction study is necessary because alternatives to incarceration weren't factored into the other studies.

The average jail population was 588 in 2006 and 581 in 2007, when talks of a jail expansion were common, Spoden said. This year, the jail population has ranged from 480-520 per day so far. The rated capacity of the jail is 477, but there are 525 beds for inmates, Spoden said.

With alternatives to incarceration - the Electronic Monitoring Program, the Workender Program/Workender Midweek Program and Community RECAP (Rock County Education and Criminal Addictions Program) - the county has been able to reduce the number of inmates in jail, Spoden said.

“It takes off the pressure of needing to build sooner rather than later,” Spoden said.

Rock County used to ship 90 inmates a day to other jails at the cost of $52-$55 per inmate per day, due to overcrowding, Spoden said. Yet since June, the county hasn't been sending its inmates to other jails, and Spoden has not requested money in the 2009 budget to pay for shipping inmates out of Rock County.

Besides alternative programs, the economy in Rock County also played a factor in Spoden's decision to hold off on a jail expansion project.

With the GM assembly plant in Janesville closing, record foreclosures and difficult economic times, Spoden said he did not want to embark on a costly project.

“For me to ignore that (bad economy) and continue to ask the taxpayers to spend millions of dollars � I didn't think it was responsible, not only as an elected official, but also as a citizen,” Spoden said, adding he knows people who have lost their jobs and fallen on tough times.

Predicting trends in the jail population is difficult, but Spoden said he thinks the county can hold off the jail expansion because alternative programs can address many of the crimes that might be committed. In the past when the county faced tough economic times and a high unemployment rate, more crimes occurred that involved petty theft, alcohol or domestic situations, Spoden said.

Even though the jail project will be on hold now, Spoden said eventually the county would need to renovate parts of the jail. The infrastructure is more than 20 years old, but now may not be the right time for an expensive project.

Spoden said, “I can't reiterate enough that there have to be some responsibilities as an elected official to take into account the current economic conditions in Rock County.”

By the numbers

Jail

520 - inmates in jail on Monday, which Spoden said was slightly higher than average because of weekend arrests

525 - total number of beds in jail

477 - rated capacity of the Rock County Jail

$64/day - cost to house each inmate at the Rock County Jail

$52-$55/day - cost to house additional inmates outside of the county, which has not been done since June

Alternative programs
85 - on the electronic monitoring bracelet

40 - in Workender program

62 - Community RECAP (Rock County Education and Criminal Addictions Program)

187 - total number of inmates diverted into alternative programs at the moment

Source: Rock County

Sheriff Robert Spoden

http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2008/10/08/news/local_news/news04.prt
Copyright © 2008 - Beloit Daily News

Posted by lois at 09:09 PM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2008

Justice Policy Institute Report: Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex

The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) released a new report this week examining the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC)--the relationship between government and private interests that use imprisonment, policing, and surveillance as a solution to social, political, and economic problems. Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex, examines the progress of reform 10 years after Critical Resistance first launched its efforts to dismantle the PIC. The report underscores:

Despite crime rates at 30-year lows, the criminal justice system has under its control more people than ever.

* More than seven million people live their lives under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States.
* More than seven million people live their lives under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States.
* Spending on the criminal justice system, including police, corrections, the judiciary, has increased 64 percent between 1996 and 2005 to a total of $213 billion.
* The prison system disproportionately impacts communities of color. African Americans and Hispanics make up one third of the U.S. population but makeup 61 percent of the imprisoned population.
* Incarceration rates continue to increase whether crime rates are up or down.

Economic incentives encourage the growth of prisons and support increased surveillance, arrests, and imprisonment.

* Private Prisons: Corrections Corporation of America's stock price has been steadily rising. CCA recently posted a $35 million profit in the last quarter of 2007, up from $32 million in the same period in 2006.
* Prison Industries: Federal Prison Industries, a corporation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, has an online catalogue of merchandise for purchase by other federal agencies, including office furniture and clothing. State prison industries employed 56,000 people in prison in 1999 and, according to research published in Labor Studies Journal in 2002, generated $3 billion in sales and $67 million in profits for the states.
* Private Industry in Prison: In 1979, Congress established the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program to authorize private companies to employ people who are held behind bars and to execute contracts. Companies frequently pay people in prison below minimum wage for these "low-skilled" jobs and prisons garnish their wages further by charging for room and board. This process ensures that resources are pumped back into prisons and that individuals see little of their earnings.
* Industry for Surrounding Communities: Although public officials will often claim that prisons will bring jobs to rural or economically depressed areas, actually there is often little or no economic improvement or revitalization of the community.

Investments in policing and surveillance have increased, thereby widening the gateway to the criminal justice system.

* Although local police still receive the majority of funding, increases at the federal level are the most dramatic. Between 1982 and 2005, federal expenditures on police protection have increased 945.1 percent, from $2.15 billion in 1982 to $22.5 billion in 2005.
* Law enforcement agencies have significantly increased their surveillance capacity and presence in certain areas: in just three years the number of police departments using video cameras increased 15 percentage points. In 2000, 45 percent of local police departments regularly used video cameras. By 2003, 60 percent regularly operated video cameras, and an estimated 48,800 in-car cameras were in use.
* Cop-watching groups are increasing and becoming more organized in cities across the counties as a way to monitor police behaviors.
* Specialized police, particularly in schools, has also increased dramatically. In 1999, 54.1 percent of students ages 12 to18 reported the use of security guards and/ or assigned police officers at school, compared to 67.9 percent in 2005.

The prison industrial complex relies on the criminalization of certain actions to thrive.

* Federalization of certain offenses: The U.S. has added one new federal crime to the books every week for the past 7 years. This increase in crimes has directly added to the federal prison system, which has grown at triple the rate of state prison populations.

* War on Drugs: The war on drugs is increasingly waged with paramilitary-style tactics. In the past 20 years, there has been a 1,400 percent increase in the total number of SWAT team deployments.

* Criminalizing Poverty: More cities are relying on policies that are meant to address "quality of life crimes" by having a zero tolerance approach to behaviors such as panhandling, loitering, and "camping." A report in 2006 that surveyed 224 cities around the country on their laws involving the criminalization of homelessness and found that 27 percent of cities prohibited sitting or lying in certain public places and 43 percent prohibited begging in certain places.

* Criminalization of Immigration: The number of USBP agents nearly tripled between 1990 and 2005. In FY 2006 alone, 1,500 more agents were added. Since 1995, the number of people held by ICE in prisons and jails has increased more than 200 percent.

Media messages, public opinion, social policy, and government agencies legitimize the criminalization of certain behaviors to the benefit of the prison industrial complex.

* Crime and Public Safety: The frequency with which media reports crime does not fluctuate with actual crime rates. In 1994 when the violent crime rate was at its peak, there were more than 2,500 media crime stories. But as the violent crime rate continued to fall, the number of crime stories continued to fluctuate for the next 10 years, regardless of trends in violent or property offenses.

* Criminalization of Poverty: Researchers have found that television media relies on stereotypical assumptions about poverty and the symptoms of poverty (crime, drug use, mental illness) by linking those symptoms to visual cues and language ("abandoned house" or "drug-infested"). In one study, of the 239 news stories that mentioned symptoms of poverty, approximately 147 stories showed crime, drugs, and gangs as a manifestation of poverty.

* Criminalization of Immigration: Public opinion polls document public fear about Latino immigrants coming to the United States not to commit a terrorist act but to take jobs and use services typically guaranteed to U.S. residents, and to commit crimes. This is despite research which shows that while the number of undocumented immigrants increased 57 percent from 1990 to 2000, crime rates plummeted to some of the lowest in U.S. history.

Communities of color and people living in poverty are overwhelmingly disproportionately affected by the prison industrial complex.

* Data shows that in 2002, 8.5 percent of whites used illicit drugs, compared to 9.7 percent of African Americans. However, African Americans are admitted to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of whites.

* Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that 83.5 percent of people in jail in 2002 earned less than $2,000 per month prior to arrest.

* People of color are disproportionately affected by poverty and, thus are also more likely to be imprisoned. African Americans made up about 13 percent of the general population but approximately 22 percent of the people living in poverty and 40 percent of people in prisons and jails in 2006.

The report concludes that advocates must be just as innovative and flexible as the prison industrial complex in order to dismantle the system, while resisting so-called reforms that inadvertently expand the reach of the criminal justice system. Positive social investments in education, employment, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment are cost effective means of creating strong communities
Find the report here:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-09_REP_MovingTargetCR10_AC-PS.pdf

Posted by lois at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

CA: Prop 5 Would Overhaul Sentencing of Poepole with Non-Violent Drug Convictions

Prop. 5 would overhaul sentencing of drug offenders
The far-reaching measure would increase treatment and eliminate incarceration for those convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes. But opponents see another agenda.
By Michael Rothfeld
Los Angeles Times

October 2, 2008

SACRAMENTO — In a state that has consistently boosted penalties for criminals, packing California's prisons to bursting, sponsors of the far-reaching Proposition 5 are asking voters in November to go in the opposite direction.

The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, funded in part by billionaire George Soros, would be "the most ambitious sentencing and prison reform in U.S. history," according to the Drug Policy Alliance Network, a primary sponsor.

By 2010, the measure would commit the state to spending at least $460 million a year, mostly to increase treatment -- and eliminate incarceration -- for those who commit nonviolent crimes involving drugs or fueled by them.

Even when drugs aren't involved, the state no longer could seek to return many ex-convicts to prison for low-level parole violations, as occurred nearly 18,000 times last year, or revoke parole for actions that would qualify as misdemeanor crimes.

Parole terms for some offenders would decrease from three years to six months. A new prison bureaucracy devoted to rehabilitation would be created. And possession an ounce or less of marijuana would be an infraction, instead of a misdemeanor.

The measure could eventually cost Californians up to $1 billion, but also could ultimately save that much by reducing incarceration, according to the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst.

Opponents contend that the drug treatment offered in lieu of incarceration would be toothless, a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for addicts. They say the Drug Policy Alliance Network -- a spinoff of Soros' New York-based Open Society Institute, which fights against punitive drug laws -- is using the initiative to chip away at its true agenda: legalizing drugs.

"It is very well-crafted to move several steps in the direction of decriminalization," said Douglas B. Marlowe, chief of science, policy and law for the National Assn. of Drug Court Professionals. The backers "don't think that drugs should be illegal to begin with."

Law enforcement groups said the initiative would be difficult to change, requiring a four-fifths vote of the state Legislature, and lead to an increase in crime. And they object to a provision that would allow the expunging of some records, saying that, for example, a methamphetamine addict who steals cars can avoid prison, if a judge agrees, and have his record sealed after completing treatment.

Opponents have raised less than $300,000 for their campaign against the initiative, mainly from law enforcement groups and a San Diego County Indian tribe, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, state records show. Supp