The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

October 21, 2009

AZ: Judge rules against Arpaio who demanded $300-$600 of prepayment for transportation for women seeking access to abortion care.

From the ACLU: "A victory for incarcerated women against Sheriff Joe Arpaio The judge ordered that it was unconstitutional for Maricopa Jail to require "prepayment" of transportation costs for those women seeking to access abortion care."

Judge: No prepayment for abortion transport
by Michael Kiefer - Oct. 21, 2009
The Arizona Republic

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge on Tuesday ruled that the Sheriff's Office cannot force jail inmates to prepay the cost of being transported to a clinic to obtain an abortion.

Judge Robert Oberbillig said he felt "compelled" to add the ruling to an existing injunction against the Sheriff's Office forbidding it from demanding court orders before taking inmates to abortion clinics.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio appealed that 2005 injunction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.

Then his office told another inmate that she would have to pay $300 to $600 in advance to cover the office's cost of transport and security before being taken to the clinic. If she wanted a waiver for the fee, she could get a court order. The woman was able to obtain funds for the transport. Still, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which brought the initial suit, argued that the prepayment created another obstacle to a woman's right to obtain a timely abortion under the U.S. Constitution.

Deputy Chief Sheriff Jack MacIntyre told The Republic that the court should have waited for a new case with a plaintiff who still needed an abortion, "someone whose actual constitutional rights have been affected. This really is judicial activism taken a few steps too far," he said.

But ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri told the court, "That will effectively mean that some women will lose their constitutional right and be forced to carry a child to term."

Amiri told the court that the three women who have been plaintiffs over the history of the case had their abortions delayed seven weeks, four weeks and six weeks, respectively, which she claimed placed their health in danger and delayed their constitutional rights.

The ACLU did not dispute the sheriff's right to demand reimbursement for the transport costs.

But Daryl Manhart, an attorney for the Sheriff's Office, argued that extending credit in advance would be tantamount to giving away the money, as the inmates would likely not pay it back.

Oberbillig questioned Manhart rigorously over the hour-and-a-half long hearing, but ultimately ruled on the side of the side of the ACLU.

MacIntyre and Manhart both said that the Sheriff's Office would likely appeal the ruling.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/10/21/20091021acluabortion1021.html

Posted by lois at 12:20 PM | Comments (0)

October 06, 2009

Letter to the Editor (NY Times) on Abuse of Women Prisoners

Letter to the Editor: Abuse of Female Prisoners
Published: October 2, 2009
To the Editor:
Re “Prisoners’ Rights” (editorial, Sept. 24):

You are right to call for legislation amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We sued on behalf of female prisoners in the New York State prison system who reported that they had been sexually assaulted by staff members, and have been appalled to spend the last six years litigating whether these 17 women — each of whom bravely complained of her abuse to departmental officials — exhausted their administrative remedies sufficiently to satisfy the law.

As a result, New York State has been able to avoid addressing the prison system’s longstanding failure to protect female prisoners from sexual abuse, allowing more and more women to be victimized.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act was sold in Congress as a measure against frivolous litigation, but has served in reality to prevent the redress of the most serious violations of prisoners’ human rights. The time has come for reform, or better yet, repeal of the law.

Lisa Freeman
Dori Lewis
New York, Sept. 24, 2009

The writers are lawyers with the Prisoners’ Rights Project of the Legal Aid Society and lawyers for the plaintiffs in Amador v. Andrews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/lweb02prisoner.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print_

Here is the editorial:
Editorial
Prisoners’ Rights

Published: September 23, 2009

In 1996, Congress passed a law that made it much harder for inmates to challenge abusive treatment. It has contributed significantly to the bad conditions — including the desperate overcrowding — that prevail today. The law must be fixed.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Prisons and Prisoners

In the name of clamping down on frivolous lawsuits, the Prison Reform Litigation Act barred prisoners from suing prisons and jails unless they could show that they had suffered a physical injury. Prison officials have used this requirement to block lawsuits challenging all sorts of horrific conditions, including sexual abuse.

The law also requires inmates to present their claims to prison officials before filing a suit. The prisons set the rules for those grievance procedures, notes Stephen Bright, the president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and they have an incentive to make the rules as complicated as possible, so prisoners will not be able to sue. “That has become the main purpose of many grievance systems,” Mr. Bright told Congress last year.

In the last Congress, Representative Robert Scott, Democrat of Virginia, sponsored the Prison Abuse Remedies Act. It would have eliminated the physical injury requirement and made it harder for prison officials to get suits dismissed for failure to exhaust grievance procedures. It would have exempted juveniles, who are especially vulnerable to abuse, from the law’s restrictions.

The bill’s supporters need to try again this year. Conditions in the nation’s overcrowded prisons are becoming increasingly dangerous; recently, there have been major riots in California and Kentucky. Prisoner lawsuits are a way of reining in the worst abuses, which contribute to prison riots and other violence.

The main reason to pass the new law, though, is human decency. The only way to ensure that inmates are not mistreated is to guarantee them a fair opportunity to bring their legitimate complaints to court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/opinion/24thu4.html?scp=1&sq=prisoners%E2%80%99%20rights&st=cse

Posted by lois at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)

October 01, 2009

Erie Co NY: Justice Department files suit against jail and holding center alleging violations of constitutional rights of prisoners

Federal Government Files Suit Over Holding Center
Steve Cichon Reporting
scichon@entercom.com

The Justice Department issued the following news release:

WASHINGTON – The United States has filed a lawsuit alleging that conditions at the Erie County Holding Center, a pre-trial detention center in Buffalo, N.Y., and the Erie County Correctional Facility, a correctional facility in Alden, N.Y, routinely and systematically deprive inmates of constitutional rights, the Justice Department announced. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

The lawsuit follows a nearly two year investigation, the findings of which were detailed in a letter sent to Erie County Executive Chris Collins on July 15, 2009. That letter documented evidence of numerous constitutional violations, including staff-on-inmate violence; inmate-on-inmate violence; sexual misconduct between staff and inmates; sexual misconduct among inmates; an inadequate system to prevent suicide and self-injurious behavior; inadequate medical and mental health care; and serious deficiencies in environmental health and safety.

The department’s investigation revealed evidence of a number of serious violations of constitutional rights at the jail. For example, Erie County fails to protect inmates against known suicide risks and to provide constitutionally required mental health care. Since 2003, nine inmates have committed suicide, and at least 15 inmates have attempted to commit suicide or have taken steps that demonstrated suicidal ideation. Between 2007 and 2008, there were three suicides and at least 10 attempted suicides.

“Jails must provide for the basic medical and mental health needs of inmates and must keep them safe from attacks by other inmates and excessive force by staff. We have repeatedly sought the county’s cooperation in working toward an amicable resolution in this matter, and we regret that the county’s failure to cooperate compels us to litigate,” said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “In light of the severity of the conditions, including multiple suicides and beatings, we must take action to ensure that the constitutional rights of those persons detained at the facilities, many of whom have not been convicted of any crime, are protected.”

Kathleen M. Mehltretter, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York, stated, “Our purpose in bringing this action is to ensure that the facilities consistently maintain policies, procedures and practices that protect the well being and health of the inmates. Due to the county's lack of cooperation, we must seek court intervention to resolve these issues.”

The Civil Rights Division is authorized to conduct such investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (CRIPA). This statute allows the federal government to identify and root out systemic abuses such as those discovered in Erie County. Under CRIPA, the Justice Department has investigated the conditions at nursing homes, mental health facilities, residences for persons with developmental disabilities, and juvenile justice facilities, as well as similar institutions.
Links to the suit can be found here:
http://www.wben.com/Federal-Government-Files-Suit-Over-Holding-Center/5335390

Posted by lois at 09:22 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2009

NY Times Editorial: Prisoners' Rights ---"Prisoner lawsuits are a way of reining in the worst abuses, which contribute to prison riots and other violence."

September 24, 2009
Editorial :Prisoners’ Rights
NY Times

In 1996, Congress passed a law that made it much harder for inmates to challenge abusive treatment. It has contributed significantly to the bad conditions — including the desperate overcrowding — that prevail today. The law must be fixed.

In the name of clamping down on frivolous lawsuits, the Prison Reform Litigation Act barred prisoners from suing prisons and jails unless they could show that they had suffered a physical injury. Prison officials have used this requirement to block lawsuits challenging all sorts of horrific conditions, including sexual abuse.

The law also requires inmates to present their claims to prison officials before filing a suit. The prisons set the rules for those grievance procedures, notes Stephen Bright, the president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and they have an incentive to make the rules as complicated as possible, so prisoners will not be able to sue. “That has become the main purpose of many grievance systems,” Mr. Bright told Congress last year.

In the last Congress, Representative Robert Scott, Democrat of Virginia, sponsored the Prison Abuse Remedies Act. It would have eliminated the physical injury requirement and made it harder for prison officials to get suits dismissed for failure to exhaust grievance procedures. It would have exempted juveniles, who are especially vulnerable to abuse, from the law’s restrictions.

The bill’s supporters need to try again this year. Conditions in the nation’s overcrowded prisons are becoming increasingly dangerous; recently, there have been major riots in California and Kentucky. Prisoner lawsuits are a way of reining in the worst abuses, which contribute to prison riots and other violence.

The main reason to pass the new law, though, is human decency. The only way to ensure that inmates are not mistreated is to guarantee them a fair opportunity to bring their legitimate complaints to court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/opinion/24thu4.html?_r=1

Posted by lois at 08:49 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2009

MA: Supreme Judicial Court Rules All Prison/Jail Calls are Not Private

“Under today’s decision, prosecutors, for the first time, can listen to every telephone conversation a prisoner has with all family members, doctors, social workers, or priests,’’ Garin said. “This allows prosecutors to get any of those recordings for any reason and no reason.’’
The Boston Globe
Jailhouse calls are not private, SJC rules
Conversations can be subpoenaed
By Shelley Murphy
Globe Staff / September 12, 2009

In a 4-to-3 decision that could have a sweeping impact on grand jury investigations and prisoner privacy, the state’s highest court ruled yesterday that prosecutors may subpoena recordings of telephone calls made from jail by inmates and people who are being held while awaiting trial.

Rejecting contentions that the subpoenas violate prisoners’ privacy rights, the Supreme Judicial Court found that both inmates and pretrial detainees have no reasonable expectation of privacy because they are clearly warned that all telephone calls are subject to monitoring and recording.

“Here, where all parties to the recorded telephone calls had notice that their conversations were not private, and where the detainee or inmate had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, any privacy interest in those conversations must be given little, if any weight,’’ Justice Roderick L. Ireland wrote in the majority opinion.

The court found that prison officials have a right to record conversations because of security concerns and that prosecutors are entitled to subpoena tapes of those calls while gathering evidence to present to grand juries.

Currently, all prisoner calls are subject to monitoring or recording, except those between prisoners and their lawyers. Under the ruling, prisoners’ conversations with their lawyers would remain protected by the attorney-client privilege and would not be recorded or subject to subpoenas.

In her dissent, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote that “the implications of this are profound’’ because prison officials and prosecutors are no longer constrained by privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution from any use they may make of private phone conversations of all inmates, even those of detainees who have not been convicted.

She raised concerns about whether prosecutors were seeking to subpoena telephone calls between inmates and their pastors, therapists, or spouses, and those between juvenile detainees and their parents.

“Although institutional security concerns may outweigh a detainee’s privacy rights and permit monitoring of a detainee’s telephone calls by the sheriff, it does not follow that a detainee can have no subjective expectation of privacy with regard to other government officials,’’ Marshall wrote.

In the majority opinion, the court upheld a lower court judge who ruled that Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea J. Cabral was required to comply with a grand jury subpoena from Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley’s office seeking all of the recorded telephone calls of a prisoner.

Citing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, Conley’s office declined to identify the prisoner.

A spokesman for Cabral said she had asked the high court to rule on the constitutionality of the subpoenas after a judge in an unrelated case found last year that such subpoenas violated privacy rights.

Yesterday, Conley hailed the Supreme Judicial Court decision as a victory for prosecutors, noting that his office used recordings of jailhouse telephone calls to win convictions for murder, witness intimidation, perjury, and other violent crimes.

“Barring the use of jail calls could have resulted not just in acquittals, but in retaliation against witnesses,’’ Conley said. “Defendants make mistakes and that sometimes is what provides the crucial break. That allows you to hold them accountable for their actions.’’

But the decision drew swift condemnation from defense lawyers.

William J. Leahy, chief counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, called the decision “profoundly wrong’’ and said lawyers will explore legislation that would restrict the ability of prosecutors to subpoena jailhouse calls.

“It’s one thing to say that because you are locked up and the institution needs to be secure that the calls need to be recorded; it’s another thing to say that everything in every conversation can be in every prosecutor’s file at the beck and call of the prosecutor,’’ Leahy said. “It’s just so sweeping that it really requires correction by a higher court or by the state Legislature.’’

It is unclear whether the decision means that Middlesex prosecutors will be able to use jailhouse calls between teenage murder suspect John Odgren and his parents at his upcoming trial for the 2007 stabbing death of fellow student James Alenson at Lincoln Sudbury Regional High School.

The Supreme Judicial Court has yet to rule on an appeal from Middlesex prosecutors, who argued that a judge erred when he blocked them from using 30 hours of Odgren’s conversations taped at the Plymouth County jail.

The lower court judge found that the subpoena for Odgren’s conversations was too broad and violated requirements that such requests be linked to a court hearing.

Boston attorney Patricia Garin, who is one of Odgren’s lawyers, called yesterday’s ruling “a terrible decision’’ that will affect incarcerated children, yet fails to address issues that are unique to them. In some facilities, all of their conversations with their parents are recorded and could now be subpoenaed, she said.

“Under today’s decision, prosecutors, for the first time, can listen to every telephone conversation a prisoner has with all family members, doctors, social workers, or priests,’’ Garin said. “This allows prosecutors to get any of those recordings for any reason and no reason.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/12/jailhouse_calls_are_not_private_sjc_rules/

Posted by lois at 05:00 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 02, 2009

Story and Editorial: Trapped in Tamms: In Illinois' only supermax facility, inmates are in cells 23 hours a day

Opinion: Why Tamms Matters to All
Sunday, Aug. 02, 2009

Many people who read today's front-page story about the Tamms supermax prison probably won't have much empathy for Faygie Fields, Chris Marcum and the other inmates discussed. So what if murderers and violent criminals are kept in solitary confinement for years on end?

But Illinois residents should care -- if not for the inmates, then for themselves.

We're a nation that disavows cruel and unusual punishment of criminals, and most reasonable people would agree that keeping someone in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for 10 years or more -- the fate of 54 of the Tamms inmates -- is cruel and unusual. They don't get any phone calls, or education or religious services; just walls.

The people who created Tamms never envisioned such extended stays; they thought inmates would be sent there for a year at most. Their idea was to deter violence in prisons, but a union spokesman for state prison guards said violence actually has increased in the past decade.

Not only is Tamms not accomplishing its objective, but it seems to be creating new problems. Keeping inmates in solitary confinement for years causes many of them to either develop mental problems, or to worsen existing conditions. Many of these men eventually will be released back into society.

Gov. Pat Quinn has ordered Michael Randle, his new director of the state Department of Corrections, to investigate Tamms. Good. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished, but the state needs to be smart and humane on how it goes about it.
http://www.bnd.com/editorial/story/866411.html
Story follows.....
www.yearten.org (Tamms Year Ten Organizing Committee)

Trapped in Tamms: In Illinois' only supermax facility, inmates are in cells 23 hours a day
Sunday, Aug. 02, 2009
BY GEORGE PAWLACZYK AND BETH HUNDSDORFER - News-Democrat
Belleville News Democrat
PART I
Faygie Fields' escape from years of solitary confinement on the toughest wing of Illinois' only state-run supermax prison began with food.

He claimed there were rat droppings in his rice, bugs in his beans and poison in his Tylenol.

Guards at the supermax Tamms Correctional Center in the southern tip of Illinois told Fields to cut it out. He wasn't going to fake his way to the easier prison mental health unit. It was all an act, they said. He had tried it before.

Reports from other lockups, where Fields was often held in solitary, laid out his dismal disciplinary history. He threw Kaopectate, milk cartons, urine, tomatoes, Kool-Aid, a food tray. He grabbed at keys. He pulled away from handcuffs. Fields was just plain bad, the reports concluded.

What the supermax staff didn't know because records were not initially forwarded was that while in his teens, Fields had been committed four times to Chicago-area mental hospitals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and collected disability payments because of mental illness. Untreated schizophrenics can result in violent actions. Fields was sentenced to state prison in 1984 at age 25 for shooting a man to death during a drug deal.

According to the Illinois Department of Corrections, Fields is among the "worst of the worst," an extremely violent inmate who cannot be safely held anywhere but at Tamms, a maximum discipline and security prison.

But critics of the prison say Fields is a victim of a deeply flawed policy that punishes mentally ill inmates for behavior they cannot control by placing them in solitary confinement for long periods, in many cases 10 years or more.

Such punishment, some critics say, amounts to torture worse than that experienced by suspected terrorists at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

After his transfer 11 years ago to Tamms, Fields coped in ways bizarre and self-destructive common to many inmates held in continuous solitary confinement. He sliced his arms and throat with bits of glass, metal and paint chips. A prison doctor who stitched him up once testified he didn't always inject anesthetic because the skin of many Tamms inmates became numb from massive scarring from repeated self-mutilation.

Fields smeared excrement in his cell so often that maintenance men painted it with an easier to clean coating. He swallowed glass. Prison officials charged him $5.30 for tearing up a state-owned sheet to make a noose to kill himself.

And then in 2004, after he had been held alone and often naked in a segregation cell for nearly six years, two psychiatrists called to testify in an ongoing lawsuit about conditions at the prison examined him and his medical records and said Fields was a schizophrenic who needed immediate treatment. They also reviewed a long-ignored 1999 report by psychiatrist Dr. Bernard Rubin, a former director of the Illinois Department of Mental Health, diagnosing Fields a year after his arrival at Tamms as a paranoid schizophrenic whose condition was deteriorating. The MacArthur Justice Center of Chicago filed the lawsuit on behalf of Fields and three other Tamms inmates.

Two Illinois Department of Corrections psychiatrists did not find Fields to be a schizophrenic. The prison's supervising psychologist, Kelly Rhodes, countered that Fields was trying to fake his way to easier time. Under oath, Rhodes described self-mutilation as a game.

"They'll compete with each other to see who can cut because it's fun," she said, according to a deposition.

The lawsuit resulted in a court order moving Fields in 2005 to the Tamms mental health unit where, like all inmates at the supermax, he is held in solitary but receives treatment.

The psychiatrists who testified on his behalf said Fields' multiple convictions for aggravated assault against guards resulted from behavior symptomatic of his mental illness.

If he hadn't been charged with crimes in prison, Fields could have been paroled in 2004 after serving 20 years of a 40-year sentence. But Fields must serve all the extra time for throwing food, urine and committing other offenses against guards. That amounts to 34 years, or 54 years total that he must serve before becoming eligible for parole in 2038, at age 79.

Ten years of solitary

Illinois has about 45,000 state prisoners. The state built Tamms to reduce violence among prisoners statewide by taking the "worst of the worst" and holding them in solitary confinement at one location for about a year, or until their behavior improved.

But 54 inmates at Tamms have been held in continuous solitary confinement for more than 10 years, according to an investigation by the Belleville News-Democrat. They include 39 like Fields who have been held continuously since they were transferred there in 1998, the year the prison opened.

Many others have been held for seven, eight or nine years. All Tamms inmates are held in solitary. They spend 23 hours a day in their cells. In March, the torture watchdog group Amnesty International issued a statement citing Tamms:

"The harsh conditions of isolation endured by many prisoners for years on end appear to be unnecessarily punitive and may breach international standards for humane treatment," it said.

George Welborn, Tamms' first warden, defended the prison's treatment of prisoners.

"It's very, very hard time. ... Is it constitutional incarceration? Yes it is. The court cases to this point have shown that. We're not beating them. We're not starving them," he said.

Shortly after Gov. Pat Quinn appointed Michael Randle as the new director of the Illinois Department of Corrections in June, Quinn directed him to investigate Tamms. Randle said after spending a day at Tamms, he believed it held highly dangerous prisoners who could not be imprisoned elsewhere. Records show that the majority of Tamms inmates are convicted murderers and that a small number have murdered staff and inmates at other prisons.

"I am not comfortable at this point having those offenders out of Tamms," he said during a telephone interview.

Randle would not say whether he considers 10 years and more in solitary confinement to be cruel. He conceded that harsh conditions such as not allowing telephone calls, religious services or education programs might be eased.

"There are things we are going to continue to look at in terms of giving offenders an avenue to demonstrate the appropriate conduct to earn their way out of Tamms," he said.

The News-Democrat's investigation found that Tamms may not only house the "worst of the worst.'' Prison and court records also raised questions about the prison medical staff's ability to identify inmates with serious mental problems who need treatment.

The investigation showed:

* Of 247 Tamms inmates listed June 30 on the prison's roster, 138 had not been convicted of a crime after entering the prison system.

* Of the remaining 109 inmates convicted of a crime after entering prison, 55 committed assaults such as throwing body wastes and spitting on or struggling with guards, and possessing contraband or homemade weapons -- acts that did not lead to serious injury and can be attributed in some cases to mental illness and a need for self-protection.

* Of the more than 250 inmates transferred to Tamms since 1999, records provided by the Department of Corrections show that only six who passed through the mental health screening process were placed in the prison's Special Treatment Unit for seriously mentally ill prisoners, despite a 2005 U.S. Department of Justice study that shows that 15-23 percent of state prison inmates are seriously mentally ill. Department of Corrections chief counsel Ed Huntley would not provide information about the total of inmates Tamms staff rejected for mental health reasons who were returned to other lockups.

* Sixteen inmates at the supermax entered the prison system for relatively minor crimes, such as car theft, forgery, burglary and drug offenses, but incurred huge amounts of additional time -- 92 years in one case -- for in-prison crimes including guard assaults and possessing a shank, or homemade knife. State law requires this time be served consecutively, or after the original sentence.

Tamms, a 500-bed, $70-million cluster of concrete buildings in Alexander County, is smaller than some county jails. The state keeps it half full so that there is room to transfer inmates if a riot occurs elsewhere.

Many of its inmates live in segregation or the disciplinary part of the prison.

Information from the Department of Corrections shows that from Jan. 1 to June 30, Tamms transferred 15 inmates to other prisons. But of this number, three inmates were within a few months to a year from parole and had to be transferred under a regulation that prohibits Tamms prisoners from being released into the public directly from the supermax.

A 2001 study by Southern Illinois University Carbondale graduate student Chad Briggs questioned the value of Tamms as a deterrent to violence. He concluded that despite sending inmates to the supermax, the rate of assaults on guards throughout the prison system either stayed the same or increased.

Prison violence has increased in recent years, said the guards' union spokesman Anders Lindall of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Too few guards and prisoner overcrowding are to blame, he said.

"The state tells us they can't track the data, even on a facility-by-facility basis, but based on the anecdotal evidence that we've seen from our members, violence has increased," Lindall said.

The Tamms Year Ten Committee, a confederation of activists supported by at least two Chicago area state representatives, is also monitoring conditions at the prison. One of the state representatives is Julie Hamos, D-Evanston, who has introduced a bill to improve conditions at Tamms.

"It is a form of insanity to put people in a place that provokes mental illness and then waste taxpayers' money to treat the symptoms," said committee member Laurie Jo Reynolds. "Or worse yet, releasing them without treatment. ... Either they went in crazy, or they go crazy once they are there."

Extended isolation

Solitary confinement beyond 30-90 days invariably leads to mental breakdown and behavior that becomes worse, not better, according to Dr. Terry A. Kupers of the Wright Institute, a clinical psychology graduate school in Berkeley, Calif. Kupers is one of three psychiatrists who diagnosed Fields as a schizophrenic.

"Anything in solitary longer than three months, what it does is the individual feels hopeless. One of the universal fears that people in supermaxes tell me is, 'I'm going to die in here,'" said Kupers, who has conducted hundreds of court-ordered interviews of men in long-term isolation, including Tamms inmates.

"They know they can't control their behavior enough, or please their wardens enough to ever get out," he said. "Twenty-three hours a day alone in a cell causes many inmates to brutally attack themselves.

"In the adult male population of the United States, self-mutilation occurs only in solitary confinement," he said. "It's an epidemic across the country. They're not faking."

In a prison population such as Tamms, where most inmates are murderers, Chris Marcum of Granite City might seem out of place. At age 20, he was sentenced in Madison County Circuit Court to six years for burglary with parole after three years.

But Marcum, now 32, got nine years added to his sentence because he possessed a shank and committed other in-prison crimes. In Tamms he was known as a "cutter." His left arm is covered front and back from forearm to biceps with long, whitish scars.

"I just wanted to feel something. It was the only way I coped with, at the time, with being incarcerated. You lose all sense of everything. It helped me with what I was going through, but it hurt a lot," he said.

Unlike some cutters, he said he did not handle his body wastes.

"I've seen in other prisons inmates cut on themselves, but there wasn't that many people doing it. But at Tamms, every wing I went on there was at least one inmate that had a glass shield on his door, played with his feces and cut on himself."

The shields prevent inmates from throwing body wastes through any of about 400 dime-sized holes in their cell doors.

His mother, Nancy Marcum, would visit him in the Tamms visiting room, where the inmate is behind Plexiglas and chained to a concrete block. She said her son, "kept his arms under the table so I couldn't see. When I found out this was happening, all I could do was cry."

In several lawsuits challenging conditions at Tamms, prison officials have testified that self-mutilation is not a symptom of serious mental illness because the inmate can stop at will.

Chicago attorney Jean Snyder, the lead attorney in the lawsuit involving Faygie Fields, said, "What kind of a guy is slicing up his penis and his arms to get out of prison? Is it an answer to say he could stop it if he wanted to?"

Explosive situation

When he was 7 years old, Tamms inmate Jerome Moore used drugs. At age 10, he was confined to a state mental ward. At 11, he was selling drugs and living on the street. He was shot that same year and spent weeks in a hospital. Sent to juvenile detention at 13, Moore was suspected of but never charged with a double homicide. At age 17, Moore was sentenced to state prison for attempted murder. In 2000, at age 19, he was sent to Tamms.

Forensic psychologist Michael E. Althoff, of Carbondale, outlined this history of Moore in a 2005 mental evaluation. Yet, despite documented mental illness, prison officials regarded Moore as a "malingerer" who faked symptoms.

What was different in Moore's case was that besides the finding of "malingering," Althoff confirmed a diagnosis of "intermittent explosive disorder," uncontrollable rage totally out of proportion to a perceived insult or threat.

Moore faced a maximum of 23 years for attempted murder but now must serve at least 38 years. The extra time came from assaults on guards -- incidents that, except for one, did not include a weapon or result in serious injury but instead consisted of throwing food and body wastes or twisting away from handcuffs.

Psychiatrist Dr. Stuart Grassian of Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was on the staff of Harvard Medical School for nearly 30 years and has written widely about the effects of solitary confinement, said inmates like Moore are likely to continue to commit impulsive violence as long as they are kept in solitary confinement. He said prison mental health staff often have distorted views of supermax inmates.

"There's a tremendous pull toward seeing everything that you're looking at as bad behavior that needs to be punished, rather than recognizing that it's actually a response to mental illness," Grassian said. "People tend to think of them (supermax inmates) as the James Cagneys of the prison system. They're not. They are actually the wretched of the earth. ... The paradigm (model) in the prison system is if you punish bad behavior enough it'll get better. That's obviously a paradigm that doesn't work."

Marcum, the former Tamms inmate from Granite City, said he remembers a lot of behavior that caused guards to react, but none more bizarre than when inmate Anthony Gay of Rock Island ate his own flesh. The incident is corroborated in federal court documents.

"I was in the infirmary for 11 days because I was on a hunger strike and he was there on suicidal watch," Marcum said. "And every four hours they came around and took my vitals. And he did it right in front of the window when I was standing there at my cell getting my vitals checked. He just cut a little piece of his skin off and ate it. Right in front of them and they didn't do nothing except go in his cell and search for the object he used to cut on himself."

Tamms' first warden

Welborn, Tamms' first warden, hadn't expected the reporters who showed up at his door in Anna, 20 miles north of the prison in Tamms. He regarded them warily. But when Welborn, who helped design Tamms, heard one of them say, "Darrell Cannon says hello," he smiled and said, "How is DC?"

Welborn and Cannon, a murderer convicted in Cook County, formed an unlikely alliance at the maximum security Menard Correctional Center in Chester. Welborn was the warden; Cannon was an inmate who, he said, helped Welborn ease tension between gang members and guards.

Cannon said he was astounded in 1998 to be rousted out of his Menard cell and shipped to the newly opened supermax at Tamms. When he got to Tamms, Cannon said Welborn came to his cell and told him, "Hey look. You do one year down here and if you don't have any tickets, no disciplinary problems, after that you'll be shifted outside again."

But Cannon did nine years at Tamms and got out only after a federal judge ordered his parole following testimony that crooked Chicago detectives set him up on the murder charge.

Welborn, who retired in 2002, said he never expected inmates to be held at Tamms for 10 years or more.

"I don't lose a lot of sleep over those guys who have been there 10 years ... (but) I think they should have been given the opportunity to go back to a reduced security facility and then, if they screw up again, it's right back to Tamms. It was not intended to be a place where guys would be there for eight to 10 years."

In a lawsuit deposition, Welborn disputed allegations that the policy of holding prisoners alone amounted to solitary confinement.

"This isn't like throwing a guy in a closet," he testified.

Cannon disagreed.

"It was total solitary confinement. There were times I would wake up shaking. It would be my system trying to, I don't know, go haywire. I would have to get up off that concrete bed and go to the sink and run some cold water and wait until the sink fills up and then throw the water all over me," he said. "And I would have to talk to myself and say, 'Hey, look. Do not break. You can't let this happen.'"

Cannon said he never engaged in self-mutilation but knew of many inmates who did.

"I would walk the floor in circles. And I may do that for two hours straight," he said.

He set aside a special night for the music of his youth.

"Saturday night was dedicated to all the old songs. Blue Moon. Stand By Me ... all those old songs I could think of. I would try to remember the words. I would sing just loud enough where I could hear myself."

Back to Tamms

Richard Conner, a murderer doing life, attempted to hang himself in his cell at Tamms in December, but wound up instead in a coma at Heartland Community Hospital in Marion.

Although the Department of Corrections won't talk about it, members of the Tamms Year Ten Committee believe Conner tried to kill himself a few weeks earlier by slitting his wrists.

After recovering, the prison system sent Conner, 38, to its Dixon Psychiatric Unit and then on to the maximum security Stateville Correctional Center at Joliet. And there, on April 2, guards opened the cell that Conner shared with Jameson S. Leezer and found Leezer dead. Leezer, a car thief, was 18 days from parole.

An autopsy showed that Leezer had been strangled, and Conner, the only other person in the locked cell, was the obvious suspect. Instead of returning him to the prison system psychiatric hospital at Dixon, authorities sent Conner back to Tamms.

No decision has been made on whether to prosecute Conner for Leezer's murder. A Department of Corrections directive issued on May 11 stated that any Tamms inmate transferred out must be held in a single cell.

In another incident, guards found Robert Foor, 33, dead on June 23 in his cell in the Tamms Special Treatment Unit, or mental ward. He was convicted of robbery and burglary in 1994 and given nine years but accrued eight years of extra time because of in-prison convictions.

Debbie Elsoff of Malta, Ill., Foor's mother, said that an autopsy did not determine how her son died. She said that when she informed prison officials that she could not afford to pay for her son's cremation or to have his body shipped home, they said they would cremate him there but could not turn over his remains because of state law.

"I cried all night when I heard that," said Elsoff.

Later, a non-profit group agreed to pay for Foor's cremation, and his remains were sent to his mother.

Malcolm Young, who until recently was the director of the prison reform organization The John Howard Association, said the policy at Tamms to use extreme discipline to respond to problems that many consider are caused by mental illness causes psychological deterioration, even worse behavior and sometimes suicide.

"It is not a dirty place. It's not a hole in the ground with mice and rats and everything else," he said, "But it is just total isolation and it operates to purposely deprive the men that are there from contact with other people."

Young, a lawyer at Northwestern University's Bluhm Legal Clinic, said even the way inmates are moved to the yard reinforces the debilitating effect of solitary confinement. The yard represents the one hour a day when inmates are not in their cells, yet they are still alone in a concrete box with a roof of steel mesh that half covers the sky.

Inmates head to the yard handcuffed and shackled inside a special caged chute with two guards outside the wire keeping pace.

"It's just the mechanical way they do it. It's like a ballet that emphasizes the separation between the prisoner and any other human being," he said. "The design of the place. The way the windows are situated too high to see out of. All of it just drives home that you are in a totally sterile environment as is possible to put you in and keep it legal."

For more than eight years, Nancy Meyer of Elgin has corresponded with Tamms prisoners. She often drives the 700-mile round trip to visit about a dozen men there she has come to know well.

Meyer said she sends money to inmates and contacts family members who often haven't heard about their loved ones for years. Some tell her not to call again.

Of the inmates on her list, Faygie Fields is her favorite. She says that even though Fields is a grown man and a convicted murderer, something about his optimism, even cheerfulness, makes her heart go out to him. In his Tamms mugshot, Fields is smiling.

"I see that face and he smiles and I say, 'Faygie, how are you doing? You're not hurting yourself anymore because if you are I won't come to see you.' He always says he isn't, but I know he will."

In a handwritten letter dated April 6, Fields used a plus sign for the word "and," capital letters for emphasis and dropped question marks in odd places.

While the sentences were fragmented and the grammar vague, the message was clear: "Please know that Tamms is driving ME CRAZY all of them keep saying none of us can leave here. But keeps all here? + in a Eternal Twilight Zone that has no ending?"
http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/865377.html

Posted by lois at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)

March 03, 2009

GAO Finds ICE Program Expanded Without Proper Oversight

MARCH 3, 2009, 7:03 P.M. ET
Study Finds ICE Program Expanded Without Proper Oversight
Wall St. Journal On-Line
By MIRIAM JORDAN

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement program that trains local police to arrest illegal immigrants suspected of committing serious crimes has expanded without appropriate oversight, leading to the arrest of thousands for minor infractions, according to a study scheduled to be released Wednesday.

The Government Accountability Office report comes amid calls from human-rights organizations and immigrant advocates for former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, in her new role as secretary of Homeland Security, to bring down the curtain on the so-called 287g program. The program has been a symbol of the Bush administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

The GAO review, requested by the House and Senate homeland-security panels, found that program participants used their 287g authority "to process individuals for minor crimes, such as speeding, contrary to the objective of the program."

ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, has touted the program as a public-safety measure designed to deport immigrants who committed serious crimes.

The GAO report said that ICE hasn't established clear objectives or supervision for the program after training local law enforcement. More than half of the 29 participating agencies that the GAO contacted for its study reported concerns from community members that the program led to racial profiling and intimidation.

An estimated 12 million immigrants, mainly from Latin America, live in the U.S. illegally. Since January 2006, the program has arrested more than 79,000 individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. More than 950 state and local law-enforcement officials, including highway patrol, sheriff deputies and police, have been trained and certified through the program in 67 jurisdictions, including Alabama, Florida, Arizona and California.

The 287g program has been hailed by politicians and groups who favor tough measures, particularly deportation, to punish people in the country illegally. But there has been growing criticism of the program by immigrant groups and Democratic leaders since President Barack Obama took office.

One of the program's biggest advocates has been Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa County. His deputies have arrested more than 1,400 people in the Phoenix area for immigration violations since the county partnered with ICE in 2007.

Last month, Sheriff Arpaio marched about 200 illegal immigrants in shackles and prison stripes from the county jail to a "Tent City" where inmates are housed. On Saturday, 5,000 immigration activists from across the country descended on Phoenix to protest the sheriff's actions.

"Sheriff Arpaio is the poster boy for all that is wrong with the 287g program," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group.

Last week, four Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee asked Secretary Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether Mr. Arpaio's deputies have used skin color as a pretense to stop Hispanics and arrest illegal immigrants. The four Democrats have also called on Secretary Napolitano to terminate the Maricopa County agreement if irregularities cannot be addressed.

ICE referred all the questions about the 287g program to the Homeland Security Department. "Secretary Napolitano is undertaking a broad review of all immigration and border-security programs, policies and initiatives, specifically the 287g program," said Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman for the department.

On Wednesday, the House homeland-security panel will hold a hearing to receive testimony about the 287g program. The GAO report, which is entitled "Better Controls Needed Over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws," will be presented during the session.

The GAO report comes as scrutiny of the 287g program has intensified.

Last week, Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research group, said in its own report about the program that enforcing immigration has distracted local police from their mission of tackling crime and keeping communities safe. The report also said that the ICE program placed a financial burden on states and localities that participate.

Comprehensive immigration reform, which Congress has failed to pass, should be the goal of the Obama administration, according to the report. The 287g program "amounts to a local and state bailout of the failed federal immigration enforcement business," the report says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612361681523585.html

Posted by lois at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2009

Enforcement Gone Bad

Editorial- NY Times
Enforcement Gone Bad
Published: February 21, 2009

The failures of the immigration system are many and severe, but the main problem is not that the country is catching too few undocumented immigrants. It is catching too many. Since the early 1990s, you could write the federal government’s immigration strategy on a cardboard sign: Deport Them All.

A report last week from the Pew Hispanic Center laid bare some striking results of that campaign. It found that Latinos now make up 40 percent of those sentenced in federal courts, even though they are only about 13 percent of the adult population. They accounted for one-third of federal prison inmates in 2007.

The numbers might suggest we are besieged by immigrant criminals. But of all the noncitizen Latinos sentenced last year, the vast majority — 81 percent — were convicted for unlawfully entering or remaining in the country, neither of which is a criminal offense.

The country is filling the federal courts and prisons with nonviolent offenders. It is diverting immense law-enforcement resources from pursuing serious criminals — violent thugs, financial scammers — to an immense, self-defeating campaign to hunt down ... workers.

The Pew report follows news this month that even as a federal program to hunt immigrant fugitives saw its budget soar — to $218 million last year from $9 million in 2003 — its mission went astray. According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, of the 72,000 people arrested through last February, 73 percent had no criminal record. Border Patrol agents in California and Maryland, meanwhile, tell of pressure to arrest workers at day-labor corners and convenience stores to meet quotas.

The country needs to control its borders. It needs to rebuild an effective immigration system and thwart employers who cheat it. It needs to bring the undocumented forward and make citizen taxpayers of them.

For all the billions spent on fences, raids, patrols and prisons, the number of illegal immigrants has steadily grown to about 12 million last year from four million in 1992. So has the need to overhaul the many parts of a festering, broken system: to clear out backlogs in legal immigration, to rescue families from limbo, to throw sunlight on the shadow economy, to deter unlawful hiring, to replace chaos with lawfulness and order. All those priorities have languished in the deportation era.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22sun3.html?ref=opinion

Posted by lois at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2009

Excellent article " The New Political Economy of Immigration"

The New Political Economy of Immigration

By Tom Barry

This article is from the January/February 2009 issue of Dollars & Sense: The Magazine of Economic Justice available at http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0109barry.html

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 drastically altered the traditional political economy of immigration. The millions of undocumented immigrants—those who crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas—who were living and working in the United States were no longer simply regarded as a shadow population or as surplus cheap labor. In the public and policy debate, immigrants were increasingly defined as threats to the nation’s security. Categorizing immigrants as national security threats gave the government’s flailing immigration law-enforcement and border- control operations a new unifying logic that has propelled the immigrant crackdown forward.

Responsibility for immigration law-enforcement and border control passed from the Justice Department to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In Congress Democrats and Republicans alike readily supported a vast expansion of the country’s immigration control apparatus—doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and authorizing a tripling of immigrant prison beds.

Today, after the shift in the immigration debate, the $15 billion-plus DHS budget for immigration affairs has fueled an immigrant-crackdown economy that has greatly boosted the already-bloated prison industry. Even now, with the economy imploding, immigrants are currently behind one of the country’s most profitable industries: they are the nation’s fastest growing sector of the U.S. prison population.

Across the country new prisons are hurriedly being constructed to house the hundreds of thousands of immigrants caught each year. State and local governments are vying with each other to attract new immigrant prisons as the foundation of their rural “economic development” plans.

While DHS is driving immigrants from their jobs and homes, U.S. firms in the business of providing prison beds are raking in record profits from the immigrant crackdown. Although only one piece of the broader story of immigration, it’s all a part of the new political economy of immigration.
Dangerous People

In the new national security context, undocumented immigrants are not just outlaws: They are “dangerous people” who threaten the homeland.

The two DHS agencies involved in immigration enforcement—Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Enforcement (CBP)—have seen their funds increased disproportionately over the last several years, doubling in size while total DHS funding has increased by just a third. The funding for these two agencies is set to rise 19.1% in 2009 while the overall DHS budget will increase by only 6.8%. Hunting down immigrants has become a top DHS priority. As, DHS says its mission is “to prevent terrorist attacks against the nation and to protect our nation from dangerous people.”

Immigrants caught up in DHS dragnets, worksite enforcement raids, and border patrols were the “metrics of success” that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff pointed to in his July 18, 2008 congressional testimony. He used the dramatically increased number of immigrant apprehensions and “removals” as metrics to show that DHS is succeeding in its goal to “secure the homeland and protect the American people.”

While the increased numbers of immigrants being arrested, imprisoned, and deported certainly demonstrate that DHS is busy, they don’t demonstrate that DHS is stopping terrorism. Never in its congressional testimonies or media releases does DHS present evidence that show how the number of immigrants captured improves national security.

A 2007 study by the Transnational Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University found that there has been no increase in terrorism or national security charges against immigrants since 2001. In fact, despite the increased enforcement operations by Homeland Security, more immigrants were charged annually in immigration courts with national security or terrorism-related offenses in a three-year period in the mid-1990s (1994–96) than in a comparable period (2004–2006) since Sept. 11. According to the TRAC study, “A decade later, national security charges were brought against 114 individuals, down about a third. Meanwhile for the same period, terrorism charges are down more than three-fourths, to just 12.”
Enforcing the “Rule of Law”

Rather than addressing immigration as the complex socioeconomic issue that it is, Homeland Security has reduced immigration policy to a system of crime and punishment. Applying the simplistic law-and-order logic propagated by restrictionists, DHS regards undocumented immigrants not as workers, community members, and parents but as criminals.

Following the lead of the anti-immigration institutes and right-wing think tanks, Chertoff came to Homeland Security with a new interpretation of the department’s immigration law enforcement and border control operations: Commitment to a strict enforcement regime to protect the country against foreign terrorists, and to reassert the “rule of law.”

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the restrictionist camp found that their messaging about the “illegality” and “criminality” of undocumented immigrants took on a new resonance. They proceeded to upscale their “what don’t you understand about illegal?” message, to a more conceptual framing of undocumented immigration. Undocumented immigrants now represented a threat to the “rule of law” inside a nation that had just come under foreign attack by foreign outlaws.

Their new language about immigration policy started popping up everywhere, from the pronouncements of immigrant-rights groups to the Democratic Party platform. Instead of promising an “earned path to citizenship,” as it has in the past, the party stated that undocumented immigrants will be required to “get right with the law.”

Looking ahead, Janet Napolitano, President Obama’s nominee to replace Chertoff, while no anti-immigration hardliner, still seems poised to adopt the same law-and-order logic. As a lawyer, former federal prosecutor, and a governor who has insisted on more border control and stood behind a tough employer-sanctions law, Napolitano can be expected to follow the lead of Chertoff and the Democratic Party in insisting that current immigration laws be strictly enforced “to reassert the rule of law.”

Immigrants Mean Business

Political imperatives—protecting the homeland and enforcing the “rule of law”—have over the past eight years countervailed against the economic forces that have historically led in setting immigration policy. Although the immigrant labor market persists, the increased risks for both employer and worker, along with the recessionary economy, appear to be exercising downward pressure on both supply and demand.

But even in the flagging economy, the immigrant crackdown has invigorated other market forces. Eager to cash in on immigrant detention, private prison firms and local governments are rushing to supply Homeland Security and the Justice Department with the prisons needed to house the hundreds of thousands of immigrants captured by ICE and Border Patrol agents.

In the prison industry, bed is a euphemism for a place behind bars. Even President Bush talked the prison-bed language when discussing immigration policy. When visiting the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas in 2006 to promote the immigrant crackdown, the president said: “Beds are our number one priority.”

The number of beds for detained immigrants in DHS centers has increased by more than a third since 2002. There are now 32,000 beds available for the revolving population of immigrants on the path to deportation, and another 1,000 are scheduled to come on line in 2009. This doesn’t include beds for immigrants in Homeland Security custody that are provided by county, state, and the federal Bureau of Prisons.

At the insistence of such immigration restrictionists as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 contained an authorization for an additional 40,000 beds to accommodate immigrants under U.S. government custody.

At the onset of the immigration crackdown two years ago, ICE dubbed its promise to find a detention center or prison bed for all arrested immigrants “Operation Reservation Guaranteed.” The Justice Department has a similar initiative to ensure that the U.S. Marshals Service has beds available for detainees—about 180,000 a year, of whom more than 30% are held on immigration charges.

Most of the prison beds contracted by ICE and DOJ’s Office of Federal Detention Trustee are with local governments; ICE has more than 300 intergovernmental agreements with county and city governments to hold immigrants, while DOJ has some 1200 such agreements. In many cases, particularly with contracts for hundreds of prison beds, the local government then subcontracts with a private prison company to operate the facility.

Prison beds translate into per diem payments from the federal government that are well above the hotel room rates in the remote rural communities where most of these immigrant prisons are located. With these per diems running from $70 to $95 for each immigrant imprisoned, local governments and private firms are hurrying to expand existing facilities or to create new ones.
Depending on Immigrants

The uptick in immigrant detention that saved the industry in 2000 (see sidebar) turned into a mighty upswing in demand for immigrant prison beds after Sept. 11 and the ensuing immigrant crackdown. The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has reported record profits for the last few years, largely on the strength of increasing demand from its ICE and USMS “customers.”

Forty percent of total CCA revenue comes from three federal contractors: Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, and ICE. In its 2007 Security and Exchange Commission filing, CCA stated: “We are dependent on government appropriations.” CCA Chairman William Andrews warned investors that the company’s high returns could be threatened by a change in the policy environment: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts…or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws.”

But to understand just how well the prison business is faring and how immigrants are key to prison profits, you can listen in on the prison firms’ quarterly conference call with major Wall Street investment firms of November 2008.

Corrections Corporation of America boasted that it enjoyed a $33.6 million increase in the third quarter over last year, while earnings rose 15% during the same period. Formerly known as Wackenhut, GEO Group, the nation’s second largest prison company, saw its earnings jump 29% over 2007. Cornell Companies, another private prison firm that imprisons immigrants, reported a 9% increase in net revenues in the third quarter.

Private prison companies aren’t worried that the Democratic Party sweep will mean fewer beds. GEO Group’s chairman George Zoley on Nov. 3 assured investors: “These federal initiatives to target, detain and deport criminal aliens throughout the country will continue to drive the need for immigration detention beds over the next several years and these initiatives have been fully funded by Congress on a bipartisan basis.”

Addressing investor fears that recent decreases in undocumented immigration inflows might dampen company returns, CCA CEO and board chairman John Ferguson said, “So even though we have seen the border crossings and apprehensions decline in the last couple of years, we are really talking about dealing with a population well north of 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.”

The CCA chief assured investors that the company’s dependence on detained immigrants is not a factor of policy but rather of law enforcement. “The Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, Immigration and Custom Enforcement are carrying out statutory obligations for their responsibility….We should continue to see their utilization of the private sector to meet their statutory obligations and requirements.”

The prison executives even intimate that the economic crisis will fatten their business. When asked by an investment company representative about a Ü possible downturn in detained immigrants, James Hyman, president of Cornell Companies, said, “We do not believe we will see a decline in the need for detention beds particularly in an economy with rising unemployment among American workers.”

Immigrant Prisons as Economic Development

Hundreds of local governments are also attempting to take advantage of this rising demand for immigrant prison beds by opening their jails to immigrants under ICE and DOJ custody and by building new jails to meet the anticipated increased demand.

Financial considerations weigh heavily for cash-strapped county commissions and sheriff departments. As Sheriff Roger Mulch told Jefferson County (Illinois) commissioners in late February 2008, “ICE, during the last three months, has been hot to do business with us.” Each locality negotiates independently with ICE and USMS to set the per diem rates, and as the demand from the feds for local jail beds increases, county sheriff departments are negotiating ever-higher rates.

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly in Texas, prisons are a booming industry. Near the border town of Del Rio, the county’s Val Verde Correctional Facility, which is owned and run by GEO Group, had only 180 beds eight years ago. Today, after undergoing its second 600-bed expansion, the maximum-security jail can fit 1,425 prisoners.

In Texas’ Willacy County, the county government opened the country’s largest immigrant detention center in 2006, and is currently pursuing a federal contract to host one of three new family detention centers for immigrants.

County Commissioner Ernie Chapa, explaining how the county government financially depends on jailing immigrants, said: “We would love to have 2,500 [illegal immigrants] but we know that’s not going to be ... If we get 2,200 to 2,300, we’d be very happy.”

Joining in the celebration of the opening of the new jail for immigrants, Willacy County Judge Simone Salinas said, “We are proud to have been able to bring on these new detention beds in record time, which will result in improved border security not only for county residents but also our nation.”

“You talk about economic development, this is it,” Salinas told a reporter, noting the county’s initial cut is $2.25 a day per occupied bed.

A year later, a new agreement with ICE for another thousand beds was greeted enthusiastically by some officials in what is one of the poorest counties in the nation. The new county judge Eliseo Barnhart said the expansion of the immigrant detention center run by CCA will “bring jobs that are needed in Willacy County and it means income, which we desperately need.”

“It’s almost like a futures market. You have private prison companies gambling on expansion of the immigrant detention system, and basically prison speculators who are convincing communities to do this,” Bob Libal, director of Grassroots Leadership in Austin and an organizer with South Texans Opposing Private Prisons, told the Denver Post. “It’s a sick market, but a market nonetheless,” Libal said.

New Political Economy of Immigration

What started off as a war against terrorism has devolved into a war against immigrants. The current “enforcement-only” approach to immigration policy has created a morass of new problems, including a host of human rights and financial issues associated with the annual detention and removal of immigrants. The immigrant crackdown has given rise to an unregulated complex of jails, detention centers, and prisons that create profit from the immigrant crackdown.

At the outset of a new administration and new era, the political economy of immigration is decidedly anti-immigrant. Political and economic factors have combined to create a harsh environment for undocumented immigrants, present and future. Immigration reform may not be a top priority, but the Obama administration and new Congress would do well to begin to address the challenge of reshaping the political economy of immigration.

First steps could include a more careful articulation of the intersection of immigration, rule of law, and national security. Napolitano should explain that the real threat to the rule of law is not having an immigration policy that provides a legal pathway to integration for the 11 million immigrants already within the United States.

What’s more, she would do well to disarticulate the links established by the Bush administration between immigrants and terrorists. At the same time, closer links must be made between immigration policy and economic policy, guarding against labor exploitation while considering domestic economic need.

Instead of a policy based on a calm assessment of the costs and benefits of immigrant labor to the U.S. economy, current immigration policy has been hijacked by the politics of fear, resentment, scapegoating, and nativism. The “enforcement only” immigration policy has fostered a national immigrant prison complex that feeds on ever-increasing numbers of arrested immigrants. As County Commissioner Ernie Chapa said, “Any time the numbers are high, it’s good for the county because it brings more income.”
-----
Immigrant Detention in the United States By the Numbers

* Immigrants caught by DHS in 2007: 960,756
* ICE detentions that year: 311,169
* Rise in detentions since 2006: 21%
* DHS 2009 budget for Border Security & Immigration Enforcement: $12.14 billion
* Change from 2008: up 19%
* Change since Bush took office: up more than 150%
* Money for ICE “custody operations”: $1.8 billion
* Number of new “beds” this will provide: 1,000
* Total number of 2009 ICE beds: 33,400
* Average per diem for immigrant detention to private prison firms in 2007: $87.99

Sources: “Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2007,” Annual Report Department of the Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2008; “DHS Announces $12.14 Billion for Border Security & Immigration Efforts,” Department of Homeland Security, January 2008; Leslie Berestein “Detention Dollars” The San Diego Union Tribune May 2008; “Summary: 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations” Committee on Appropriations, September 2008.

Detention Profiteers

There may be a new boom in immigrant detention, but captive immigrants as good business is a concept that dates back two decades. Immigrants were the industry’s first prisoners.

It all began in 1983 when a klatch of wealthy Tennessee Republicans decided private prisons were just what the country needed to solve the problems of prison riots, overcrowding, and increasing costs. They formed the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), with the mission to “provide in partnership with government meaningful public service,” and succeeded in persuading the Reagan administration to help launch prison privatization by having the Immigration and Naturalization Service (ICE’s legacy agency) issue CCA a contract to keep immigrants locked up in Houston.

Wackenhut Corrections (recently renamed GEO Group), a private security services firm, branched into the private prison industry when it entered a contract in 1987 to operate an INS immigrant detention center in Colorado.

Using their experience in immigrant detention, CCA and Wackenhut soon began successfully soliciting states and counties to enter into private prison pacts, while winning dozens of new contracts with the federal government. However, the initial enthusiasm of governments at all levels faded with increasing abuse scandals at CCA and Wackenhut prisons, leading some states to cancel contracts and pull prisoners out.

But immigrant detention once again saved the day for CCA, Wackenhut, and other teetering private prison firms. The 1996 immigration law that broadened the guidelines for deporting undocumented and legal immigrants started to kick in, resulting in a rising federal demand for more immigrant detention beds that the private prison industry was happy to supply.
-------

Tom Barry, a senior analyst at the Center for International Policy, directs the TransBorder Project of the Americas Policy Program.
SOURCES: “Immigration Enforcement: The Rhetoric, The Reality,” TRAC Immigration, 2007; “Corrections Corp. of America Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript,” Seeking Alpha, November 2008; “The GEO Group, Inc. Q3 2008 (Qtr End 9/28/08) Earnings Call Transcript,” Seeking Alpha, November 2008; “Cornell Companies Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript,” Seeking Alpha, November 2008; “Mulch: Jail May Soon House Immigrants”, Register News February 2008; “Willacy County Goes $50 Million More In Debt to Expand MTC’s Tent City,” Texas Prison Bid’ness Blog, August 2007; “Federal detention center in Willacy to expand,” The Monitor, July 2007; “Inmate count continues to climb at detention center,” Brownsville Herald, April 2008.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0109barry.html

Posted by lois at 03:15 PM | 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)

December 23, 2008

VT putting criminal records on line.

States putting criminal records online
by John Curran - Dec. 21, 2008
Associated Press

WATERBURY, Vt. - Worried your daughter's new boyfriend might have a nefarious past? Want to know whether the job applicant in front of you has a rap sheet?

Finding out can be a mouse click away, thanks to the growing crop of searchable online databases run directly by states. Vermont launched its service Monday, and now about 20 states have some form of them.

The Web sites provide a valuable and time-saving service to employers and businesses by allowing them to look up criminal convictions without having to submit written requests and wait for the responses. And they're popular: Last month alone, Florida's site performed 38,755 record checks.

But the Internet debut of information historically kept in courthouses in paper files can magnify the harm of clerical errors, expose states to liability for mistakes and spell new headaches for people who've long since done their time, only to have information about their crime bared anew.

"It's unfortunate in that it threatens what I see as the uniquely American ideal of being able to start over, after you've paid your penance, to go to a new community without the blemish of your crime and starting a new life," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group focused on civil liberties online.

Vermont's system, which costs $20 to query one person's records, includes information on criminal convictions dating to the 1940s. It taps into the Vermont Criminal Information Center database used by law- enforcement agencies, which state officials claim has fewer mistakes than courthouse records or the data sold by private information brokers working off those records.

All you need to make an inquiry is a person's name and date of birth, and a credit card to pay the fee.

If the query finds a record, the system lists the date of conviction, charge, sentence and venue. It won't show the original charge filed, or give information about the victim or the circumstances of the crime.

Also inaccessible, according to officials, are records that have been expunged or sealed. And people can report mistakes in the records on them and ask for changes.

Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Vermont chapter, opposed the state's move, in part because it sets up a two-tiered system of records - one set at the courthouse and another online. The online system gives only a slice of information about the cases, he said.

"There might be something about the conviction that if you looked at the court record, you'd better understand about what happened and what's behind the conviction. It would give the person whose record you're looking at a chance to have the full story explained, rather than just the end result," Gilbert said.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/21/20081221online-rapsheet1221.html

Posted by lois at 05:58 PM | Comments (0)

November 25, 2008

A Victory in PA: Pittsburgh jury awards $185K to state prisoner

From the Human Rights Coalition---FedUp! Chapter
Andre Jacobs, a captive of SCI Fayette in the PA DOC, was awarded $185,000 in compensatory damages by a jury today for violations of his constitutional rights while being hled in the Long Term Segregation Unit in SCI Pittsburgh in 2003.

Andre represented himself at trial, and prevailed despite being forced to wear a remote-controlled electro-shock stun belt throughout that was controlled by DOC staff. Two of Andre's witnesses testified to Judge Conti that prison guards working the Special Management Unit (SMU) in Camp Hill threatened them for their participation in the case, with both testifying that C/O Uler assaulted one of the witnesses.

In the first of three upcoming jury trials (the other two are scheduled for January and February) in Federal Court, Mr. Jacobs out-lawyered the state's attorneys throughout, eventually winning guilty verdicts against Lt. Gregory Giddens, ex-Captain Thomas McConnel, and Superintendent's Assistant Carol Scire.

Don't believe the hype: Andre never broke the hand of a federal marshal, but rather was beaten unconscious by federal marshals while in cuffs and shackles after he violated a direct order not to speak by having the criminal audacity to tell his grandmother, Elizabeth, that he loved her. To cover up their criminal assault they charged Andre with assault under federal statutes.

Here is an article from the Pittsuburgh although it repeats the same official slander: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_599980.html
Human Rights Coalition - FedUp! Chapter
5125 Penn Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15224
hrcfedup@gmail.com
www.thomasmertoncenter.org/fedup/

Here's the article....
Pittsburgh jury awards $185K to state prisoner
By Jason Cato
Pittsburgh TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, November 24, 2008

A federal jury today awarded $185,000 to a state prison inmate who represented himself in a civil trial against the state Department of Corrections and several employees.

Andre L. Jacobs, 26, claimed that prison guards at SCI-Pittsburgh illegally confiscated and destroyed about 150 pages of his legal documents after discovering they were part of a lawsuit against them. After deliberating for three days, eight jurors returned a unanimous verdict against two guards and a prison spokeswoman.

The jury found that former Capt. Thomas McConnell and Lt. Gregory Giddens interfered with Jacobs' access to the courts by taking his legal papers. Those men, along with prison spokeswoman Carol Scire, retaliated against Jacobs and conspired to violate his civil rights, the jury concluded. Giddens also defamed Jacobs by harming his reputation and causing mental anguish and humiliation, the jury ruled.

"I didn't ask for any money (at first). I didn't ask for any guards to be punished," Jacobs said last week while delivering closing arguments following a three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti. "The only thing I asked for throughout the whole process was that my legal documents be returned so I could proceed with my legal matters."

The jury exonerated 10 corrections employees, including state corrections Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard.

Department of Corrections officials could not be reached for comment.

Jacobs claimed staff at the state prison in Woods Run in September 2003 confiscated his legal documents from another inmate helping with his case. The next day, Jacobs said guards searched his cell and seized more documents.

He accused prison employees of creating fake documents and conducting bogus investigations to refute his claims against them. Court records show Jacobs was accused of refusing an order, possessing contraband and loaning or borrowing property following the seizures, which resulted in 30 days' confinement.

During an impassioned closing argument, Jacobs urged the jurors to send a message.

"Within the Department of Corrections, prisoners have no voice. Prisoners have no avenue for valid claims or relief," he said. "You are the only voice. You are the only ears for prisoners."

Assistant Attorney General Scott Bradley told jurors that Jacobs was using this lawsuit "as a ploy" to revisit his criminal case by smearing correctional employees.

"If all the defendants were lying, why wouldn't all of their testimony be the same?" Bradley asked. "Why would there be inconsistencies?"

Jacobs, originally from Harrisburg, has been in state custody since 1998, when he was 15 years old, according to court documents. He is serving five to 18 years in state prison. Details of his original conviction are unclear.

He is currently being held at the state prison in Fayette County.

In 2006, Jacobs was convicted of attacking federal marshals inside the U.S. District Courthouse, Downtown, following another civil trial that he lost. Prosecutors said Jacobs used his handcuffs during the March 2005 assault outside an elevator to injure a marshal's wrist. He was sentenced to 17 years and five months in federal prison, to run concurrently with his state time. If he is released from state prison early, he would have to serve out the remainder of the federal term.

Jacobs has two additional civil cases pending against the Department of Corrections and its employees. They are tentatively scheduled to go to trial next year.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_599980.html

Posted by lois at 08:32 PM | Comments (0)

July 24, 2008

VA: Restore the right of felons to vote

Restore the right of felons to vote
Edward Hailes Jr.

Hailes is a senior attorney at Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization in Washington, D.C.

No single existing voting-rights inequity seems a starker injustice than the plight of people with felony convictions. These people, of course, aren't just murderers and muggers. Three out of every five felony convictions don't lead to jail time, and there's no clear line you have to cross to earn one.

Taking away the right to vote for life is analogous, some commentators have suggested, to the medieval practice of "civil death," where severe violations of society's social code led to complete loss of citizenship rights.

Contrary to popular belief, felony disenfranchisement laws are not part of the criminal justice system. Instead, they are state election laws, enacted by state legislatures and governors or hardwired into constitutions. Losing the right to vote after a felony conviction in Virginia is not in any way part of a criminal sentence -- it is a collateral consequence dictated by state law.

In essence, people with felony convictions lose their right to vote because of the intersection of two systems -- the election law system and the criminal justice system.

Virginia is one of only two states (Kentucky is the other) that permanently takes away the voting rights of all individuals with felony records, barring personal intervention by the governor.

The good news is Gov. Tim Kaine has pledged to expedite the review process for those petitioners who are eligible (nonviolent felons) to submit a one-page application by Aug. 1 in order to regain their voting rights and to register to vote in time to participate in the historic presidential election in November 2008 and beyond.

Many disenfranchisement laws were established to keep blacks from voting in former slave states. There is a movement afoot in Virginia to ameliorate the disempowering impact of felony disenfranchisement.

Three out of four Virginia voters think it is important to protect voting rights for all people, including those who have committed a crime, and most Virginia voters favor restoring voting rights to people who have been convicted of a felony after they have served their full sentence and completed all conditions of their punishment.

The commonwealth should change in the direction of automatic restoration after people with felony convictions have served their time.

The labyrinth of rules and regulations for re-enfranchisement in the commonwealth needs to end. Advancement Project's work in Virginia has shown us the sobering reality of the plethora of seemingly irrational obstacles to the voting process confronting people with felony convictions who have completed their debt to society.

The spotlight is now on the bureaucrats and the politicians who created and are responsible for administering these systems that unfairly keep people from voting.

The racially tainted history of felony disenfranchisement laws ought to make citizens of the commonwealth of all ideological persuasions reconsider their value in our democracy.

Felony disenfranchisement laws are undemocratic and unjust in denying citizens their political voice. And in doing so, these repugnant laws not only strip citizens of legitimate self-empowerment, but make a mockery of those of us who have faith that our democratic system can spawn a just society.

Advancement Project applauds Kaine for taking a step in the right direction in exercising his authority to restore voting rights to Virginia citizens who have already paid their debt to society.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/170152

Posted by lois at 06:15 PM | Comments (0)

May 21, 2008

The rights of detainees

Editorial: Daily Hampshire Gazette
Northampton, MA
The rights of detainees
05/21/2008

The Franklin County Jail has been sued by a man who says he was strip-searched twice before his court arraignment after being arrested for allegedly failing to pay excise taxes.

While both sides are due their day in court, one issue is not in dispute: Prior to the construction of a new Franklin County jail, the sheriff routinely conducted strip-searches of all detainees, except for those in protective custody.

The case is remarkably similar to a class-action suit that was filed against the Hampshire County sheriff for pre-trial strip-searches; the Hampshire sheriff eventually agreed to a $205,000 settlement last year to resolve the case.

In both cases, the sheriffs should have taken the extra step of separating those awaiting trial from the rest of their detainees, which would have eliminated the need for across-the-board strip-searches.

The Franklin County suit involves a Sunderland man, Gregory Garvey, who re-established residency in Massachusetts after his home in Mississippi was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Garvey was involved in a car accident in Whately on Nov. 29, 2006, at which time he was told by an officer that his license had been suspended for failure to pay excise taxes several years earlier when he previously lived in the state, according to the lawsuit.

Garvey said he paid the excise taxes but, on Jan. 30, 2007, Sunderland police arrested him on a default warrant for failing to appear in Greenfield District Court on a charge of operating with a suspended license. He was held in the Franklin jail pending his appearance in court the next morning; Garvey said he was strip-searched twice while in custody.

Garvey's case is being handled by Howard Friedman, the Boston attorney who also represented the plaintiff in the suit filed against the Hampshire County jail over improper strip-searches. In that case, Charles V. Ryan IV - the son of a former Springfield mayor - was strip-searched while awaiting a court appearance after he was arrested for allegedly violating an abuse-prevention order. The charge was subsequently dropped after the witness refused to testify against Ryan.

That incident occurred before Hampshire County opened a regional lockup facility, which has separate accommodations for those awaiting a court hearing.

In both cases, the sheriffs have argued that their older, cramped jails justified the strip-search policies. While we appreciate how difficult it can be to arrange the funding for adequate police facilities, their excuse does not pass constitutional muster. As in the Hampshire case, it may well turn out that it would have been a lot less expensive for the Franklin County sheriff to have provided separate accommodations. These cases provide necessary reminders that jails cannot skimp on basic rights no matter how short they are on funding.

Posted by lois at 08:52 AM | Comments (0)

MA; Supreme Judicial Court allows use of statistical evidence of racial profiling

SJC allows use of statistical evidence of racial profiling
By DENISE LAVOIE Associated Press
05/21/2008
Daily Hampshire Gazette

BOSTON - Drivers who are stopped by police and suspect racial profiling can use statistical information to make their case, and if they prove it, evidence seized during the stop should be thrown out, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court said that defendants can compare the racial composition of people stopped by police along a certain stretch of road with the racial composition of all the people who use the road.

If the statistics show "impermissible discrimination" based on race, then the burden shifts to prosecutors to show that the traffic stop was not motivated by race, the court ruled.

Defense attorneys hailed the ruling as an important step for minorities who have long believed they are stopped by police because of their skin color, not a traffic violation.

"The court is saying that if the real reason for the stop was race ... then that is selective enforcement (of the law), and you can't enforce traffic laws based on race," said Murray Kohn, a staff attorney for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state's public defender agency.

The ruling came in the case of Andres Lora, who was a passenger in a car that was stopped by state police on Interstate 290 in Auburn on Dec. 20, 2001.

The driver was not operating erratically, but had committed a traffic violation by driving in the left lane when there was no traffic in the center or right lanes.

After a state trooper stopped the car and returned to his cruiser to run a check on the driver, he saw Lora step out of the car. When he went to tell Lora to get back into the car, he saw a small bag on the driver's side floor containing cocaine.

Lora was charged with cocaine trafficking, but later filed a motion to throw out the cocaine as evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unconstitutional because the trooper initiated the stop based on his dark skin.

Lora's lawyer introduced statistics showing the trooper had a history of disproportionately stopping and citing nonwhite motorists for motor vehicle violations. A Superior Court judge found that the statistical evidence created an "inference of purposeful discrimination," and agreed to suppress the cocaine found in the car.

The SJC overturned the lower court's ruling, finding that the statistical evidence presented by Lora wasn't enough to rebut the state's claim that the trooper had acted in good faith and without intending to discriminate. The court found that Lora's statistics - which compared the racial makeup of drivers who were stopped along a stretch of I-290 with the racial makeup of the town of Auburn - were unreliable and not accepted within the scientific community.

But the SJC concluded that legitimate statistical evidence demonstrating disparate treatment based on race can be offered by defendants.
http://www.dailyhampshiregazette.com/storytmp.cfm?id_no=93850&CSAuthResp=1211373414019965%3ArNJDHLy4X6PyGw%3D%3D%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Asuccess%3AwrfS6ujA%2FEGnG50KoWQBcw%3D%3D&CSUserId=8254&CSGroupId=5

Posted by lois at 08:34 AM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2008

CCA Immigrant Detention: Immigration agency, contractors are accused of mistreating detainees

U-T SPECIAL REPORT
graphs and other links at this URL:

Immigrant detention
budget soars
The number of people held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement has jumped 36 percent since 2005, when the agency held a daily average of 19,718 detainees, who include illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and legal U.S. residents facing deportation. By the end of 2007, that number had grown to 30,881.

At the end of last year, 13 percent of ICE detainees were held in agency facilities. Seventeen percent were in private facilities that contract directly with ICE; 21 percent were in facilities contracted from local governments, usually with the county acting as middleman for a private company. An additional 46 percent were in county jails, where ICE rents beds, and a handful in other facilities, including rented federal prison space.

Many of these jails and prisons, while under government jurisdiction, also are privately operated.

In the past three years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has more than tripled what it spends on detention. Its annual appropriation for custody has grown to $1.6 billion this year from $504 million in 2005.

The White House has requested funding for 1,000 more beds by Sept. 30.

The immigration agency has no plans to build any more of its own detention centers, of which there are eight in the nation, including one in El Centro. Officials say it's easier to contract the beds.

“It just provides us with a quicker way to provide detention space,” said Gary Mead, acting director of ICE detention and removal operations in Washington, D.C.

The savings are substantial: According to ICE, it cost $87.99 per day on average in fiscal year 2007 to hold someone at a contract detention facility, while it cost roughly $119.28 a day to house a person at an ICE-run facility.

Detention increased after 1996, when legislative changes made it easier to deport immigrants residing here legally who had been convicted and served a prison sentence, and made detention mandatory as they awaited deportation.

Then the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, occurred, and the federal government intensified its focus on border security.

In 2003, there came a new emphasis on tracking down people who had missed an immigration hearing or ignored a deportation order. In fiscal year 2007, ICE fugitive teams made more than 30,000 arrests.

Detentions expanded again after late 2005, when the Bush administration called for an end to the practice of “catch and release” for non-Mexican illegal immigrants who were being released with a notice to appear in court. Most Mexican nationals are quickly repatriated at the border.

Plastic 'boats'
Until early last year, the 10-year-old San Diego Correctional Facility in Otay Mesa, built and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, held up to 1,000 detainees.

In June 2006, the company lost 200 beds when the lease on part of the county-owned property expired. Yet according to CCA's 2006 financial report, the population of detainees wasn't reduced “as we had the ability to consolidate inmates.”

The following January, in its lawsuit, the ACLU cited the per-person fees paid by ICE to the contractor as an incentive for putting three people in a two-man cell. The third slept on the floor in a plastic cot referred to as a “boat.”

Lead plaintiff Isaac Kigondu Kiniti, a Kenyan detainee in ICE custody since 2004, said his head was so close to the toilet when he slept on the floor that he was showered with urine when cellmates used it. Kiniti criticized the contractor.

“Because they are a for-profit company, they will give you only the bare minimum of things to increase their profits,” said Kiniti, a former student-visa holder, appealing a deportation order stemming from a drug conviction.

ICE has since set the facility's maximum capacity at 700.

CCA, which like its competitors touts its cost-effectiveness, says there is no skimping at detainees' expense.

“We do not cut corners,” said Louise Grant, a spokeswoman. “Safety and security is our highest priority. We are extremely committed to offering strong programming for offenders in our care, as well as the highest medical care.”

Grant said costs are reduced by using efficient construction methods. While wages vary depending on the contract, she said, staff salaries frequently reflect the local cost of living. Many private prisons, like public ones, are in low-cost rural areas.

Grant said almost 90 percent of the company's facilities abide by the voluntary standards of the American Correctional Association, which includes public and private prisons.

However, according to the overcrowding lawsuit, the association's standards for “adult local detention facilities” call for cells housing more than one person to provide 25 square feet of unencumbered space per occupant. At Otay Mesa, when there were three detainees per cell with the cot on the floor, it amounted to no more than 15 square feet for all three, the complaint reads.

Oversight concerns
Critics of prison privatization cite oversight as perhaps one of the biggest concerns when private companies perform public incarceration duties.

According to ICE, 71 people have died in the agency's custody since the beginning of 2004. Of these, 57 were in contract facilities that ranged from private detention centers to county jails, raising questions about whether a lack of government oversight played a part.

Three people have died at Otay Mesa since 2003, including Yusif Osman, 34, a Ghanian man who died in his cell in 2006 after complaining of chest pain.

According to the county medical examiner's report, it took personnel more than an hour to call 911 after Osman's cellmate began asking for help. The report claims that Osman was seen on his knees, and that a medical supervisor, upon finding no medical history on him, “informed the control officer to have Mr. Osman file a request to seek medical assistance.”

In the ACLU medical-care lawsuit, plaintiffs complained about delays in getting treatment and prescription refills. One plaintiff is a diabetic man whose requests for care for a small injury to his foot were delayed so long that he developed gangrene.

Also cited is the case of Francisco Castañeda, a detainee who had to wait several months to see an off-site oncologist for what turned out to be penile cancer. Castañeda sued the federal government a few months before his death in February. His family has continued the lawsuit. The government recently acknowledged that there was medical negligence, one of the allegations made.

Health care at Otay Mesa is provided by the federal government, which according to the ACLU complaint took over health services from Corrections Corporation of America in 2002 after finding the company's health program deficient.

However, because company guards are the first to hear requests for medical care, “that does not mean that CCA is off the hook entirely,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU in San Diego.

“They may be interfering with access to treatment,” Blair-Loy said. “And they may or may not have a direct financial incentive to prevent people from getting treatment.”

There is no way to know, he said, because the public cannot obtain government contract information from private companies.

CCA's Grant, whose company earned nearly $1.5 billion last year, said that if the quality of CCA's service to inmates was not meeting expectations, the federal agency would cancel its contracts.

In February 2007, the month after the overcrowding lawsuit, Immigration and Customs Enforcement created a new detention-inspection task force charged with responding to complaints at all facilities where it houses detainees.

Posted by lois at 04:22 PM | Comments (0)

CCA Detention Centers: For Immigrants Who Died in U.S. Custody, Few Details Provided

May 5, 2008
For Immigrants Who Died in U.S. Custody, Few Details Provided
By NINA BERNSTEIN
NY Times

Word spread quickly inside the windowless walls of the Elizabeth Detention Center, an immigration jail in New Jersey: A detainee had fallen, injured his head and become incoherent. Guards had put him in solitary confinement, and late that night, an ambulance had taken him away more dead than alive.

But outside, for five days, no official notified the family of the detainee, Boubacar Bah, a 52-year-old tailor from Guinea who had overstayed a tourist visa. When frantic relatives located him at University Hospital in Newark on Feb. 5, 2007, he was in a coma after emergency surgery for a skull fracture and multiple brain hemorrhages. He died there four months later without ever waking up, leaving family members on two continents trying to find out why.

Mr. Bah’s name is one of 66 on a government list of deaths that occurred in immigration custody from January 2004 to November 2007, when nearly a million people passed through.

The list, compiled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after Congress demanded the information, and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, is the fullest accounting to date of deaths in immigration detention, a patchwork of federal centers, county jails and privately run prisons that has become the nation’s fastest-growing form of incarceration.

The list has few details, and they are often unreliable, but it serves as a rough road map to previously unreported cases like Mr. Bah’s. And it reflects a reality that haunts grieving families like his: the difficulty of getting information about the fate of people taken into immigration custody, even when they die.

Mr. Bah’s relatives never saw the internal records labeled “proprietary information — not for distribution” by the Corrections Corporation of America, which runs the New Jersey detention center for the federal government. The documents detail how he was treated by guards and government employees: shackled and pinned to the floor of the medical unit as he moaned and vomited, then left in a disciplinary cell for more than 13 hours, despite repeated notations that he was unresponsive and intermittently foaming at the mouth.

Mr. Bah had lived in New York for a decade, surrounded by a large circle of friends and relatives. The extravagant gowns he sewed to support his wife and children in West Africa were on display in a Manhattan boutique.

But he died in a sequestered system where questions about what had happened to him, or even his whereabouts, were met with silence.

As the country debates stricter enforcement of immigration laws, thousands of people who are not American citizens are being locked up for days, months or years while the government decides whether to deport them. Some have no valid visa; some are legal residents, but have past criminal convictions; others are seeking asylum from persecution.

Death is a reality in any jail, and the medical neglect of inmates is a perennial issue. But far more than in the criminal justice system, immigration detainees and their families lack basic ways to get answers when things go wrong.

No government body is required to keep track of deaths and publicly report them. No independent inquiry is mandated. And often relatives who try to investigate the treatment of those who died say they are stymied by fear of immigration authorities, lack of access to lawyers, or sheer distance.

Federal officials say deaths are reviewed internally by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which reports them to its inspector general and decides which ones warrant investigation. Officials say they notify the detainee’s next of kin or consulate, and report the deaths to local medical authorities, who may conduct autopsies. In Mr. Bah’s case, a review before his death found no evidence of foul play, an immigration spokesman said, though after later inquiries from The Times, he said a full review of the death was under way.

But critics, including many in Congress, say this piecemeal process leaves too much to the agency’s discretion, allowing some deaths to be swept under the rug while potential witnesses are transferred or deported. They say it also obscures underlying complaints about medical care, abusive conditions or inadequate suicide prevention.

In January, the House passed a bill that would require states that receive certain federal money to report deaths in custody to their attorneys general. But the bill is stalled in the Senate, and it does not cover federal facilities.

The only tangible result of Congressional concern has been the list of 66 deaths, which names Mr. Bah and many other detainees for the first time, but raises as many questions as it answers.

For Mr. Bah’s survivors, the mystery of his death is hard to bear. In Guinea, his first wife, Dalanda, wept as she spoke about the contradictory accounts that had reached her and her two teenage sons through other detainees, including some who speculated that Mr. Bah had been beaten.

In New York, a cousin who is an American citizen, Khadidiatou Bah, 38, said she was unable to bring a lawsuit, in part because other relatives were afraid of antagonizing the authorities.

“They don’t want to push the case, or maybe they will be sent home,” she said. “This guy was killed, and we don’t know what happened.”

Lingering Questions

The list of deaths where Mr. Bah’s name surfaced is often cryptic. Along with 13 deaths cited as suicides and 14 as the result of cardiac ailments, it offers such causes as “undetermined” and “unwitnessed arrest, epilepsy.” No one’s nationality is given, some places of detention are omitted, and some names and birth dates seem garbled. As a result, many families could not be tracked down for this article.

But when they could be, they posed more disturbing questions.

In California, relatives of Walter Rodriguez-Castro, 28, said they were rebuffed when they tried to find out why his calls had stopped coming from the Kern County Jail in Bakersfield in April 2006. Then in June, his wife went to his scheduled hearing in San Francisco’s immigration court and learned that he had been dead for many weeks, his body unclaimed in the county morgue.

The coroner found that Mr. Rodriguez-Castro, a mover from El Salvador in the country illegally, had died of undiagnosed meningitis and H.I.V., after days complaining of fever, stiff neck and vomiting. The cause of death on the government’s list: “unresponsive.”

Immigration authorities said on Friday that the case was now under review, but would not answer questions about it or other deaths on the list. Sgt. Ed Komin, a spokesman for the jail, said the death had been promptly reported to immigration officials, who were responsible for notifying families.

Four sons in another family, in Sacramento, described trying for days to get medical care for their father, Maya Nand, a 56-year-old legal immigrant from Fiji, at a detention center run by the Corrections Corporation in Eloy, Ariz. Mr. Nand, an architectural draftsman, had been ailing when he was taken into custody on Jan. 13, 2005, apparently because his application for citizenship had been rejected, based on an earlier conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. In collect calls, the sons said, he told them that despite his chest pains and breathing problems, doctors at the detention center did not take his condition seriously.

The Corrections Corporation said he had been seen and treated “multiple times.” But a letter to the family from an immigration official said his treatment was for a respiratory infection. The letter said that Mr. Nand was taken to an emergency room on Jan. 25, where congestive heart failure was diagnosed, and that he “suffered an apparent heart attack while at the hospital.” He died on Feb. 2, 2005, shackled to a hospital bed in Tucson.

Boubacar Bah had more going for him than many detainees. He had a lawyer and many friends and relatives in the United States, and his detention center in New Jersey was one of the few frequented by immigrant advocates.

But three days after he suffered a head injury in detention last year, no one in his New York circle knew that he was lying comatose in a Newark hospital, where he had already been identified as a possible organ donor.

“Thank you for the referral,” an organ-sharing network wrote on Feb. 3, 2007, according to hospital records. “This patient is a potential candidate for organ donation once brain death criteria is met.”

Four days after the fall, tipped off by a detainee who called Mr. Bah’s roommate in Brooklyn, relatives rushed to the detention center to ask Corrections Corporation employees where he was.

“They wouldn’t give us any information,” said Lamine Dieng, an American citizen who teaches physics at Bronx Community College and is married to Mr. Bah’s cousin Khadidiatou.

On the fifth day, they said, a detention official called them with the name of the hospital. There they found Mr. Bah on life support, still in custody, with a detention guard around the clock.

“There was one guard who knew Boubacar,” Ms. Bah said. “He told me on the down-low: ‘This guy, you have to fight for him. This guy was neglected.’ ”

Within the week, word of the case reached a reporter at The Times, through an immigration lawyer who had received separate calls from two detainees; they were upset about a badly injured man — named “something like Aboubakar” — left in an isolation cell and later found near death.

But advocacy groups said they were unaware of the case. And Michael Gilhooly, the spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said that without the man’s full name and eight-digit alien registration number, he could not check the information.

For those who knew Mr. Bah, it was hard to understand how such a man could lie dying without explanations.

“Everybody liked Boubacar,” said Sadio Diallo, 48, who has a tailor shop in Flatbush, Brooklyn, where he and Mr. Bah had shared an apartment with fellow immigrants since arriving in 1998. “He’s a very, very, very good man.”

For six years, Mr. Bah had worked for L’Impasse, a clothing store in the West Village, sewing dresses that sold for up to $2,000 with what a former manager, Abdul Sall, called his “magic hands.” Mr. Bah often spent Sundays at the Bronx townhouse his cousins had inherited from the family’s first American citizen, a seaman who arrived in 1943.

In Africa, Mr. Bah’s earnings not only supported his first wife, sons and ailing mother, but in Guinean tradition, allowed him to wed a second wife, long distance. It was his longing to see them all again after eight years that landed him in detention. When he returned from a three-month visit to Guinea in May 2006, immigration authorities at Kennedy Airport told him that his green card application had been denied while he was away, automatically revoking his permission to re-enter the United States. An immigration lawyer hired by his friends was unable to reopen the application while Mr. Bah waited for nine months in detention, records showed.

Mr. Bah died on May 30, 2007, after four months in a coma. His lawyer, Theodore Vialet, requested detention reports and hospital records under the Freedom of Information Act. But by the time the records arrived last autumn, the idea of a lawsuit had been dropped.

So Mr. Vialet just filed the records away — until a reporter’s call about a name on the list of dead detainees prompted him to dig them out.

After the Fall

There are 57 pages of documents, some neatly typed by medics, some scrawled by guards. Some quote detainees who said Mr. Bah was ailing for two days before his fall on Feb. 1, and asked in vain to see a doctor.

The records leave unclear exactly when or how Mr. Bah was injured in detention. But they leave no doubt that guards, supervisors, government medical employees and federal immigration officers played a role in leaving him untreated, hour after hour, as he lapsed into a stupor.

It began about 8 a.m., according to the earliest report. Guards called a medical emergency after a detainee saw Mr. Bah collapse near a toilet, hitting the back of his head on the floor.

When he regained consciousness, Mr. Bah was taken to the medical unit, which is run by the federal Public Health Service. He became incoherent and agitated, reports said, pulling away from the doctor and grabbing at the unit staff. Physicians consulted later by The Times called this a textbook symptom of intracranial bleeding, but apparently no one recognized that at the time.

He was handcuffed and placed in leg restraints on the floor with medical approval, “to prevent injury,” a guard reported. “While on the floor the detainee began to yell in a foreign language and turn from side to side,” the guard wrote, and the medical staff deemed that “the screaming and resisting is behavior problems.”

Mr. Bah was ordered to calm down. Instead, he kept crying out, then “began to regurgitate on the floor of medical,” the report said. So Mr. Bah was written up for disobeying orders. And with the approval of a physician assistant, Michael Chuley, who wrote that Mr. Bah’s fall was unwitnessed and “questionable,” the tailor was taken in shackles to a solitary confinement cell with instructions that he be monitored.

Under detention protocols, an officer videotaped Mr. Bah as he lay vomiting in the medical unit, but the camera’s battery failed, guards wrote, when they tried to tape his trip to cell No. 7.

Inside the cell, a supervisor removed Mr. Bah’s restraints. He was unresponsive to questions asked by the Public Health Service officer on duty, a report said, adding: “The detainee set up in his bed and moan and he fell to his left side and hit his head on the bed rail.”

About 9 a.m., with the approval of the health officer and a federal immigration agent, the cell was locked.

The watching began. As guards checked hourly, Mr. Bah appeared to be asleep on the concrete floor, snoring. But he could not be roused to eat lunch or dinner, and at 7:10 p.m., “he began to breathe heavily and started foaming slightly at the mouth,” a guard wrote. “I notified medical at this time.”

However, the nurse on duty rejected the guard’s request to come check, according to reports. And at 8 p.m., when the warden went to the medical unit to describe Mr. Bah’s condition, the nurse, Raymund Dela Pena, was not alarmed. “Detainee is likely exhibiting the same behavior as earlier in the day,” he wrote, adding that Mr. Bah would get a mental health exam in the morning.

About 10:30 p.m., more than 14 hours after Mr. Bah’s fall, the same nurse, on rounds, recognized the gravity of his condition: “unresponsive on the floor incontinent with foamy brown vomitus noted around mouth.” Smelling salts were tried. Mr. Bah was carried back to the medical unit on a stretcher.

Just before 11, someone at the jail called 911.

When an ambulance left Mr. Bah at the hospital, brain scans showed he had a fractured skull and hemorrhages at all sides of his swelling brain. He was rushed to surgery, and the detention center was informed of the findings.

But in a report to their supervisors the next day, immigration officials at the center described Mr. Bah’s ailment as “brain aneurysms” — a diagnosis they corrected a week later to “hemorrhages,” without mentioning the skull fracture. After Mr. Bah’s death, they wrote that his hospitalization was “subsequent to a fall in the shower.”

The nurse, Mr. Dela Pena, and the physician assistant, Mr. Chuley, said that only their superiors could discuss the case. The Public Health Service did not respond to questions, and the Corrections Corporation said medical decisions were the responsibility of the Public Health Service.

Mr. Bah’s cousins demanded an autopsy, but the Union County medical examiner’s confidential report was not completed until Dec. 6. It was sent to the county prosecutor’s office only as a matter of routine, because the matter had been classified as an “unattended accident resulting in death.”

Prosecutors said they did not investigate. “According to the report, Bah suffered a fall in the shower,” Eileen Walsh, a spokeswoman for the prosecutors, said in an e-mail message. “We are not privy to any other bits of information.”

In the home movies Mr. Bah made of his last journey home, he is only a fleeting presence: a slim man with a shy smile. But without his support, relatives in Africa say they have little money for food and none for his sons’ schooling.

His body went back to Guinea in a sealed coffin.

“I stayed here seven years, waiting for him,” his second wife, Mariama, said in French, recalling their long separation and the brief reunion that led to the birth of their son, now a toddler, while Mr. Bah was in detention.

“I wanted them to open the casket,” she added, “to know if it was him inside. Until today, I cry for him.”

Margot Williams contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05detain.html?_r=1%26hp=%26oref=slogin%26pagewanted=print

Posted by lois at 03:58 PM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2008

"Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in Arizona's Prisons and Jails"

"Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in Arizona's Prisons and Jails" by Caroline Isaacs and Mathew Lowen. AFSC Arizona
The report is the first attempt to catalog the use and impacts of solitary confinement for adults and juveniles in the Arizona Department of Corrections, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail. The report is part of the national AFSC StopMax Campaign
http://www.afsc.org/az/documents/buried-alive.pdf

Posted by lois at 08:28 PM | Comments (0)

April 26, 2008

CA: The state will search its database for relatives of unidentified suspects in hopes of developing leads.

California takes lead on crime-fighting techniques

The state will search its database for relatives of unidentified suspects in hopes of developing leads. Critics voice privacy concerns.

By Maura Dolan and Jason Felch,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 26, 2008

California will adopt the most aggressive approach in the nation to a controversial crime-fighting technique that uses DNA to try to identify elusive criminals through their relatives, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown announced Friday.

Employing what is known as familial or "partial match" searching, the policy is aimed at identifying a suspect through DNA collected at a crime scene by looking for potential relatives in the state's genetic database of about a million felons. Once a relative is identified, police can use that person as a lead to trace the suspect.

The new plan makes California a leader in such searches, which several states permit but do not vigorously pursue. Colorado has recently begun to examine its database for relatives of unknown criminals as part of a research project.

Brown said the new approach was justified by violent crime plaguing the state. He emphasized that it would be used only when all other leads had been exhausted.

"We have 2,000 murders a year in California -- that is 10,000 since the Iraq war started -- and that is a lot of killing," Brown said. "When you see it and see the victims and have to go to funerals, it is pretty serious stuff."

But Tania Simoncelli, science advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union, called Brown's decision a disappointment and said the organization is exploring its legality. The group has not decided whether to challenge the policy in court.

"The fact that my brother committed a crime doesn't mean I should have to give up my privacy," she said.

At a recent FBI conference on familial searching, Jeffrey Rosen, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, warned: "I can guarantee if familial searching proceeds, it will create a political firestorm."

The policy, which takes effect immediately, is designed to work like this: The state's crime lab will tell police about DNA profiles that come up during routine searches of California's offender database and closely resemble, but do not match, the DNA left at a crime scene. (Previously, the state refused to tell police about these partial matches.)

The lab will then perform calculations and tests to determine the likelihood of a biological relationship between the person found in the database and the unknown offender believed to have left DNA at the crime scene.

When such partial matches do not surface or fail to produce a lead, a more customized familial search can be done in which computer software scans the database proactively for possible relatives. The software measures the chance of two people being related based on the rarity of the markers they share.

California appears to be the first state in the nation to use this second technique as a matter of policy. Drafted with the heavy involvement of lawyers, the new policy requires a series of meetings with police and prosecutors to ensure that the relative's name is vital to the investigation and that all other leads have been exhausted.

Once a relative has been identified, police can interview him or construct a family tree based on existing records. If a suspect is identified, police can obtain a warrant for his DNA, or even gather it surreptiously from an abandoned drink or cigarette butt. The suspect's DNA sample would then be compared to the crime scene sample and possibly used as evidence.

"The people of California will know that we are using the database to try to solve as many crimes as we can, unlike virtually every other state in the country," said retired Alameda County Dist. Atty. Rockne P. Harmon, who consulted with the state on the policy.

Civil libertarians oppose using DNA databases to search for relatives of unknown offenders, saying it puts family members under "genetic surveillance" for crimes they did not commit. For now, all the people in the state's database are convicted offenders, but the state plans to expand the database next year to include arrestees, heightening concerns over privacy.

Critics say familial searching could expose sensitive and secret genetic relationships. A son, for example, could learn that his father was not his biological parent. DNA databases also reflect the racial and ethnic biases of the justice system, exposing minority communities to more surveillance than others, critics maintain.

FBI officials in charge of the national database network have also expressed concerns, making them unlikely allies of civil libertarians on familial searching. They urge a cautious approach, worrying that the courts will balk at this type of sleuthing. No law specifically authorizes it, and some legal scholars consider it unconstitutional because they say it amounts to an unreasonable search.

Brown called such objections hypothetical. The policy forbids the release of the names of relatives until genetic tests and analysis convince the state that the person is indeed a relative.

"It is still not going to be a fail-safe system, and we are going to make mistakes," said Simoncelli, the ACLU science advisor. "We are opening the door to using the database in such a fundamentally different way than the purpose for which it was established."

No one knows how well the state's plan will work. Harmon said he was absolutely convinced that it would provide at least some new leads for police.

Lance Gima, the state's top forensic scientist, agreed. But he conceded that the search for relatives would be a longshot because many unrelated people share genetic markers. He said he hoped the state's decision would spur technology to improve the accuracy of such searches.

Britain has done familial searching for years, using more sophisticated software. With a 10% to 14% rate of identifying perpetrators, Britain's searches have had limited but dramatic results, cracking some sensational crimes.

A serial rapist whose DNA was not in Britain's national database was caught because he was genetically similar to his sister, whose DNA was taken after a drunk-driving arrest. The so-called shoe rapist had a fetish for stiletto heels. When police captured him, they discovered scores of high heels he had stolen from his victims.

Police in the U.S. have used genetic relationships to help catch criminals in a different way, and on a much smaller scale.

After Kansas police zeroed in on the serial killer who dubbed himself BTK -- initials for bind, torture, kill -- they obtained a court order for the pap smear of his daughter. Without her knowledge, police performed a DNA analysis of the specimen, obtained from a medical laboratory.

The genetic similarities indicated they had the right man, Dennis Radar.

Posted by lois at 11:44 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2008

Lawsuits test crackdown on sex criminals

Friday, April 18, 2008
Lawsuits test crackdown on sex criminals
By John Gramlich, Stateline.org Staff Writer

A death-penalty case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week marks the latest constitutional challenge to an ongoing, nationwide crackdown on sex criminals.

From California to North Carolina, a flood of litigation has accompanied an expansion in the scope and severity of penalties imposed by local, state and federal lawmakers on those who commit sex crimes.

Penalties for molesters and other sex criminals have toughened considerably in recent years and now include execution in at least five states, chemical castration in eight states and the use of technology to monitor offenders’ every move in more than half the states.

In some instances, punitive measures are limited only by lawmakers’ imaginations. In Louisiana, for example, a proposal being debated this legislative session would forbid offenders from wearing masks on Halloween or Mardi Gras. In New Jersey, a new state law prevents molesters and others from surfing the Internet unless it is for work-related purposes; Florida and Nevada have similar laws.

The recent legal challenges take aim at laws that sex criminals say violate constitutional guarantees, including privacy, due process and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Supporters of the laws say they are necessary to protect children from predators who are capable of committing brutal crimes.

One such brutal crime, the rape of a young child, is at the center of a closely watched case from Louisiana argued April 16 at the nation’s highest court. The justices heard an appeal from a 44-year-old inmate who claims it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual for the state to execute him for raping his then-8-year-old stepdaughter a decade ago.

Lawyers for the inmate, Patrick Kennedy, say the death penalty for child rapists is cruel and unusual, in part because only four other states (Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas) allow it, while similar laws in Florida and Georgia may be invalid after court or legislative action. They stress that only Louisiana actually has sentenced child rapists to death, and only in two cases, and that the Supreme Court already has struck down the death penalty for those who rape adults.

“Evolving standards of decency,” however, should allow for the execution of such criminals, lawyers for Louisiana counter, noting that child rapists are universally acknowledged as being among the worst of the worst.

Attorneys general from nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Washington) filed a brief supporting Louisiana’s side in the case. Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R), who has pushed for the death penalty for child rapists, joined legislators from his state in a separate brief supporting Louisiana.

Despite the attention drawn by the Louisiana case, the ultimate punishment is far from the only punishment that sex criminals are challenging as excessive.

In Georgia and Ohio, sex criminals have successfully challenged residency restrictions that forbid them from living within 1,000 feet of schools or other common gathering places for children. California’s highest court also is considering whether to strike down zoning laws that could make huge swaths of the state off-limits to offenders.

In Missouri’s Supreme Court, a convicted sex offender is challenging aspects of the state’s practice of “civil confinement,” which has allowed him to be held indefinitely in a treatment program for a crime he committed in 1983 and for which he finished serving time years ago. More than 20 states allow civil confinement after it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in separate decisions in 1997 and 2002.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, meanwhile, is preparing to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a wide-reaching federal law that requires all states to dramatically toughen penalties for sex criminals by July of next year, or risk losing funding from a congressional grant program. A trial judge ruled against parts of the law last year.

A broad spectrum of critics — including civil-rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, law enforcers, prosecuting attorneys and even some victims’ assistance groups — has criticized some of the recent local, state and federal laws aimed at sex criminals.

Many say the laws are more about political opportunism than public safety. Elected officials recognize that they can appeal to voters by piling up penalties on a widely detested criminal population that has few advocates willing to stand up for its rights, critics say.

“It’s still an easy, no-lose-politically situation,” said Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago and author of a blog, Sex Crimes, that reports on trends in sex-offender legislation.

But politicians who support the measures say they are simply reflecting the will of their constituents, who want to crack down on sex criminals.

“Most people who talked with me about it said they would have been rougher (on sex criminals),” Georgia state Rep. Amos Amerson (R) said of the state’s residency restrictions.

Amerson recently voted to revise and reinstate restrictions that the Georgia Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional last November. The revisions now are on the desk of Gov. Sonny Perdue (R), who has until May 15 to sign them into law. Opponents have predicted a new round of litigation if Perdue approves the restrictions.

In Iowa, where a law preventing sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and other gathering places is considered among the toughest in the nation, the state supreme court twice has upheld the statute.

But a coalition of groups, including sheriffs and county attorneys, has lobbied the Legislature to repeal the measure, claiming it wastes public resources trying to track molesters who are essentially made homeless because of the rules. In a sign of the political difficulty of that lobbying effort, however, opponents of the residency restrictions have decided to wait until next year to ask legislators to reconsider.

“This is an election year, and so we have consciously backed off it,” said Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association. Ritchie said the issue was “held hostage to politics.”

Meanwhile, the federal Adam Walsh Act is likely to face more litigation than any other statute because of its breadth. The law requires some juvenile offenders as young as 14 to be included in online registries and retroactively applies new registration requirements to offenders who have been out of prison for years.

Sarah Tofte, a Human Rights Watch researcher who has studied sex-offender laws and advocates for a comprehensive approach that focuses on treatment, said she thinks it is unlikely that lawmakers will back away from tough new laws — despite the mounting legal challenges.

She noted that the federal Second Chance Act signed by President Bush this month — which eases convicts’ re-entry into society by focusing on rehabilitation — does not apply to sex offenders, who are viewed by the public and by legislators as immutable, lifelong criminals.

“I think it’s going to be quite a while until we let sex offenders be treated like other ex-offenders,” Tofte said.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302066

Posted by lois at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)

Department of Justice FY 2009 Budget Request

Department of Justice FY 2009 Budget Request
President's Request Supports Increase for Department's National Security Efforts

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-04-2008/0004749082&EDATE=

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey today announced that the President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for the Department of Justice is $22.7 billion. The FY 2009 budget request includes a 6 percent increase over the FY 2008 enacted budget for the Department's law enforcement and prosecution programs, including $492.7 million to improve the Department's counterterrorism and intelligence capabilities.

"The Department of Justice's mission is multi-faceted: It ranges from investigating and prosecuting terrorists, online predators and drug kingpins, to fighting corporate fraud, to protecting the government's interest in a wide range of litigation," said Attorney General Mukasey. "The fiscal year 2009 budget supports our mission and includes targetedenhancements to ensure the nation's security and to bolster our law enforcement efforts along the Southwest Border."

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Department has significantly strengthened its efforts to enhance our national security and protect our homeland, and the FY 2009 budget reflects those priorities. Key priorities and requested FY 2009 program increases are as follows:

-- Protecting the American People by Preventing Terrorist Acts: $492.7 million

-- Fighting Criminal Activity on the U.S. Southwest Border $100.0 million

-- Supporting Essential Federal Detention and Incarceration Programs $67.1 million

In addition, the FY 2009 budget includes a total program level of over $1 billion for state and local law enforcement assistance.

PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY PREVENTING TERRORIST ACTS

The Department's top priority remains the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of terrorist activities against U.S. citizens and interests. The FY 2009 President's Budget requests $492.7 million in investments to improve the nation's counterterrorism investigative capabilities to identify, track, and dismantle terrorist cells operating in the United States and overseas, and to fortify the nation's intelligence analysis capabilities.

The FY 2009 President's Budget bolsters the national security functions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with $7.1 billion in total resources, including $447.4 million in investments that will support FBI's intelligence and counterterrorism programs, improve surveillance capabilities, bolster weapons of mass destruction response, and protect the security of the nation's cyber systems. In addition, this budget provides $84 million in total resources for the National Security Division, which will strengthen its ability to support intelligence operations to combat terrorism and other threats to national security. The following summarizes the key program changes, for preventing and combating terrorism and improving intelligence:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

-- Operations: $235.5 million to identify and analyze national security and criminal threats and to develop and execute operational strategies, including resources for national security investigations; enhancement of the weapons of mass destruction, cyber and Render Safe missions; computer intrusion investigative support; and foreign intelligence collection and operations.

-- Surveillance: $88.5 million to support a surveillance technology capability to meet operational requirements, including resources for physical and electronic surveillance and collection processing exploitation, analysis, and reporting.

-- Infrastructure: $28.4 million to ensure a safe and appropriate work environment and updated technology, including resources for central records management, field facility infrastructure, and IT disaster recovery.

-- Leveraging Technology: $36.1 million to enable an enhanced capability for providing services to FBI's partners, including resources for analytical support and applied technologies in DNA, communication capabilities and forensic analysis.

-- Partnerships: $5.7 million to promote an established and productive network of partnerships at all levels, including resources for the expansion of the Legal Attache and Fusion Center programs.

-- Workforce: $43.4 million to provide a professional workforce that possesses the critical skills, competencies, and training required to perform the FBI's mission, including resources for security and background adjudications, and human intelligence (HUMINT) and other training initiatives. Further, resources are redirected to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the centralized oversight and execution of the Intelligence Community's Worklife Program.

-- Academy Construction: $9.8 million in support of the FBI Academy, including construction contract management services and architectural-engineering services for upcoming projects and a new substation to handle increased electrical power loads.

Integrated Wireless Network

-- Integrated Wireless Network: $43.9 million for law enforcement wireless communications, which is vital to national security and to the life and safety of our law enforcement officers. The 9/11 Commission identified the inability of first responders to communicate with each other and recommended that this issue be addressed. These resources will employ a multi-pronged approach to providing tactical wireless communications capabilities for law enforcement personnel across the country. This approach provides for: $19.0 million to replace outdated legacy equipment with narrowband compliant technology for the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Alcohol
Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and $24.9 million to implement the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) in the Washington, D.C. area. The Department intends to implement IWN on a nationwide basis over a multi-year time frame.

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

-- Oversight: $1.2 million to enable the OIG to assist the Department in ensuring that its counterterrorism funds are used effectively. With these resources, the OIG will continue to examine issues such as the FBI's use of national security letters and USA Patriot Act Section 215 orders to obtain business records and its progress in hiring, training, and retaining intelligence analysts.

FIGHTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE U.S. SOUTHWEST BORDER

The Southwest Border is the principal arrival zone for most illicit drugs smuggled into the United States, as well as the predominant staging area for the subsequent distribution of drugs throughout the country. The Southwest Border also poses significant challenges for enforcing the nation's laws against illegal immigration, including human smuggling. In addition, the threat of terrorism looms large wherever criminals regularly exploit gaps in homeland security. Given the magnitude of the threat, it is imperative that the Department add resources to better disrupt the organizations responsible for the movement of illicit drugs, proceeds, and weapons across the Southwest Border and to bring their leaders to justice. To address this ever-growing threat, the Department proposes $100.0 million in new resources to create the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative to strategically focus the Department's law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts on the U.S. Southwest Border to combat violent crime, gun smuggling, illicit drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Specific increases include:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

-- Firearms Industry Regulation: $948,000 to enhance ATF's ability to inspect and investigate the firearms industry to strengthen oversight in the region and implement a focused inspection program to identify purchasers, traffickers and non-compliant licensees that may be sources of illegally trafficked firearms used by violent criminals.

Criminal Division

-- Reducing Gang Violence: $289,000 to work in tandem with the DOJ Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center's enforcement efforts to combat ever-increasing gang threats facing the nation along the Southwest Border.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

-- Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support Team (FAST) Expansion: $7.0 million to establish two additional teams to assist DEA's host nation counterparts in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, where drugs flowing to the United States are produced or transited. These teams will provide the expertise, equipment, and personnel to augment DEA country offices targeting the most significant violators, Priority Organization Targets and Consolidated Priority Organization Targets (CPOTs).

-- Strategic Drug Flow Enforcement Operations: $2.0 million to conduct an additional Operational All Inclusive (OAI) deployment each year in the western hemisphere. OAI is DEA's primary large-scale and successful Drug Flow Attack enforcement operation in the source, transit, and arrival zones. This operational funding provides for travel, aviation support, intelligence collection, and host nation support.

-- Tactical Aircraft Section: $8.9 million to purchase, operate, and maintain one new Bell 412 twin-engine helicopter to support interdiction operations in the transit zone, including FAST deployments, and address air, maritime, and land drug trafficking threats.

-- Southwest Border Staffing: $2.6 million and 16 positions to prevent the flow of drugs across the Southwest Border.

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)

-- Information Technology: $10 million for EOIR, including $8.3 million for a Digital Audio Recording System to be provided to immigration courts nationwide to improve the audio quality in the immigration courts; and $1.7 million for the Immigration Review Information Exchange System, through which EOIR will share mission-critical information with other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the DOJ's Civil
Division.

Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (ICDE)

-- Vehicle Identification Initiative: $2.8 million to support communications costs associated with the Vehicle Identification Initiative, an effort to gather valuable law enforcement intelligence regarding Mexico-based Consolidated Priority Organization Targets and affiliated
"Gatekeeper" organizations involved in bulk cash smuggling. Also included is $500,000 to provide sufficient IT infrastructure for the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Fusion Center to process and develop the data collected.

-- Fugitive Apprehension Initiative: $1.7 million and six Deputy U.S. Marshals to increase USMS's capability to apprehend OCDETF fugitives both domestically and in foreign countries, particularly those fugitives linked to South America and Mexico-based drug trafficking organizations.

-- Drug Prosecution: $5.1 million to support prosecution activities against significant drug trafficking organizations and money laundering organizations responsible for transporting, importing, manufacturing or distributing drugs and smuggling illicit proceeds across the U.S./Mexico Border.

Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT)

-- Detainee Housing and Transportation: $37.6 million to accommodate an anticipated increase in the number of detainees housed in non-federal facilities. These resources will be utilized to fund the costs associated with prisoner detention, care and transportation of detainees along the Southwest Border.

U.S. Attorneys

-- Southwest Border Prosecution: $8.4 million and 83 positions (50 attorneys) to support additional prosecutorial efforts along the Southwest Border. Additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys and paralegals are needed to respond to cross-border criminal activities and the increases in immigration cases resulting from the substantial increases in Border Patrol agents and the U.S. Government's overall effort to gain operational control of the border.

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

-- Prisoner Security and Transportation: $12.7 million and 73 positions (52 Deputy U.S. Marshals) to manage the increasing workload along the Southwest Border. As the number of illegal immigrants entering America has risen, the USMS has experienced substantial prisoner and fugitive workload growth along the Southwest Border. This funding will allow the USMS to meet its responsibilities for protecting and securing federal detainees before, during, and after their judicial proceedings.

SUPPORTING ESSENTIAL FEDERAL DETENTION AND INCARCERATION PROGRAMS

As a result of successful law enforcement policies targeting terrorism, violent crime, and drug crimes, the number of criminal suspects appearing in federal court continues to grow as does the number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately incarcerated. The FY 2009 President's Budget request provides significant resources needed to increase capacity for the detention and incarceration of those accused or convicted of violent crimes. During FY 2007, the nation's federal prison population rose approximately 4 percent to 200,020, and it is projected to exceed over 213,000 by the end of FY 2009. The request provides $67.1 million in additional resources for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to manage this growth, including funds for additional contract beds.

The FY 2009 request addresses BOP's responsibility to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. Specific increases include:

Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

-- Contract Confinement: $50 million to add prisoner space (4,000 beds) in contract facilities to house low-security inmates for six months in FY 2009. Using contract beds for the confinement of low-security inmates provides a flexible approach to manage this population.

-- Institution Population Adjustment: $17.1 million for costs of the increasing inmate population above the number of newly activating beds. Resources will enable the BOP to meet the marginal costs of providing security, food, medical care, clothing, utilities, unit management, education, records and maintenance associated with the population increase.

STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

The Department's portion of the President's FY 2009 budget contains over $1 billion in discretionary grant assistance to state, local and tribal governments. The budget request also eliminates all earmarks from state and local grant programs; the FY 2008 Department of Justice appropriations act included over 1,500 earmarks totaling over $675 million.
Included in the FY 2009 budget request is funding for the creation of four new, competitive grant programs. These programs will provide states, localities and tribes with considerable flexibility to address the most pressing problems facing communities today: violent crime, domestic violence, and crimes against children. The four grant categories and their amounts are:

-- Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiatives: $200 million to help communities suffering from high rates of violent crime to address this problem by forming and developing effective multi-jurisdictional law enforcement partnerships between local, state, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies.

-- Byrne Public Safety and Protection (Byrne) Program: $200 million to assist state, local, and tribal governments with their highest-priority concerns, such as violent and drug-related crime and presidential priorities, such as DNA backlog reduction and offender re-entry programs.

-- Child Safety and Juvenile Justice Program: $185 million to consolidate existing juvenile justice and exploited children programs, and to assist state, local and tribal governments in addressing multiple child safety and juvenile justice needs: reduce incidents of child exploitation and abuse, including those facilitated by the use of computers and the Internet.

-- Violence Against Women Grants Program: $280 million to consolidate all the Violence Against Women programs into one new flexible, competitive grant program, creating a new structure that can help state, local and tribal governments address multiple domestic violence needs.

Posted by lois at 02:40 PM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2008

MA: Breakdown: The Prison Suicide Crisis (3 articles)

3 articles in the Boston Globe
BREAKDOWN | THE PRISON SUICIDE CRISIS
A system strains, and inmates die
December 9, 2007
This story was reported by Globe Spotlight Team members Beth Healy, Michael Rezendes, Francie Latour, Jonathan Saltzman, and editor Thomas Farragher.
It was written by Healy.
First of three parts

His mother couldn't understand how he got the shoelaces.

After all, everyone knew Jarred Aranda was in danger. He had just tried to kill himself in jail.

Now, the handsome 27-year-old, with a to-do list in his pocket and a smile that hid his troubles, was being evaluated for mental illness at the state prison hospital in Bridgewater. He should have been safe there.

Locked up for stealing sneakers and violating probation, Aranda was deeply depressed. His mind was ravaged by crystal meth and other drugs his mother had begged him to quit. He'd been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and he was hearing voices.

But he told prison doctors he didn't want to die, and they believed him. Then they forgot about him.

No one from the prison clinical staff checked on him for 10 days. When a doctor finally did show up again, Aranda said he felt hopeless, and couldn't sleep. But the next day, he was allowed to walk into a shower, unattended, for 17 minutes. He had a set of shoelaces with him.

When an officer found him hanging from the shower door and sounded the "Code 99" alert last March, Aranda became the next in a series of 15 suicides in Massachusetts state prisons since early 2005. The deaths were coming at an alarming pace, roughly triple the rate in other states.

Last year alone, seven inmates killed themselves, and another's attempt left him brain dead; four have taken their lives so far this year.

Department of Correction officials say the suicides are random and unrelated. But a Globe Spotlight Team investigation of the deaths and detailed reconstruction of how they occurred found that they were far from random.

Most of the suicides came after careless errors and dangerous decisions by correction officials and the staff at UMass Correctional Health. And the trail of violence is far wider than the number of dead would indicate, as hundreds more inmates each year have wounded themselves or attempted suicide.

In fact, such incidents are soaring.

So common has it been to find a man with a makeshift noose around his neck that some correction officers have taken to carrying their own pocket tools to cut them down. The tally of suicide attempts and self-inflicted injuries - 513 last year and more than 3,200 over the past decade - tells a story of deepening mental illness and misery behind the walls of the state's prisons, despite repeated calls for better training of officers and safer cells for mentally troubled inmates.

The Globe found that background screens were botched as inmates arrived at prison. Medical and mental health records went missing or were never reviewed. Security rounds were skipped. Inmates in distress were punished for behavior that amounted to a cry for help, or at least a signal that greater precautions were needed.

"You're taking people who are vulnerable and can't cope in society," said Dr. Carl Fulwiler, a psychiatrist who consults to prisons and is an assistant professor at University of Massachusetts Medical School, "and putting them in the worst situation imaginable."

The Department of Correction guards the details of these events in secrecy, revealing little to the public, or even to the families of the suicide victims.

But internal investigative reports obtained from other prison sources by the Globe show that, in case after case, the suicides occurred at times when inmates were predictably at risk - within days or hours of arriving at prison, being sent to isolation, or withdrawing from drugs. Or, as with Jarred Aranda, in the tenuous period after a prior suicide attempt.

Aranda's grandfather was the first to get the call that he was dead. Then his mother.

"Who let him go in the shower alone?" Leslie Aranda would later ask tearfully. "I thought he was safe."

A system under strain

They are people whom society has, in many cases, written off.

Among the 15 suicides, almost all of them men, half were criminals convicted of murder or rape. Some were small-time thieves or drug dealers. A few hadn't been convicted of anything; they were in prison awaiting trial. The one woman was in only to detox.

Virtually all of them were troubled long before they were locked up, with mental health issues or drug abuse dating back to their youth. They and others like them increasingly are populating prisons in Massachusetts and across the country.

Today, one-quarter of the state's 11,000 prisoners are being treated for some kind of mental illness, up from 15 percent in 1998. It's a legacy, in part, of the elimination of many state mental institutions in the 1980s and half the state's detox beds in 2004. In June, there were 1,097 inmates taking antipsychotic medications, up from 595 in December 1998.

The suicides are just the most visible signs of a system under strain. State taxpayers spend $55 million a year on medical and mental health care for inmates in the state prisons, and nearly half a billion dollars for all prison costs. And while troubled inmates are dying and hundreds more are trying to die, most will serve their sentences and one day be released - often sicker than when they arrived.

"That's the danger of the larger prison culture we're creating," said Dr. Scott A. Allen, a former prison physician in Rhode Island and now co-director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown University. "As a society now, we've taken mental health problems into this prison setting, and we're dealing with them in a punitive way."

The casualties are people like Andrew Armstrong, 22 and mentally ill, who hanged himself eight hours after being locked in an isolation cell for getting into a fight.

Or Nicole Davis, 24, who was found hanging after asking for medical help all night; she was depressed and detoxing, alone in her cell.

Or Nelson Rodriguez, 26 and mentally retarded, who killed himself in MCI-Cedar Junction's dungeon-like "10-Block" wing, despite warnings by the mental health staff that solitary confinement would likely harm him. New rules put in place after his death have proved far from foolproof: In July, a mentally ill man killed himself in 10-Block, prompting the US Marshals Service to investigate and to remove some federal detainees from the Walpole prison.

Case study in disaster

Anthony Garafolo is a case study in how a difficult situation can turn to disaster at the Department of Correction.

The 46-year-old Ludlow native, admitted to MCI-Shirley in June of 2006, had spent a third of his life behind bars, convicted time and again of stealing to support a drug habit. In one 1990 robbery, he took a bullet in the back that left him paralyzed from the waist down.

He was an angry man in prison, and often hard to handle.

Garafolo had been emotionally broken since being abused by a notorious priest at age 15. And he was depressed at the disability that left him using a wheelchair and made basic bodily functions a difficult chore. Over the years, he racked up a stack of disciplinary reports for breaking rules and verbally abusing prison staff. He had twice before tried to kill himself in prison, once while in isolation.

On June 19 last year, he was caught in a downward spiral that was steep and violent. It was 90 degrees outside the walls of the prison that day, and behind the thick, locked door of Garafolo's prison infirmary room, it felt even hotter.

A wound had reopened after a recent surgery - an ulcerated sore from sitting long hours in a wheelchair. He had a fever and kept asking for pain medication, records show. He couldn't reach the sink for water. He was filthy and needed to bathe, but the shower in the corner of his room wasn't wheelchair-accessible.

And he wasn't making his care any easier, angrily banging on his door, shouting and cursing at the staff.

No doubt, the recent change in his prison circumstances had also inflamed him. Garafolo had gone from an unshackled interlude at UMass Memorial Medical Center for surgery - a comparatively happy time with family visits and a birthday celebration - to a stopover in the locked-down wing of the Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in Boston, to the infirmary at Shirley.

And for reasons top department officials cannot explain, at Shirley he was being held in segregation - the prison regime for troublemakers - meaning he was in isolation for 23 hours a day with no basic privileges, no phone calls, no TV. And, it seemed to Garafolo, no air. Despite his pleas, the officers on duty would not unlock the food trap in his door, about the size of a large mail slot, according to his cell-block neighbor, Miguel Perez, who said he was allowed the small bit of ventilation.

When Garafolo's mother visited, she had to talk to him through a glass window - a punishment reserved for segregated prisoners.

"I couldn't touch him," said Lorraine J. Jaillet, who last saw her son three days before his death. "He was crying. I've never seen so many tears."

Virtually every safety measure that might have helped Garafolo in the last six days of his life failed, prison records show.

First, the booking officer at Shirley looked up Garafolo's suicide-attempt history but did not tell the mental health staff what he found. Second, his prison records didn't arrive with him that night, so the intake nurse never examined them. She relied on Garafolo to say if he had any mental health issues, and he said no.

Third, the medical staff failed to alert mental health clinicians that Garafolo had been prescribed psychiatric medication at the hospital. MCI-Shirley's mental health director, Merleen Mills, told department investigators she was away when Garafolo arrived and didn't know he was there until his fifth day. Records show that no one from her staff went to see him.

That was particularly troubling, given the dangerous confusion over Garafolo's segregation status. Reports filed by correction officers say he was being protected from inmate enemies. But that was not reflected in the official prison record. As a result, Garafolo was never seen by a mental health clinician, as required when an inmate is segregated, to ensure he can handle the psychic strains of isolation.

It seemed everyone knew Garafolo was in crisis except the jailers and medical staff charged with his care. His half-brother, Dennis, also incarcerated at Shirley at the time, heard Anthony was in trouble and managed to visit him briefly. A sympathetic officer unlocked the slot in the door, Dennis Garafolo recalled, so he could reach his arm through it. Anthony just held his hand and cried.

"The way I saw that room, it was like being in the hole," Dennis Garafolo said, using prison slang for isolation.

For the last 20 hours of his life, Anthony Garafolo lashed out at staff members and beat on his door. He threatened to harm the wife and children of a sergeant, and demanded to be sent to another prison. When Garafolo smashed his cell window, his neighbor, Perez, feared for him.

The commotion stretched into the early-morning hours, but no one called the mental health staff, records show. Not the captain who threatened Garafolo with four-point restraints. Not the nurses, who had to have him shackled to give him care. Not the officers who had him locked down in segregation.

At 5:56 a.m. on June 20, Garafolo was found hanging from a sheet tied to the shower knob - a long reach from his wheelchair.

A handwritten letter by his bed said: "I can't fight any longer. . . . I going crazy just being in here this long. Don't let this happen to nobody again."

To this day, Lorraine Jaillet insists her son did not kill himself and plans to sue the Department of Correction. Family and friends say Garafolo would not have ended his life without writing to his mother. A pastor who visited Garafolo several times, Paul Suckling of the United Church of God in Worcester, was stunned. "There was frustration, sometimes depression, but nothing close to suicide," Suckling said.

His brother Dennis said, "Either my brother was pushed to that, or he felt doomed."

Desperation in isolation

Emotional desperation is common among those in isolation. It makes even healthy people sick and has a disastrous effect on people with mental illness, according to psychiatrists familiar with the effects of solitary confinement.

"It leaves you alone with your own delusions," said Dr. Matthew P. Dumont, a Cambridge psychiatrist. "It is actually the stupidest and most dysfunctional thing to do to a mentally ill prisoner."

And yet it remains a common form of discipline. In October, there were 345 inmates segregated in Massachusetts prisons, not including those held in other isolated settings, like Garafolo's infirmary room. Nationally, there were 80,870 segregation beds in 2000, following a political push, begun in the mid-1990s, for harder time for convicts and more maximum security cells, according to the Vera Institute of Justice, a research group.

But the Spotlight investigation found that, even as the suicide rate climbed, the prison system continued to rely on this dangerous tool, saying it had no alternative for violent inmates. Nine of the Massachusetts's suicides since 2005 have involved inmates held in isolation.

Dr. Robert B. Diener, a psychiatrist and medical director at Bridgewater State Hospital, regularly sees men who have been in isolation at Walpole, kept in a 9-by-6-foot cell 23 hours a day. He said it is psychologically unhealthy for inmates to be confined that way for long periods.

"They're deprived of normal life experiences," he said. "They can become outrageous."

Even a short period of isolation can be too much for some. It was for Miguel Velasquez.

He was not a convict but rather a federal detainee awaiting trial on gun possession charges when he arrived at MCI-Cedar Junction, the maximum security facility in Walpole, just over a year ago. He had a history of mental illness for which he was being treated, and his behavior behind bars had been generally good.

But then in July he punched another inmate. The price for that would be steep: a trip to the infamous 10-Block isolation unit, home to some of the system's most difficult prisoners. Facing that prospect, Velasquez snapped, records show. He resisted a mandatory strip search, then angrily refused to put his clothes back on. And so he was shackled and marched naked down the hallway to a tiny, windowless cell, according to written reports of the incident.

An officer locked the door with bars, and then, as punishment, shut the outer, solid door as well. Velasquez, 33, was dead three hours later, having hanged himself with a piece of the shirt he wouldn't wear. He was the third inmate in two years to take his life behind a solid door in 10-Block.

The last hours of Velasquez's life were marked by two critical failures by prison and medical staff, the department's preliminary suicide report says.

The nurse who cleared Velasquez for isolation did not examine his mental health records, according to the report. Then, the officer who closed the solid door of his cell door did so without telling his commander or ensuring that mental health clinicians were notified, as department rules require.

His death alarmed Miriam Conrad, the lawyer in the federal defender's office who had represented Velasquez. "Pretrial detainees have a basic right, as well as a constitutional right, to be treated humanely," she said.

The US Marshals Service was paying the Department of Correction $90 a day for Velasquez's "housing, safekeeping, and subsistence." Yvonne Bonner, the acting US Marshal in Boston, said Velasquez's assignment to the state's bleakest prison was purely by chance.

"It's an old facility. It's a depressing site," Bonner said. But, she observed, "I would think being in segregation would be the safest place they could be."

When first contacted by the Globe, Bonner said her office had no plan to probe Velasquez's death beyond a cursory review of the Department of Correction's report. But after learning from the Globe of the errors reflected in prison documents, Bonner reopened the investigation. She said that no federal detainees would be placed at Cedar Junction until the investigation was completed. Several detainees with known mental health issues have since been moved to other prisons.

James R. Bender, the Department of Correction's deputy commissioner, said staff members who failed to follow protocol in the Velasquez case could be disciplined.

A man unraveling

Glen Bourgeois lasted four months in 10-Block.

He landed at Walpole in August 2006 after getting caught in a relationship with a female employee at Old Colony Correctional Center and for having a hacksaw and other contraband in his cell. At 44, he had served 21 years for his role in a murder during a robbery, and he had allegedly been planning to escape. Bourgeois had recently lost hope about his appeal attempts, according to a friend of his and correction officers, and was grappling with the life sentence ahead of him.

In letters to his brother, Bourgeois complained about the oppressive boredom of "the hole." He read books and newspapers, and wrote letters to a pen pal.

For the most part, Bourgeois didn't give correction officers trouble in his final months. But the preliminary prison report on his suicide describes a man falling apart.

Bourgeois complained of panic attacks soon after arriving at 10-Block, saying the noise made him want to bash his head against a wall. But when a clinician came to see him, he said he was "all set."

Twice Bourgeois refused orders to allow the solid door of his cell to be closed, once sticking his arm through the bars to block it. For that he was to receive further punishment: No radio until mid-December and no telephone calls until Jan. 21, 2007, a date he wouldn't live to see.

By October, Bourgeois had been suffering from migraine headaches for two months. He was prescribed Prozac for stress.

In November, Bourgeois went on a hunger strike, but records show he wasn't seen by mental health, as required. They did finally visit him on Nov. 16, for the 90-day mental status checkup required for all inmates in segregation.

On Dec. 27, Bourgeois was found hanging at 4:34 a.m. No one could see him do it because his solid door was closed. Prison officials say he asked for it to be shut, for quiet.

Bourgeois's brother, Michael Hook-DiMarino, was disturbed when he saw the text of his brother's suicide note, a note he said prison officials had told him did not exist. "Consider my sentence paid in full," it said. "I did the only thing I felt I could do to stop my headaches. I have plan this for almost a month, there was no one I could ask for help without being put in worse living conditions than I am in already."

With Bourgeois's death, Hook-DiMarino lost the last member of his immediate family. He said of his brother: "You have to pay for your crime. But you're still human."

A sentence without a crime

The warning signs are often obvious. But prison staff, hardened by what they consider inmates' manipulative behavior, can be blind to them.

Last December, Nicole Davis was sent for detox to MCI-Framingham, the state women's prison, for 30 days. She was not serving a sentence for a crime.

Her family had filed court papers to have Davis civilly committed, to help her shake the drugs she had been addicted to for years - and to head off the arrest warrants she was facing for several open theft cases, and for using a credit card her boyfriend had stolen.

Her parents had hoped to commit her to a private facility. And Davis's lawyer argued to send her to a New Bedford treatment center used by the state as an alternative to prison for women in detox. But Judge Robert G. Harbour at Taunton District Court felt she should be sent to a "secure facility."

"The judge told us she'd be safe at Framingham," said Nicole's mother, Rosamond.

But that was not to be. Judge Harbour told the Globe, "It's something that I'll never forget."

The detox regime was primitive. Coming down off heroin, the antianxiety drug Klonopin, and possibly other substances, Davis was locked in a room at night, with correction officers periodically watching her door. She told a mental health clinician that she had been depressed since the death of her baby boy, Nathan, in foster care seven months earlier.

She denied feeling suicidal, according to prison records. But her parents said they saw real distress on their visit Dec. 19, the day after Davis's 24th birthday. Davis begged them not to leave.

"She said, 'I want you to stay because if you don't stay, I have to go back up in the hole,' " her mother recalled. Davis hated to be alone, her father said.

That night, Davis was left alone in a spartan cement cell in the infirmary. She was kept there after alleging that a male officer had groped her. It was a claim the officials doubted, according to the investigative report of her death.

Around midnight, Robert and Rosamond Davis were awakened by police at their Norton home. They called MCI-Framingham, as directed, and soon heard prison Superintendent Lynn M. Bissonnette tell them their daughter had died in a "bizarre incident," Robert Davis recalls.

Throughout her last evening alive, Nicole Davis repeatedly asked for medical care, Dr. Philip DeChavez said in the department's suicide review. The staff checked on her but thought she was just seeking drugs or attention. At 10:29 p.m., an officer found her, sitting on the cell floor with a sheet around her neck.

Clinicians and staff members involved in Davis's suicide review mulled some fundamental questions. Might inmates undergoing drug or alcohol withdrawal be at risk to themselves once they're sober? Should they have a new mental health check-up after detoxing?

The panel members decided such assessments would not help. However, Bissonnette, the superintendent, did propose that women no longer be left alone. According to the report, she was concerned that heightened feelings of isolation could "result in an increase risk of self-harm."

"The women," Bissonnette told the Globe, "can't tolerate it."

At great risk

Sean Turner was another left to fight through detox on his own.

Turner was alone in a cell at MCI-Concord, withdrawing from daily intravenous heroin use without proper medical oversight on the day he took his life.

According to the Department of Correction's own procedures, Turner should not have been admitted to Concord at all on July 11, 2005. At that time, the old prison on Route 2 had no beds for inmates going through withdrawal. The department's review of Turner's suicide says, "MCI Concord does not have detox protocols in place and all detox patients are transferred to infirmary sites or the local hospital for care." But, it goes on to say, "Mr. Turner was released to population," meaning to an ordinary cell.

When Turner, 47, arrived at Concord that night - awaiting trial on motor vehicle and drug charges - he was experiencing nausea from withdrawal. A physician reviewed his intake report, and the nurse ordered detox medication, according to the department's reports. But she did not write a progress note or notify the on-call physician of the detox plan.

Over the next two days, Turner was quiet, according to inmates interviewed by the department. He sat alone in the chow hall, played dominoes, and went to the library, they said, but he was depressed and fearing a long prison term.

On the morning of July 13, Turner went to the medication line at 8 a.m., an inmate said, but was turned away. He took a shower about 10:30 a.m., went to lunch, and was seen lying on his bunk at 1:45 p.m. An inmate says he asked Turner for stamps at 2:10 p.m.

At 2:30 p.m., when most inmates were out in the yard and his cellmate was away at court, Turner was found hanging from a sheet attached to a wall vent. He'd had plenty of time to do it: Two correction officers on duty failed to make their scheduled hourly rounds that afternoon, according to department investigators' review of a prison videotape. The officers lied in the investigative interview, claiming they had made the rounds. They received 30-day suspensions.

"I just can't imagine that they would put anyone in his circumstance into a room and just leave them," Turner's mother, Dianne Hawkes, said of her eldest child, a smart student with a knack for mechanics, woodworking, and photography. "I think they were completely negligent."

Aside from the physical dangers, psychiatrists and prison officials say detoxing can bring on severe depression. For some inmates, it's the first time they've been sober in months or years, and they find themselves suddenly facing the reality of incarceration, said Karin T. Bergeron, superintendent at Bridgewater State Hospital.

"Many of these men are at great risk for suicidality," she said.

Falling through the cracks

That was certainly the case for Jarred Aranda. By the time he arrived at Bridgewater last spring, he'd been at the Bristol County jail in North Dartmouth for three months.

Aranda was in the midst of the longest stretch of sobriety he'd experienced in recent memory, he told a Bridgewater psychiatrist, and he was feeling poorly. He had all but forgotten the comforts of his youth: the house with the big lawn, the swimming pool, the dinners in his grandmother's kitchen. He hadn't wanted his mother or sister to see him at Bristol County, where he stole a correction officer's lunchbox and fought with him. He tried to hang himself with shoelaces, then cut his wrist with a plastic knife.

Days later he spent his first night at Bridgewater, alone in a treatment unit, but under frequent watch. The next day, he was removed from seclusion but kept under close observation. Two days later, he was sent to a less restrictive area.

That's when Aranda fell through the cracks. No one took responsibility for him for nearly two weeks, according to the department's records.

On his last full day alive, Aranda told a psychiatrist his depression was getting worse. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being worst), he felt like a seven or eight. The doctor prescribed Lithium and Seroquel for Aranda's bipolar symptoms and Wellbutrin for depression. It's unclear if Aranda took the medication; he had refused it since arriving at the hospital.

Just a few days before, Aranda's father and stepmother had visited him. They said he talked about the future, about changing his life. He didn't complain; he never wanted his family to worry.

But on the night of March 30, prison records show, Aranda took the laces out of his roommate's sneakers. And headed for the shower.

Left in uncertain hands, a haunted life ends tragically

December 10, 2007

Second of three parts

This story was reported by Globe Spotlight Team members Francie Latour, Michael Rezendes, Beth Healy, Jonathan Saltzman, and editor Thomas Farragher. It was written by Latour.

To the teen mother who struggled to raise him, he was slow, abnormal, and often out of control.

To the counselors who tried to steer him from trouble in Springfield, he was a child trapped in the body of a pudgy young man, the charmer who couldn't count the change in his own pocket.

And to prison clinicians who knew him behind bars, he was, above all, a "frequent flier," their code for inmates who require the constant attention of the mental health staff.

By the time Nelson Rodriguez walked through the heavy metal doors of state prison in 2004, convicted in a stabbing case, he had long since been diagnosed as mentally retarded and mentally ill - a man unable to grasp even the most basic concepts.

But as an inmate, the 26-year-old Rodriguez was routinely punished for acting out in ways he could not control. Time and again, his jailers used the same blunt tools - isolation and loss of basic privileges - to deal with him.

The discipline never improved his behavior; in fact, he got worse. It ran directly against warnings by prison clinicians. But it kept coming - for him as for many of the mentally ill who have overwhelmed the prison system.

During 18 months in state custody, the young man with the lazy eye and troubled mind spent a quarter of his time - about 145 days - in solitary confinement.

On Dec. 20, 2005, five days after his last transfer into the forbidding Walpole prison unit known as 10-Block, Rodriguez's isolation was pressed to the extreme. Officers shut an outer solid door over the bars of his cell and walked away.

Sometime in the next four hours, Rodriguez tied a strip of bed sheet to the metal cover around his cell's smoke detector. He wrapped the other end around his neck, and hanged himself.

When it comes to suicide behind bars, it is impossible to expect total prevention, state Department of Correction officials say. With some determined inmates, Associate Commissioner Veronica Madden said, "It seems that they really wanted to die."

But the death of Nelson Rodriguez in cell 49 is not that kind of story. Rather, his is the story of the kind of inmate now flooding the corrections system: the mentally ill for whom prison is increasingly the asylum of last resort. The Globe Spotlight team dwelled in depth on his short life and sorry end as a way to understand why men like Rodriguez wind up behind bars and why too many die there.

Rodriguez was a man-child with a hard-wired inability to learn at the mercy of a system where punishment and more punishment is often the only real response to inmates with little or no ability to control their behavior.

It is a practice that amounts, in some cases, to an invitation to give up on life.

"He is someone who definitely should not have been put in isolation because of his condition. There's no question about that," said Terry Kupers, a national specialist on mental illness in prisons, who reviewed Rodriguez's records. "Putting [mentally ill inmates] in segregation and then closing the solid door to their cell is like asking them to commit suicide."

Madden told the Globe that Rodriguez's suicide was a tragedy, for him, his family, and for her department.

"This was a deeply troubled young man presenting with a very complex set of circumstances in a very noncomplex system that we run," she said.

Madden also said that she had not known that Rodriguez was mentally retarded.

"We hear now that he was mentally retarded," she said. "I don't have any documentation on that. Did that come up in court? Where was that prior?"

In fact, court records and internal reports are peppered with references to Rodriguez's mental retardation. Those records include a 2006 suicide review in which Madden herself was an observer. They stretch back to Rodriguez's first contact with the Department of Correction in 2003, and among those who treated him it was anything but a secret.

"You could talk to him about skills and ways to cope and strategies, but he wouldn't retain it," said one of Rodriguez's former clinicians, who treated him for about a year and who asked not to be named because of department policies that forbid discussing inmates. "He didn't have the skills to say, 'If I'm good for three more days, I'll be out of [solitary confinement].' He just couldn't do that."

Instead, Rodriguez lashed out - and fell apart.

Yet he wasn't on the radar screen of the mental health staff as a high-risk inmate, according to one internal Correction Department review obtained by the Globe.

At Walpole, no one in charge seemed to know anything about a doctor's warning that placing Rodriguez in solitary confinement posed a serious danger to his mental state, and to his safety.

Instead, after he cut his arms and throat, he was sent to one of the most restricted and bleak holding units Walpole had to offer: 10-Block.

"He'd never make it there," Rodriguez's former clinician said of Rodriguez's transfer. "I mean, he didn't make it there, obviously."

A troubled child

When he was a little boy, Nelson Rodriguez was haunted by a monster. It tormented his dreams and lurked around corners.

At age 10, he told a psychologist that the monster would kill his friends, eat his mother, and throw him into water burning with fire. Naturally, he gave the monster a name: Freddy, as in Freddy Krueger, the horror movie serial killer.

If Rodriguez's fantasy world was horrific, his boyhood reality was filled with frustration and pain.

His IQ was well below normal. He had a seizure disorder, and tests strongly suggested some form of brain damage. As he approached his 11th birthday, he still wet his bed. And he had no friends. Instead, his peers taunted him mercilessly.

All the while, the mother he dreamed that Freddy would devour was at once the focus of all the boy's devotion, and his rage.

Mildred DeJesus, 18 years old when she gave birth to Rodriguez, couldn't handle her son's violent outbursts, or any of the burdens of raising a child who, in her words, "was not normal." After Rodriguez began exhibiting strange, hypersexual behavior - exposing himself and preying on his toddler stepbrothers - DeJesus grew desperate. Ultimately, she signed over custody of her son to the state.

To his relatives in Springfield, it was clear what had happened. In an interview, Rodriguez's aunt, his grandmother, and his youngest half-brother described young Nelson as a torment, even as they acknowledged that his disability and mental illness were to blame.

"You wanted to trust him," said Dezi Rodriguez, who at 20 has just begun to forgive the brother who once menaced him. "You wanted to give him a chance, but you couldn't."

When told that Rodriguez would speak of his mother with longing to almost anyone he would meet, all three looked up, stared, and fell silent. "Believe me," Mary DeJesus, Rodriguez's aunt, said finally of her sister, who died of AIDS in 1999. "She would try so hard to love that kid."

As Nelson grew into adolescence, little changed. Clinicians still saw traits bordering on psychosis. At 17, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for six weeks. He bounced erratically between foster families and group homes.

And in a system already awash with unwanted children who soon grow into unwanted teenagers, Rodriguez became his own worst enemy: He was just smart enough to know he did not want to be labeled "retarded," and just verbal enough to try to convince people that he wasn't.

Jim Nash, a Springfield-area advocate for the disabled, was one of several counselors who took Rodriguez in for short periods of time as a young adult. Rodriguez was 18 at the time, but, with his goofy grin and impossible naiveté, he struck Nash as more like his own two toddlers than as a young man.

"He was able to posture and hold himself and look like some regular dude walking down the street," Nash said. "But in reality, there was nothing below the surface. There was no good framework for how to face the world."

At a critical period, between the ages of 18 and 22, Rodriguez's posturing fooled many of those charged with determining his future. In 1999, clinicians and the courts deemed him competent to care for himself without a guardian.

To the frustration of advocates, Rodriguez was in a social services limbo. He was too old for DSS services and would not ordinarily be eligible for services from the Department of Mental Retardation until age 22, although local DMR caseworkers tried to intervene.

At the same time, no one could force him to accept help. That was key, because Rodriguez was fed up with services, rules, and restrictions.

Jason Nelson, a part-time counselor and Comcast worker who lives in Chicopee, was one of the last people to help Rodriguez, and one of the most determined. In the year he spent as Rodriguez's guardian, he faithfully drove him to his night job washing dishes at a local restaurant and coaxed him to take the medications Rodriguez hated.

But after a year of hostile, unexplained outbursts from Rodriguez, Jason Nelson found himself hitting the same brick wall Rodriguez's mother had reached years earlier.

"I was at my wit's end," he said. "I was emotionally, mentally, and physically exhausted from it."

Rodriguez was spiraling. Between 1997 and 2002, he was in and out of coun ty jail on various misdemeanors - petty larceny, breaking and entering, property damage.

Inexorably, he was slipping into the growing ranks of the wandering mentally ill, whose outbursts and episodes eventually lead to arrest, prosecution, and prison.

A changing diagnosis

For years, Rodriguez had been fascinated by Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Something about a cartoon team of mutant reptiles, isolated from society and trained as warriors, clearly spoke to him. And he obsessed over martial arts. One day in the early summer of 2003, while living at a Springfield homeless shelter, he began taking kung fu classes. Then he bought a sword at a local pawn shop.

The next day, Rodriguez used the sword to stab another homeless man in the stomach inside the shelter's bathroom. It's unclear how the conflict began, but, according to police and witnesses, the scene was bloody. The victim, 29-year-old Marcus Roberts, arrived at the hospital holding in his intestines with a towel.

Roberts recovered fully. But despite an unusually passionate appeal by a court-appointed lawyer, this would not be another misdemeanor for Rodriguez. "He wasn't crazy, but he was retarded," said David Burgess of Concord, who asked the judge to send his client to a county jail instead of prison. "He's not as culpable as I would be, or you would be, if we pulled a knife on somebody."

Still, even Burgess could not argue with the judge's bottom line: A person should be able to enter a shelter and not have to worry about being stabbed. The court sentenced Rodriguez to four to seven years.

He was now in the hands of a prison system that struggles to adequately treat or even track mentally ill prisoners and has little capacity to deal with the mentally retarded.

"We don't have enough expertise," said Dr. Kenneth L. Appelbaum, the former mental health director for the UMass Correctional Health, which served the prison population until this summer. "And we don't have the services that those people need in the system. It is, in my opinion, a significant unmet need."

In Rodriguez's case, it was worse than that.

An internal staff review of his death, obtained by the Globe, said clinicians focused far too much on whether Rodriguez was really mentally ill, instead of realizing the danger he posed to himself.

"Despite the fact that his entire mental health history was well documented within the medical record," the report said, "the mental health clinicians at MCI-Cedar Junction seemed to either underemphasize, or simply be unaware of, some of the more critical information contained within his record."

That record, one of distress and breakdown, began even before Rodriguez had been officially sentenced to serve state time.

In November 2003, while still awaiting trial in a county jail in Ludlow, he tried to hang himself, an incident that landed him at Bridgewater State Hospital, the prison system's facility for the mentally ill.

The doctor who evaluated him concluded that while Rodriguez was not profoundly mentally ill, he was a danger to himself. Using italics in her report to stress her point, she noted that clinical staff and correction officers should be aware of the "very real, very substantial" risk of self-harm.

By June 2004, and convicted of the crime, he was an inmate at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, the state's modern maximum-security facility in Shirley. There, his outbursts triggered escalating punishment. He broke his food tray, exposed himself, and repeatedly attacked officers. As a result, he was kept in isolation.

By October 2004, Rodriguez was back for further observation at Bridgewater, where, his relatives say, prison officials should have recognized the severity of his illness and kept him for treatment indefinitely. And for a moment, it looked like that might happen.

In a report correction officials themselves say was crucial, the doctor who evaluated Rodriguez, David W. Holtzen, found that Rodriguez was hallucinating, had thoughts of suicide, was suffering from major depression, and was losing his grip on reality. Holtzen not only wanted Rodriguez admitted, he also wanted a court order to force Rodriguez to take antipsychotic medications.

Then something changed.

About two weeks later, Holtzen evaluated Rodriguez again and deemed him no longer seriously mentally ill but rather "antisocial" and "bored." According to an internal review of Rodriguez's suicide, Holtzen changed his mind after members of Rodriguez's treatment team said they believed Rodriguez was improving.

But Bridgewater's own records show that Rodriguez was still deeply unwell. Shortly after the reevaluation, officers at Bridgewater reported he was punching the cell walls and acting out of control. Despite those warning signs, Rodriguez was back in prison 72 hours after the new diagnosis. And his disciplinary record worsened again.

Through representatives of UMass Correctional Health, Holtzen declined to comment about the change in diagnosis, citing privacy laws of patients. A UMass spokesman called Holtzen's assessment "reasoned."

Even though Holtzen's interpretation of Rodriguez's behavior had changed radically, the doctor did warn that if Rodriguez was placed in conditions akin to solitary confinement, his mental health would be in jeopardy.

"[Holtzen] clearly puts in the chart: Watch this guy, he's a serious suicide risk," said Terry Kupers, the national specialist on mental illness in prisons. "From that moment on, this is a person who should have been tracked."

Instead, the Department of Correction kept losing track of Nelson Rodriguez.

Off the radar screen

By the spring of 2005, Rodriguez began bracing himself for life inside the state's toughest prison: MCI-Cedar Junction in Walpole.

The clinicians at Souza-Baranowski understood his problems and even found him likeable. But prison officials transferred him after finding themselves overwhelmed by his chronic misconduct.

His state of mind was clear in a letter he wrote to his grandmother, Elsie "Bita" Miranda, and his brother Lorenzo Rodriguez. Using almost no punctuation, he wrote: "I'm trying really hard to survive in jail. . . . My tears been rolling down my cheekbone like crazy. . . . Look I'm gonna be moving to another jail is called Walpole. . . . Pray for me please."

At Walpole, he quickly slipped off the radar screen. His name never appeared on the prison's risk list. And his lengthy mental health history did not catch the attention of the two people at Walpole most responsible for his mental health care: his assigned clinician and her boss, Erika Grandberg, MCI-Cedar Junction's mental health director.

Grandberg would later tell investigators that she knew nothing about the prior warnings that more isolation could hurt Rodriguez or should, at least, trigger more vigilant care. She also defended Rodriguez's absence from the risk list, saying, "At the time, he wasn't somebody who we considered high risk."

But in two months at Walpole, Rodriguez just couldn't follow the rules. He was cited for various outbursts.

Still reasoning like a child, Rodriguez tried to appeal the punishments in the only way he knew how. In November, a month before his suicide, he pleaded to have his television, telephone, and visitation privileges restored. "They don't understand that I'm mildly mentally retarded," records say he told a clinician. "I got a dangerous mind. I can cut myself, hang myself." But nothing came of the appeals.

Rodriguez was 19 months into his prison sentence. He was due for an update on his treatment plan, but the deadline came and went without one, according to the department's review. Rodriguez's clinician told investigators that she had updated it, but that the plan "was not in his chart and she does not know where it went."

In early December, Rodriguez cut his arms and throat, triggering an emergency medical call. He spit on responding officers and bit one of them, records show, and was shackled by his arms and legs. Two days later, he was put on a 15-minute interval watch - a clear sign that he was a high risk for suicide.

And then prison officials decided to send Rodriguez to 10-Block. The prospect led him to further unravel.

On Dec. 14, 2005, a prison psychiatrist discontinued two medications Rodriguez was taking - Remeron, an antidepressant, and Seroquel, an antipsychotic drug - while upping his dosage of a third drug, a mood stabilizer. Department records reviewed by the Globe provide no explanation for the adjustment. The very next day, Rodriguez entered Cell 49 in 10-Block, a foreboding 60-bed, two-story unit where inmates are confined to closet-size cells 23 hours a day.

His brief time in custody had been as volatile as any inmate's. But when Rodriguez underwent a routine assessment as 10-Block's newest guest, the clinician's words had the uneventful tone of a weather report. "Stable, no evidence of psychosis, delusions, or hallucinations. Monitor [patient] per Treatment Plan, [as needed]."

Five days later, officers sounded an alert - Code 99, inmate hanging. They entered Cell 49 and removed the ligature from around Rodriguez's neck. They carried his body down the tier to a landing on the second floor. Chest compressions were begun. An ambulance was called. A Walpole rescue team responded.

He was pronounced dead at 4:44 p.m.

Investigators would later conclude that there were 22 officers assigned to patrol 10-Block that day; 11 of them were responsible for the upper tiers that included Rodriguez's cell. But no one made the required half-hour checks on Rodriguez for four hours, even though the log book for that day contained entries indicating the proper rounds had been made.

And in its review of his suicide, officials seemed to struggle to explain how an inmate like Rodriguez - mentally retarded with a well-chronicled history of dangerous misconduct - could be described as an inmate "not on the radar screen."

The answer, they concluded, may lie in Cedar Junction's operating ethos.

"Due to the overall culture of the institution, mental health staff at MCI-Cedar Junction have a rather high threshold for how they assess and address an inmate's acting-out behaviors and overall mental health status," the confidential internal review concluded.

Conclusions like that ring hollow for people who still remember Rodriguez as the child trapped in a man's body, the inmate who could never learn the rules.

"He never had a chance to have a childhood," Jason Nelson, his former guardian, told state lawmakers three months after his death. "To place a man in a maximum-security prison that is not equipped or staffed to help or even understand the type of mental illness Nelson was plagued with is beyond my understanding."

Part 3
BREAKDOWN THE PRISON SUICIDE CRISIS
Guards, inmates a volatile dynamic

December 11, 2007

Last of three parts

This story was reported by Globe Spotlight Team members Jonathan Saltzman, Michael Rezendes, Beth Healy, Francie Latour, and editor Thomas Farragher.

It was written by Saltzman and Farragher.

On a damp Saturday last fall, Scott A. Flaherty collected a stack of papers and notebooks that chronicled his decade as a state correction officer and set them ablaze in a cemetery near his home in Randolph.

Flaherty had liked his first eight years at MCI-Cedar Junction in Walpole, but his last two had turned hellish. He hoped the graveyard bonfire would exorcise memories of his work behind the walls of the state's toughest prison.

Especially his memory of what happened there one night in late 2000.

Shortly before 10 that November night, a deeply disruptive inmate lay shackled to a concrete slab in a cramped cell. As Sergeant Flaherty stood watch, a captain and three other officers swept in, the captain grabbing, as he went by, a foam cup that Flaherty had been using to catch tobacco juice and sunflower seeds.

Flaherty said he watched as the captain tilted the cup over the mouth of the prisoner. Sickened, he turned away. But he could hear the parting admonition to the 33-year-old inmate, Hakeem Obba: If you don't behave, my officers will pour [excrement] down your throat.

"Because I can do anything I want to you," Captain Ronald R. Picard told Obba, according to a four-page complaint Flaherty filed with supervisors.

Two months later, Obba hanged himself with elastic from his underpants and bed sheets.

Flaherty, now an investigator for the State Police in Bristol County, said it would be wrong to draw a straight line from the alleged abuse of Obba - which Picard was punished for, but denies - to his suicide. But the larger point was hard to miss: Some correction officers, he said, are unfit to deal with the mentally ill or deeply troubled inmates who are increasingly their charge. The result is an incendiary dynamic between inmates and officers, a climate ripe for abuse.

"The inmate was restrained. He had no way to defend himself," said Flaherty, 37, one of two officers who reported the incident. "It would be akin to a police officer raping somebody. There's no gray area there."

The treatment of Obba - who was in four-point restraints for nearly 40 hours over four days - is one of the most flagrant of the cases examined by the Globe of abuse of inmates whom prison officials or prisoner advocates say had acute mental problems.

But it is hardly an isolated example. A Spotlight Team investigation into a recent surge in prison suicides and suicide attempts found other cases in which correction officers, with scant training in how to handle the burgeoning number of mentally ill in prison, brutalized, mistreated, or neglected inmates.

Indeed, as prisons increasingly become the asylum of last resort for the mentally ill - with the closure of state hospitals and the deinstitutionalization of their residents - desperation, frustration, and violence are rising on both sides of the cell door.

About 50 times a month, according to department statistics, members of its staff are assaulted by inmates. And, at the same time, the correction department has disciplined scores of officers for assault and other misconduct involving inmates.

As the number of inmate suicides has soared to roughly three times the national rate, prison officials say correction officers deserve credit for saving dozens of inmates who attempt suicide. Still, it is not hard to find cases where officers abused mentally ill prisoners.

In a 2004 episode at MCI-Cedar Junction, a correction officer twice punched a handcuffed inmate in the head as the prisoner lay face-down on the floor, giving him a bloody eye. The incident was captured on videotape, and the state fired the correction officer. But a civil service panel reduced the punishment to a 90-day suspension, in part because the prison superintendent was merely demoted for using excessive force in an unrelated incident. The prison system is appealing the reduced punishment in the courts.

In September 2006, prison officials sustained a complaint by an inmate that correction officers at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center locked him in a shower cell overnight in 2004 and shoved feces and urine into the stall with a mop. The prisoner -who suffers from panic disorder, depression, and possible bipolar disorder, according to medical records - has cut his own Achilles tendon and repeatedly swallowed razor blades, batteries, and push pins.

"I understand that when people do bad things, they have to go and pay for them," said Amelia Bargoot, the sister of the inmate, Eric R. Bargoot, a convicted bank robber. "But there's a difference between torture and rehabilitation."

Well-trained correction officers are crucial for recognizing suicidal inmates and preventing many deaths, according to Lindsay M. Hayes, a national specialist in prison suicide prevention hired by the state in 2000 to study Bridgewater State Hospital. Because many suicides take place at night and on weekends, when mental health clinicians have gone home, correction officers are the only ones who can intervene.

However, when Hayes returned to the prisons late last year for a follow-up study, he found that the state had ignored his recommendation to increase suicide-prevention training for new officers from two and a half to eight hours. Prison officials said they have since complied.

Still, the volcanic cellblock dynamic scares relatives and friends of prisoners.

"Between mental illness and the fact that these people have committed crimes, they're going to throw them away," said Kathleen Connolly, who worries that her boyfriend and father of her two children, mentally ill inmate John Nowell, will never make it out of Walpole alive.

"We'll take his dead body out of there," she said. "He's not going to make it. He does not belong in there. Either someone is going to kill him or he's going to kill himself."

The DDU

The place where Hakeem Obba died and where John Nowell now lives, sits at the extreme end of the gone-to-seed Walpole complex, just minutes and a world away from Gillette Stadium, the gleaming home of the New England Patriots.

It is a walled-off, cinder block bunker where inmates are locked up 23 hours a day. From a glass-paneled, high-tech silo at its inner core, correction officers monitor the inmates' every move on video screens. Prisoners can leave their cells for an hour of exercise in cages that are the human equivalent of small, fenced-in dog runs.

Prison officials call the bunker the Departmental Disciplinary Unit, or DDU for short.

The solitary confinement inmates who live there have a nickname for it, too: the hole.

Its 124 cells are reserved for "the worst of the worst," inmates who earn their spot in the system's most secure unit by assaulting correction officers or other inmates, or by committing other serious misconduct. It is a place, some officers say, where inmates feel they have nothing to lose by lashing out, because there is no place worse to go.

Correction officers who spoke to the Globe under the condition of anonymity, citing department rules that restrict their ability to speak to the media without permission, said a thick emotional callous is a virtual job prerequisite.

"It's a survival tool," one officer said. "That's exactly what it is."

But the officers did not hesitate to confirm what many maximum-security prisoners in solitary confinement told the Globe: Sometimes, in anger and frustration, they taunt inmates who threaten to kill themselves, telling them: "Hang it up!"

"You can't help it, it just comes out," said one Walpole officer who guards prisoners in an isolation block. His message to inmates he feels are using threats of suicide to gain leverage? "You know what? Do it!"

Or, said a Cedar Junction colleague assigned to a segregation unit where some of the toughest cases are confined, frustrated officers will respond to a threat of imminent suicide this way: "I'll be back in 10 minutes. Twenty maybe."

The officers, three 20-year veterans from a medium-security facility in Bridgewater and two relative rookies who work at MCI-Cedar Junction, said they are easy scapegoats when something goes wrong. They said they have become marginalized by mental health clinicians who no longer listen to what they have to say. They do stressful work that, they said, almost nobody wants.

"Morale has never been this low," one veteran officer said in an interview. "I've never seen guys despise coming to work. . . . They treat you like you're a guard at a mall."

A good night at Walpole, they said, is when everyone on the cellblock is breathing when they walk in, and everyone is breathing when they walk out.

Given the frustrations and dangers the correction officers confront, there is little reservoir of empathy for inmates who arrive with or descend into psychosis.

"We do have a lot of frequent fliers who swallow nails, spikes, glass," said Steve Kenneway, president of the 5,000-member Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union. "If you leave a light bulb laying around, they'll eat that, too. I mean they will just put everything in their system and then they'll tell you because it's their way of manipulating where they're going to be housed. There are definitely some inmates who are crazy, and they need help. They need treatment."

But treatment is not the responsibility of Kenneway's union members. They are trained to maintain safety and security.

"Let's think about why the person's sitting in the cell for 23 hours a day locked down," he said. "Because he murdered somebody. Stabbed an officer. Did something so egregious inside the prison system that now he has to be locked away even from the inmate population. So I'm never going to sympathize with the inmate. That's not my job."

Lack of sympathy is one thing. Urging self-destruction is something else.

Prison officials said such conduct is not tolerated and would be met with swift discipline if substantiated. Staff members have been suspended for making "derogatory comments" to inmates, they said. But the department could not supply an instance in which action was taken against an officer for encouraging an inmate's suicide or expressing glee after a hanging.

Correction officials say they do want to know who posted a jubilant message on a website used by MCI-Cedar Junction officers after a former inmate was found dead of a drug overdose shortly after he left prison earlier this year.

"Released last Thursday and found dead in Somerville Saturday. Hooray!" the Aug. 14 anonymous message read.

Prison management has disciplined staff for a wide array of other offenses.

From January 2003 to June 2007, the prison system's Office of Investigative Services investigated 1,126 allegations of serious misconduct by employees, some of which remain open cases, department statistics show.

Most of the cases involved correction officers. The alleged offenses ranged from 73 assaults - on inmates, employees, and civilians - to 98 cases of sexual misconduct with inmates, female and male.

Prison investigators sustained 312 allegations, more than a quarter of the 1,126. Because of the gravity of the offenses, the vast majority of those cases then went to hearings before the commissioner, who has the authority to issue significant punishments, ranging from an unpaid suspension of more than a week to termination.

The prison system ultimately fired 112 correction officers from January 2003 to June 2007, according to department statistics. But correction officers often appeal firings to the state Civil Service Commission or arbitrators - and some win back their jobs.

Sometimes correction officers have been found to be neglectful rather than abusive.

In 2005, for example, prison investigators found that correction officers failed to make required checks on three inmates who killed themselves at prisons in Walpole, Concord, and Shirley. Two of the inmates were severely mentally ill, and the third was undergoing withdrawal from a heroin addiction.

In two of the deaths, officers said they had made required checks but were contradicted by prison videotapes.

One of the suicides was that of Andrew Armstrong, who was serving 15 years for assault with intent to murder after a home invasion, and who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He had made two previous suicide attempts and was discharged from Bridgewater State Hospital four days before his death.

Before he hanged himself, he used a bar of soap to scrawl a message near the stainless steel mirror in his cell.

"Dust in the wind," it read.

'I'm not an animal'

No episode more starkly illustrates the toxic relationship between seriously troubled inmates and correction officers than the encounter between Obba and Picard.

And none more boldly underscores what can happen when the officers' cellblock code of solidarity is violated than what happened later between Picard and Flaherty.

Obba was one of the most disruptive prisoners at Cedar Junction, records show. He urinated on the floor. He spread feces on his walls. He was cited 210 times for misconduct in the hole.

But he never received a thorough mental health evaluation in prison, a psychiatrist retained by his family to advise them on a wrongful death suit said. He said Obba's behavior was so extreme it should have raised red flags for prison mental health staff.

Once, when a correction officer was passing out coffee to inmates in solitary confinement, Obba reached through the grill of his cell and stabbed him in the neck.

"There, deal with that, mother [expletive]," he said, according to department records. For that attack, he received 13 to 15 years on top of his sentence, three to five years for breaking and entering.

On Nov. 12, 2000, after officers said they saw Obba smear the door and window of his cell with feces, they received permission to shackle his wrists and ankles until he agreed to stop his disruptive behavior.

"This is cruel," he said in comments captured on videotape provided to the Globe by the correction officers' union. "This shouldn't be for a dog. . . . I'm a human being. . . . I'm not an animal."

Flaherty came on duty at 3 p.m. on Nov. 14 and volunteered to relieve an officer who had Obba on an "eyeball watch." Flaherty said his job was to monitor Obba through the window of his cell and to note his condition in a log every 15 minutes.

Flaherty, a Randolph native, had joined the department in 1992 at the age of 21. Like many correction officers, he hoped to use the job as a stepping-stone to a career as a police officer. But he said he ended up enjoying the rigors of the work - it required a combination of firmness, common sense, and fairness - and the camaraderie with other officers.

His view of correction, he said, was influenced by his granduncle, George F. McGrath, who was former governor John A. Volpe's correction commissioner in the early 1960s.

"He believed that inmates are going to get out some day, and you've got to give them programs to prepare them for when they get out," Flaherty said. "He was progressive, and I wanted to be like that."

Instead, what Flaherty found at Walpole, he said, was a bureaucracy that crushed idealism and muzzled dissent. Officers who cozied up to top prison officials enjoyed choice job assignments and got away with abusing inmates and staff, he said. Those without influential benefactors struggled for years to get off the night shift.

"We used to call it the Department of Corruption and Favoritism," he said.

Picard joined the Department of Correction in 1987 after working about a year as a part-time Bellingham police officer. He was ultimately promoted to captain, a job in which he oversaw about 20 officers.

Around 9:50 p.m., the captain and three other officers entered the observation ward, according to the incident report Flaherty filed. As the three underlings surrounded the inmate, Flaherty said, Picard tipped the cup of spit over Obba's mouth.

"It actually sickened me," Flaherty recalled in a sworn deposition he gave in April in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Obba's family. "I turned away. I couldn't look."

The four officers left the cell, and Picard handed the cup back to Flaherty. One of the officers bragged, "You could hear [Obba's] jaws clenching," Flaherty wrote in his complaint to supervisors.

After Picard and his coterie were gone, Obba shouted to Flaherty, "Tell the Captain if he pours [expletive] in my mouth, I'll kill him and his family," Flaherty recalled in his complaint. He could have disciplined Obba for the threat but opted not to. "I probably would have said the same thing," he said in his deposition.

Flaherty said he agonized about whether to report the alleged abuse.

He had filed a complaint about Picard only four months earlier because the captain accused him of faking an illness when it turned out that Flaherty had a fever of 103 and strep throat, he said. Picard retaliated by giving him lousy assignments, leading scores of shackled inmates to showers and mopping the hallways, Flaherty said.

Flaherty got so uneasy that he began carrying a small notebook to record any problems with Picard and his allies.

But Flaherty said he felt he had no choice but to report the treatment of Obba.

"Picard was just sadistic," Flaherty said in an interview. "He thought this was the way to rule. Sometimes you have to use force in the prison. It's just the dynamics. But the way I was schooled, once you're in restraints, it's over."

In response to Flaherty's complaint, prison officials began an internal investigation. Picard and two officers who accompanied him into the cell, Lieutenant Edward Marvelle and Sergeant Edward Mack, denied that anyone threatened Obba or poured anything on him. Marvelle told the investigator that Flaherty had been overheard in the past saying he was out to get Picard, according to the investigator's report.

But another officer, James E. McParlin Jr., who was assigned to the control room and said he could see Obba through the window, backed Flaherty's account. He said in his own incident report that he saw Picard extend his arm and tilt a foam cup over Obba's head.

"What happened that day was totally wrong," McParlin told the Globe. "You're in four-point restraints. You can't do anything. That's torture."

The department, citing internal records, said Obba confirmed Picard's threat but told investigators the cup's contents did not enter his mouth.

Before the Department of Correction completed its internal investigation, Obba hanged himself in his cell on the observation ward in the DDU.

Not long afterward, the inquiry into the alleged abuse concluded that Picard had threatened Obba and interfered with the investigation

Posted by lois at 04:48 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2008

A Card Carrying Civil Liberterian

"And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine — a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.
The real concern about Hillary Clinton’s record on civil liberties is that her administration would look like that of her husband. Bill Clinton’s presidency had many virtues, but a devotion to civil liberties was not one of them. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration proposed many of the expansions of police power that would end up in the Patriot Act. (They were opposed at the time by the same coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives that Mr. Obama has supported.) The Clinton administration’s tough-on-crime policies also contributed to the rising prison population, and to the fact that the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other country."

March 1, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times
A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian
By JEFFREY ROSEN
Washington
IF Barack Obama wins in November, we could have not only our first president who is an African-American, but also our first president who is a civil libertarian. Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has been more consistent than Hillary Clinton on issues from the Patriot Act to bans on flag burning. At the same time, he has reached out to Republicans and independents to build support for his views. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has embraced some of the instrumental tacking of Bill Clinton, whose presidency disappointed liberal and conservative civil libertarians on issue after issue.

Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over. The reform passed unanimously, and it has been adopted by four other states and the District of Columbia.
In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.
That wasn’t the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine — a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.
The real concern about Hillary Clinton’s record on civil liberties is that her administration would look like that of her husband. Bill Clinton’s presidency had many virtues, but a devotion to civil liberties was not one of them. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration proposed many of the expansions of police power that would end up in the Patriot Act. (They were opposed at the time by the same coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives that Mr. Obama has supported.) The Clinton administration’s tough-on-crime policies also contributed to the rising prison population, and to the fact that the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other country. Hillary Clinton’s conduct during the Clinton impeachment does not inspire confidence in her respect for privacy. Kathleen Willey, one of the women who accused President Clinton of unwanted advances, charges in a new book that Mrs. Clinton participated in the smear campaigns against her. A federal judge found that the Clinton White House had “committed a criminal violation” of Ms. Willey’s privacy rights by releasing her private letters. (An appellate court later criticized the judge’s “sweeping pronouncements.”) Whether Hillary Clinton’s administration would, in fact, look like Bill Clinton’s on civil liberties is hard to judge. In many areas, she has demonstrated an impressive commitment. She proposed a privacy bill of rights that would require consumers to “opt in” before their commercial data is shared and would allow them to sue companies for the misuse of data. She has called for the resurrection of a federal “privacy czar” who would balance the privacy costs and benefits of regulations. She made an eloquent speech in the Senate opposing the suspension of habeas corpus. And she has emphasized the importance of Congressional oversight of executive power, promising as president that she would consider surrendering some of the authority that President Bush unilaterally seized. Clearly, she would be immeasurably better on civil liberties than George W. Bush.
But Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the subject is that of a top-down progressive. Her speeches about privacy suggest that she has boundless faith in the power of experts, judges and ultimately herself to strike the correct balance between privacy and security.
Moreover, the core constituency that cares intensely about civil liberties is a distinct minority — some polls estimate it as around 20 percent of the electorate. A polarizing president, who played primarily to the Democratic base and refused to reach out to conservative libertarians, would have no hope of striking a sensible balance between privacy and security.
Mr. Obama, by contrast, is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities. His formative experiences have involved arguing for civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and prosecutors in Chicago.
As a former grass-roots activist, Mr. Obama understands the need to make the case for civil liberties in the political arena. At a time when America’s civil-libertarian tradition has been embattled at home and abroad, his candidacy offers a unique opportunity.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the author of “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01rosen.html?sq=Obama%20and%20civil%20liberties&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

Posted by lois at 11:25 AM | Comments (0)

February 29, 2008

TN: ACLU Sues Tennessee's Felon Disenfranchisement Law As Modern Day Poll Tax

ACLU Sues Over Tennessee’s Felon Disenfranchisement Law
2/25/2008
Group Says Payment Provision Is A Modern Day ‘Poll Tax’

NASHVILLE – The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Tennessee filed a lawsuit today in federal court challenging the state’s 2006 law that made the restoration of voting rights for people convicted of crimes contingent on the payment of all outstanding legal financial obligations (LFOs), namely restitution and child support fees. According to the ACLU’s lawsuit, requiring some individuals to bear an undue financial burden before voting is tantamount to a poll tax in violation of the constitutional right to vote and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

“Reports show that, nationally, over 50 percent of criminal defendants are indigent at the time of sentencing. Therefore, requiring a person with a criminal conviction to pay a fee before restoring their right to vote is nothing more than a modern day poll tax,” said Nancy Abudu, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “This law locks citizens out of the democratic process when it comes to issues of great concern to them. The result is that the political power of poor people is further diminished and the collateral consequences of poverty multiply.”

Today’s legal action, filed against state and county officials, challenges a 2006 law that changed the process by which individuals with criminal convictions may seek the restoration of their voting rights. According to the law, “a person shall not be eligible to apply for a voter registration card and have the right of suffrage restored unless such person has paid all restitution to the victim or victims of the offense ordered by the court as part of the sentence... [and] unless such person is current in all child support obligations.”

The ACLU brought its lawsuit on behalf of three individuals – Terence Johnson, Jim Harris and Alexander Friedman – who have completed their terms of imprisonment, parole, and probation for their offenses. Johnson and Harris are ineligible to vote because they owe child support for children they currently have custody of. Friedman applied for restoration of his voting rights in 2006, but Tennessee denied his application, claiming he owes over 1,000 dollars in restitution.

“My dream is to have the opportunity to become a fully productive citizen again, regardless of my economic status. And I have the right to participate in the electoral process to bring about change to the issues that concern me most in my community,” said Terence Johnson, a plaintiff in this case. “I’ve served my time, I am a taxpaying citizen and I have custody of my daughter. It is wrong for the state to punish me and other people while we get our lives back on track.”

Until recently, Tennessee’s voting rights restoration law – a patchwork of rules, restrictions, and procedures – was the most confusing and complicated in the country. Although a former felon no longer needs to go before a judge to have his or her right to vote restored, the law still requires several procedural steps before restoration is complete. The ACLU is committed to securing additional reforms to make Tennessee’s voting laws more user-friendly and to ensure that all people who have been incarcerated can regain their full voting rights.

“The ability to vote should not be based on one’s financial status,” said Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “Penalizing low-income parents by charging them a fee to exercise their constitutional right to vote is shameful. This law has no place in a functioning democracy.”

In addition to the equal protection claim, the ACLU’s lawsuit charges the Tennessee law violates the 24th Amendment’s voting rights provision and the due process protections in the federal and state constitutions.

Attorneys on the case are Abudu, Laughlin McDonald and Neil Bradley of the national ACLU Voting Rights Project, Tricia Herzfeld of the ACLU of Tennessee, and attorney Charles Grant of the law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.
URL: http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/34201prs20080225.html
A copy of today’s legal complaint is available at:
www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/34203lgl20080225.html

Posted by lois at 10:10 PM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2008

MO: Federal Appeals Panel Rules that the State Must Provide Transportation to Prisoners Wanting Abortions

State prisons must transport inmates for abortions
Associated Press
ST. LOUIS, MO (2008-01-22) A federal appeals court panel rules today that the state of Missouri must provide transportation to abortion clinics for inmates who want to undergo the procedure.
The state in 2005 tried to end the practice of driving prisoners to clinics for elective abortions. An inmate at the prison in Vandalia filed a class-action suit.
A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a lower court ruling in favor of the inmate.
It isn't clear if the state will appeal. Calls seeking comment from Attorney General Jay Nixon and Governor Blunt were not returned. The ruling comes on the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision, which established a nationwide right to abortion.

© Copyright 2008, KWMU

http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=printarticle&ARTICLE_ID=1215538

Posted by lois at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)

Supreme Court Rules Against Muslim Prisoner

Court Rules Against Muslim Inmate
January 23, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a Muslim inmate cannot sue the government over the disappearance of the prisoner's copies of the Quran and a prayer rug.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the federal law the inmate relied on prohibits lawsuits against federal corrections officers.

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali says the missing books and rug reflect widespread harassment against Muslim inmates in federal, state and local prisons stemming from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Reports from all over the country have come in" on Muslims' religious property that "has been destroyed, confiscated, looted, lost, stolen or taken without cause," Ali said in the lawsuit he filed in federal court. Ali is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia.

The issue in the case was whether federal prison guards are immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The law blocks lawsuits against the government over goods detained by customs and excise officers or "any other law enforcement officer." Two lower federal courts said Ali cannot sue because prison officials are law enforcement officers.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority that cut across ideological grounds, agreed with the lower courts. The law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by 'any,' not just 'some,' law enforcement officers," Thomas said. Tuesday's ruling was the first 5-4 split of the term, following a term in which the margin in 24 cases was a single vote.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia joined Thomas. The dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

"The seizure of property by an officer raises serious concerns for the liberty of our people and the act should not be read to permit appropriation of property without a remedy," Kennedy said.

Besides the two copies of the Quran and the prayer rug, Ali is missing stamps and other personal items worth $177 that he says never showed up after his transfer from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to Big Sandy penitentiary at Inez, Ky., in 2003. He said the last time he saw the now-missing items was when he turned them over to a prison supervisor in Atlanta.

Muslim inmates have been subjected to "very hard times and bad treatment" at the hands of federal, state and local prison employees, Ali said in court papers.

It seems as though "the many prison employees think that they can hurt you best taking your personally owned property," Ali wrote.

He added that because he has "practiced his faith to the fullest" he has been subjected to prison officials repeatedly confiscating and destroying his legal and religious property.

Ali said he has been harassed for his religious beliefs "year after year" in both the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
The case is Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 06-9130.
On the Net:
* Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

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

December 03, 2007

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Public Funding Of Evangelical Prison Program In Iowa

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Public Funding Of Evangelical Prison Program In Iowa
Monday, December 3, 2007
Americans United for Church and State

Americans United Praises Court Ruling That Upholds Separation Of Church And State

A federal appeals court today ruled that tax funding of an evangelical Christian rehabilitation program at an Iowa state prison violates the separation of church and state and must end.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that government support for the InnerChange Freedom Initiative at Newton Correctional Facility -- a program operated by Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries -- advances religious indoctrination at state expense. Americans United brought the litigation against InnerChange on behalf of inmates, their families and taxpayers.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, hailed the ruling.

"This is an extremely important decision," said Lynn. "Government officials have no business paying for religious indoctrination and awarding special treatment and benefits to those willing to embrace one religious perspective.

"Government should not single out a particular religion for special treatment," Lynn continued. "You simply cannot give government funds to a religious group for its evangelism program."

Added AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser, "This ruling is a major setback for the White House’s ‘Faith-Based Initiative.’ It reaffirms that the government must ensure that public funds are not used for religious instruction, and that the government must not aid programs that discriminate based on religion.”

Americans United presented evidence that inmates who took part in InnerChange were given better treatment and perks that were not available to others, including better housing and expedited access to classes required for parole. During its investigation of the program, AU discovered that InnerChange was saturated with evangelical Christianity and that staff members were frequently hostile to other faiths.

At trial, inmates testified that they were pressured to convert to evangelical Christianity, and that the beliefs of Roman Catholics and other faiths were ridiculed. The court record showed that non-Christians were frequently referred to as "unsaved," "lost," "pagan" and "sinful" by InnerChange staff. The program required staffers to abide by an evangelical statement of faith.

In a unanimous decision joined by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the appeals court upheld a lower court ruling issued on June 2, 2006, except that it reversed a portion of the lower court ruling that required InnerChange to return funds it received prior to June 2006. InnerChange will still need to return funds it received after the June 2006 ruling.

The decision states: "In the present case, plaintiffs demonstrated . . . that the InnerChange program resulted in inmate enrollment in a program dominated by Bible study, Christian classes, religious revivals, and church services."

The opinion concluded that the state’s “direct aid to InnerChange violated the Establishment clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions.”

Corrections officials in other states have considered adopting InnerChange. Lynn said today's ruling should bring those plans to a screeching halt.

The lead trial counsel in the case was Americans United’s Senior Litigation Counsel Luchenitser. The trial team also included AU Litigation Counsel Heather L. Weaver and Iowa constitutional law attorney Dean Stowers. Luchenitser also presented the oral argument to the appeals court on behalf of the plaintiffs.
http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=e8ccdv1h32.app7b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9523&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

Posted by lois at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2007

VA: Physical Abuse at Red Onion State Prison Increases

For Immediate Release

Physical Abuse at Red Onion State Prison Increases with New Assistant Warden – Rowlette
---the following information has graphic details of abuse

The Human Rights Coalition received alarming news this morning that several people incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison(ROSP) were being abused by correctional officers. This information is paraphrased and being sent out because the people in prison are in fear for their safety. We will have a more detailed report in the next couple of weeks.
Over the last month, prisoners report the atmosphere at ROSP has intensified in regards to racial harassment of prisoners as well as physical abuse. It has become a regular occurrence for prisoners to be called racial slurs when receiving food. If the prisoners responds in anyway their food is taken from them and the Sergeant says the prisoner refused the meal. Personal property of the prisoners is also being destroyed. Prisoners believe this upsurge in abuse is related to the reinstatement of Assistant Warden Rowlette. Richard Rowlette was a Major at Red Onion State Prison when it was first opened and sited for extreme acts of abuse by the Human Rights Watch. ( http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/redonion/)

On November 8th, Kevin Johnson was maced for holding the slot in his solitary confinement door open. This act of defiance, holding the slot open, was in response to a prisoner being assaulted on his block. On November 20 th, his hand was slammed in the slot twice. Prisoner's hands and arms have been broken in the past from being slammed in the door slots.
On Saturday, November 10, 2007 , Corderio Carter alleges he was attacked by Correctional Officers when he was taking a shower. The prisoners in solitary confinement are led to the showers in handcuffs and shackles and made to kneel before restraints are removed for shower. There was some confusion and Carter asked to speak to a Sergeant. His request was denied, he was dragged into the middle of the room, and slammed face first into the concrete with handcuffs and shackles still on. Officers involved were Dutton, Taylor, and Brown, and Sergeant Day. Nurse Church refused to look at or aid Carter when asked. Carter has filed a grievance and this is allegedly all on video. (Red Onion is supposed to video everything)
On November 23, another person was attacked during a cell extraction by the same group of officers.
These men are housed at a Super Maximum Security prison. Most of them spend 23 hours a day locked in solitary confinement. This abuse is outrageous and unnecessary. The Department of Corrections in the Common Wealth of Virginia must take responsibility for this violent, racist environment they have created by housing 80% black prisoners from the city who are overseen by 90% white officers from the country.

Please contact the following officials to voice your concern for all the prisoners in care of Correctional Officers –Dutton, Taylor, Brown and Sergeant Day. Please voice your concern of the appointment of Assistant Warden Richard Rowlette.

Warden Tracy Ray of ROSP – 276-796-7510
Director of the Department of Correction, Gene Johnson – 804-674-3000
Special Investigations Unit – 804-674-3023 (DOC unit that is supposed to investigate these things)
The VA Governor Tim Kaine – 804-786-2211

We understand that we are only receiving one side of the story. Because Prison Staff has every ability to cover up their tracks, because they are the ones in the position of power, because the prisoner is always assumed guilty, and because the prisoners' story seldom is told we believe it is important to give voice to this side of the story.

--
Human Rights Coaltion - FedUp! Chapter
5125 Penn Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15224
412-802-8575 hrcfedup@gmail.com
www.thomasmertoncenter.org/fedup/

Posted by lois at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

November 27, 2007

CT: More stringent surveillance of people on parole, protests, etc.

Editorial and two articles: protests on parole ban & more stringent surveillance of people on parole.
An on-line registry of ALL parolees, probationers and probation violation warrants?

courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-crimeplannov27,0,7208336.story
Tougher Crime Laws Coming- November 27, 2007
Granted, the comprehensive bill to reform Connecticut's criminal justice system that was unveiled recently by the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee has a few kinks in it that must be ironed out. But a variation of the plan should in the end have little trouble winning bipartisan support.

The measure attempts to rectify many of the systemic failures identified by Democrats and Republicans in the wake of the horrific slayings of a Cheshire mother and her two daughters by a pair of parolees in July.

Expect the legislature to debate the bill and 13 related proposals over the coming weeks for a final vote on the plan at a special session in January.

Lawmakers agree almost unilaterally that electronic communication among all criminal justice agencies needs a major upgrade to allow for instant access to police reports, pre-sentence investigations, sentencing transcripts and prison, parole and probation files.

Had a pre-sentencing report reached the parole board in a timely fashion, as already required by law, one suspect in the killings might not have been released.

Among other proposals that deserve to pass easily are using global positioning technology to track parolees; an online listing of current parolees, probationers and probation violation warrants; and hiring a staff psychologist to help the Board of Pardons and Parole identify potentially violent offenders.

Legislators are further urged to approve a provision that elevates home invasion — first- and second-degree burglary — to a violent felony carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a minimum mandatory sentence of five years.

The more difficult provisions in the bill relate to adjusting the flow of prisoners into and out of the correction system so that truly dangerous criminals are not released prematurely.

They include reconciling six different proposals to toughen the state's "three strikes" law (which puts third-time violent felony offenders away for life) without overcrowding the prisons.

Other sensitive issues to be debated are the dimensions, cost and potential sites for two proposed new prisons, one of which would be reserved for inmates with mental health problems, and the degree to which nonviolent offenders can be released.

Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, who is co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee with Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, says that what will emerge when the full legislature takes up the crime package in January is a more punitive criminal justice system that will exceed the spending cap.

We trust that lawmakers will strike a reasonable balance among punishment, fairness and public safety.
Copyright © 2007, The Hartford Courant
Protest against parole ban

by Chief Capitol Correspondent Mark Davis
Posted Nov. 26, 2007
5:55 PM
New Haven (WTNH) _ The state's prison population has ballooned since Governor Rell banned parole for violent offenders and tonight the families of those who have been denied parole protested outside the New Haven Correctional Center.
The governor's parole ban was a response to the deadly home invasion in Cheshire, allegedly committed by two, non-violent career criminals.
"Hundreds, maybe thousands are being punished for the actions of a few people. Just two people," said Shelton Tucker of New Haven.
In addition to the family members of inmates, activists like Barbara Fair from the group Coalition Against the Ban, protesting outside the Whalley Avenue prison.
"The message is end the parole ban and look into these conditions that are in these prisons," Fair said.
Governor Rell says the severe overcrowded conditions will be relieved as soon as the state starts paroling non-violent offenders. The problem is that many of those individuals also need other forms of community services, like help with a drug problem or a mental illness. Because the state also lacks space in halfway houses, letting out non-violent offenders may pose a problem as well.
"We need to step up to the plate, fight back against this growing prison problem and do something about the parole ban because we already have a problem with prison overcrowding. This parole ban just exemplifies this problem," Fair said.
State lawmakers will be discussing a plan tomorrow to build two new prisons, a halfway house and community treatment facilities. The price tag for the new facilities is an estimated half a billion dollars.
Crowded jails, ban on parole protested
Community members urge overturning of Rell’s parole suspension
Lea Yu
Staff Reporter, Yale Daily News
Published Tuesday, November 27, 2007
As the light of street lamps illuminated a swirl of mist and drizzle, more than 65 protestors rallied Monday evening in front of the Whalley Avenue jail, demanding that the state provide its citizens with “books, not bars.”
Community members and activist groups, joining together in protest of state legislation that would spend $260 million for two new prisons, called on Governor M. Jodi Rell to rescind her temporary ban on parole for violent offenders. Critics have charged that since being implemented in September, the ban has led to a swell in prison populations in Connecticut, which has exacerbated overcrowding and resulted in unsanitary conditions and increased violence among inmates.
But state Department of Corrections officers interviewed said state jails provide clean and adequate resources and have not witnessed increased violence in the wake of the ban.
Legislators on the state Judiciary Committee have said they will debate 15 bills relating to parole and prison reform at the state capitol today. A special session will convene in January to pass the legislation.
Rell enacted the ban after the July murder of a woman and her two daughters in Cheshire at the hands of two criminals who were out on parole. Rell will lift the ban once the legislature reforms the parole process, state Department of Corrections external affairs director Brian Garnett said.
But ralliers said the proposed new-prison legislation — which would classify home invasion as a persistent dangerous felony and strengthen the state’s “three strikes” law — is inadequate and detrimental to public safety. The ban should be lifted immediately, rather than in January when legislation passes, so that inmates who would otherwise be free on parole are not detained unjustly, they said.
“I’m concerned that a tiny fraction of the bill is dedicated toward rehabilitating people when they’re coming out of prison in comparison to the amount of money that’s going to be spent on building two new prisons,” said Megan Fountain ’07, an organizer with Unidad Latina en Acción, which is a nonprofit in Fair Haven. “Prisons are overcrowded, and what we need are solutions to integrate people into society, not create more beds.”
According to a Nov. 16 article in the New Haven Independent, inmates at the Whalley jailhouse have recently reported finding maggots in the showerheads and being forced to walk around in dirty, stained linen.
Garnett said the DOC is cognizant of the state’s overcrowded jails, but the increased inmate populations have not resulted in a decline in sanitation and safety.
Contrary to what was reported in the Independent, he said, Whalley jailhouse inmates have access to laundry machines, and those sleeping on cots in the gym do not fight over one bathroom but have access to 16 urinals and toilets.
Although Garnett said the DOC does not keep a record of prison capacities because state jails cannot deny criminals who are sent to them, state Rep. State Rep. Mike Lawlor said Connecticut prisons can hold about 17,500 prisoners.
As of yesterday, Garnett counted 19,630 inmates in Connecticut jails — over 1,000 of whom were added since Rell announced the ban, Lawlor said.
“Despite the fact the system is crowded, our performance measures — and we define those as assaults on staff, inmates, use of force by our staff — those measures all remain at historically low levels,” he said. “No one is sleeping in dirty linen, and no one’s fighting over toilets.”
Lawlor, who co-sponsored prison reform legislation with his judiciary committee co-chair State Sen. Andrew McDonald, said the committee today will openly debate numerous alternatives to new jail facilities, such as the expansion of existing jailhouses and shorter incarceration penalties for nonviolent offenders.
A permanent elimination of parole would lead to massive and dangerous overcrowding, he said, but the temporary parole ban is necessary for the sake of comprehensively reforming the parole process.
Connecticut’s jails are already crowded to the point of posing a safety hazard, Lawlor said, but until the state builds more facilities, the rehabilitative programs that critics have been calling for will be nonexistent, since Corrections officers must first deal with inmates who are sleeping on the floors of counseling rooms and school rooms.
“I don’t want [more jails] either, but it’s not a question of what people want — it’s a question of what people need, and what you need is enough facilities for the inmates you have,” Lawlor said.
Among the 15 initiatives the legislature will consider Tuesday are six different “three strikes” proposals, the creation of an electronic criminal-justice database, the enhancement of nurse training and recruitment and the application of GPS technology to the monitoring of criminals on parole.
The Coalition Against the Parole Ban organized Monday’s event, which was endorsed by People Against Injustice, Youth Rights Media, Unidad Latina en Accion, A.N.S.W.E.R. CT, Connecticut Center for a New Economy and Yale’s Undergraduate Organizing Committee.

Posted by lois at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2007

Georgia Justices Overturn a Curb on Sex Offenders

November 22, 2007
Georgia Justices Overturn a Curb on Sex Offenders
By BRENDA GOODMAN
NY Times

ATLANTA, Nov. 21 — The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously struck down a state law Wednesday that limited where registered sex offenders could live, ruling that the statute was so restrictive it unconstitutionally deprived the offenders of their property rights.

The law, described when it was adopted in 2006 as the nation’s toughest restriction on sex offenders, prohibited them from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches or any other place that children might congregate, including more than 150,000 school bus stops in the state. The ban applied even when a school, a church or the like opened in an area where an offender was already living.

“Under the terms of that statute, it is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected,” said the seven-member court’s opinion, written by Presiding Justice Carol W. Hunstein.

The court ruled that the statute violated Fifth Amendment protections against the public taking of private property without compensation.

The law “looms over every location” that registered sex offenders might choose to call home, with the potential to force them from their residence any time “some third party chooses to establish any of the long list of places and facilities encompassed within the residency restriction,” Justice Hunstein wrote.

The law was challenged by Anthony E. Mann, 44, of Hampton, Ga., who pleaded no contest in 2002 to a North Carolina charge of taking indecent liberties with a child. “It just didn’t even pass the smell test,” said Stephen Bailey Wallace, the lawyer who represented Mr. Mann before the justices. “It’s terribly myopic.”

State Representative Jerry Keen, a Republican who sponsored the legislation, said the court had superseded the will of both the legislative and executive branches of Georgia’s government. Mr. Keen vowed to redraft the law and reintroduce it when the legislature, formally the General Assembly, next meets in January.

“In the meantime, convicted felony sex offenders will be allowed to live next door to day care centers, school bus stops or anywhere else they choose,” Mr. Keen said in a statement.

But courts around the nation have begun to show their discomfort with new state laws that impose such residency restrictions, which in some cases are so broad they have forced sex offenders to become homeless when they cannot find an address that meets the legal requirements.

Wednesday’s ruling applies only to the residency restrictions of Georgia’s law. A separate lawsuit has challenged parts of the law that bar sex offenders from working or loitering in places where children gather.

Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the civil rights group that brought the second suit, said Wednesday’s decision was the beginning of the end of a poorly conceived statute.

“It’s a law that’s impossible to comply with and impossible to enforce,” Ms. Geraghty said. “And it does nothing to protect kids, because it forces sex offenders to go underground.”

Mr. Mann said in a telephone interview that the court’s decision brought great relief.

“You live kind of every day wondering if the sheriff’s office is going to come out and tell you that you have three days to move,” Mr. Mann said. “It’s happened to me twice.”

Mr. Mann said he had challenged the law to protect his family, but also because he had felt he was being unfairly punished for the sake of political pandering.

“Politicians love to do the popular thing, and sex offenders are the popular thing,” he said. “I think this will challenge them to rewrite that law, and this time I think they need to ask the experts what to do.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/us/22offender.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1195743994-AafQ0TIl6YnVtgYeoMnTdA

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

November 15, 2007

CA: LAPD Scraps Muslim Mapping Program

From the Los Angeles Times
LAPD scraps Muslim mapping program
The plan, aiming at spotting potential enclaves where terrorists might develop, had been criticized by many. In its place, the department will try a 'community outreach' strategy.
By Richard Winton
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 14, 2007

The LAPD today abruptly scrapped its controversial plan to create a mapping program for the city's Muslim community, saying instead it would focus on a "community outreach" strategy more palatable to local civil rights activists.

The decision marks a major retreat for the department, which had said the mapping was necessary to better identify isolated Muslim communities where home-grown terrorism could breed.

But over the last week, the plans has been roundly criticized by Muslim groups and civil libertarians, and others have questioned whether it's possible to map the far-flung community.

Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing said today that in the wake of the protests, officials would drop the mapping aspect of the plan but continue its attempt to make inroads into the Muslim community through outreach efforts.

In a document reviewed by The Times last week, the LAPD's counter-terrorism bureau proposed using U.S. Census data and other demographic information to pinpoint various Muslim communities and then reach out to them through social service agencies.

Originally, the LAPD planned to partner with USC's National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events to help build the mapping program. But after details of the effort were made public last week, USC officials said they were carefully studying whether to join the endeavor.

During Oct. 30 testimony before Congress, Downing described the program broadly as an attempt to "mitigate radicalization." At that time, he said law enforcement agencies nationwide faced "a vicious, amorphous and unfamiliar adversary on our land."

Downing and other law enforcement officials said police agencies around the world are dealing with radical Muslim groups that are isolated from the larger community, making potential breeding groups for terrorism. He cited terror cells in Europe as well as the case of some Muslim extremists in New Jersey arrested in May for allegedly planning to bomb Ft. Dix.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-muslim15nov15,0,6998542.story?coll=la-home-center

Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

Posted by lois at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

November 09, 2007

LAPD anti-terrorism unit maps Muslim "enclaves"

Below are two stories on the new(?) LAPD strategy to map Iranians, Chechians & Pakistanis in LA. The first (from today's print edition) describes the project. The second features the mayor and police chief trying to re-spin the story.

LAPD to build data on Muslim areas
Anti-terrorism unit wants to identify sites 'at risk' for extremism.
By Richard Winton, Jean-Paul Renaud and Paul Pringle
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

November 9, 2007

An extensive mapping program launched by the LAPD's anti-terrorism bureau to identify Muslim enclaves across the city sparked outrage Thursday from some Islamic groups and civil libertarians, who denounced the effort as an exercise in racial and religious profiling. Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing, who heads the bureau, defended the undertaking as a way to help Muslim communities avoid the influence of those who would radicalize Islamic residents and advocate "violent, ideologically-based extremism."

"We are seeking to identify at-risk communities," Downing said in an interview Thursday evening. "We are looking for communities and enclaves based on risk factors that are likely to become isolated. . . . We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities."

Downing added that the Muslim Public Affairs Council has embraced the vaguely defined program "in concept." The group's executive director, Salam Al-Marayati, said Thursday that it wanted to know more about the plan and had a meeting set with the LAPD next week "We will work with the LAPD and give them input, while at the same time making sure that people's civil liberties are protected," said Al-Marayati, who commended Downing for being "very forthright in his engagement with the Muslim community."

Others condemned the project, however.

"We certainly reject this idea completely," said Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. "This stems basically from this presumption that there is homogenized Muslim terrorism that exists among us." Syed said he is a member of Police Chief William J. Bratton's forum of religious advisors, but had not been told of the community mapping program. "This came as a jolt to me," Syed said.

Hussam Ayloush, who leads the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the mapping "basically turns the LAPD officers into religious political analysts, while their role is to fight crime and enforce the laws." During Oct. 30 testimony before Congress, Downing described the program broadly as an attempt to "mitigate radicalization." At that time, he said law enforcement agencies nationwide faced "a vicious, amorphous and unfamiliar adversary on our land."

Downing and other law enforcement officials said police agencies around the world are dealing with radical Muslim groups that are isolated from the larger community, making potential breeding groups for terrorism. He cited terror cells in Europe as well as the case of some Muslim extremists in New Jersey arrested in May for allegedly planning to bomb Ft. Dix.

"We want to map the locations of these closed, vulnerable communities, and in partnership with these communities . . . help [weave] these enclaves into the fabric of the larger society," he said in his testimony."To do this, we need to go into the community and get to know peoples' names," he said. "We need to walk into homes, neighborhoods, mosques and businesses."

To assemble the mapping data, Downing said in an interview Thursday, the LAPD intends to enlist USC's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, which was founded four years ago with $12 million in federal funds.

In 2003, university officials said the center would focus on threats to power plants, telecommunications and transportation systems. It recently was tapped to strengthen security at Los Angeles International Airport. Downing said the effort would not involve spying on neighborhoods. He said it would identify groups, not individuals.

"This has nothing to do with intelligence," he said, comparing it to market research.

But in his congressional testimony, Downing said the LAPD hoped to identify communities that "may be susceptible to violent, ideologically-based extremism and then use a full-spectrum approach guided by an intelligence-led strategy." Downing told lawmakers the program would "take a deeper look at the history, demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown, socioeconomic status and social interactions."

He added that the project was in its very early stages, and that its cost and full scope have not been determined. "Physically the work has not begun," Downing said.

The American Civil Liberties Union and some community groups sent a letter Thursday to Downing expressing "grave concerns" about the program and asking for a meeting. "The mapping of Muslim communities . . . seems premised on the faulty notion that Muslims are more likely to commit violent acts than people of other faiths," the letter states.ACLU Executive Director Ramona Ripston compared the program to the Red Scare of the 1950s and said: "This is nothing short of racial profiling."

But Al-Marayati said he believed that Downing was working in good faith."He is well-known in the Muslim community," he said. "He's been in a number of mosques and been very forthright in his engagement with the Muslim community."

.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd9nov09,0,1646403.story?coll=la-home-local
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

************

From the Los Angeles Times
L.A. officials defend mapping of Muslim areas
Mayor Villaraigosa says the LAPD has 'good intentions' in gathering intelligence. Chief Bratton says the effort should be seen as 'community engagement.'
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

11:13 AM PST, November 9, 2007

City officials this morning defended the LAPD's decision to identify Muslim enclaves across the city, saying that instead of "mapping," Angelenos should see the program as "community engagement."

Civil rights groups have harshly criticized the new initiative as racial profiling that unfairly targets Muslims. The American Civil Liberties Union along with other community groups sent a letter to the LAPD this week saying the prospect of such a measure raised "grave concerns."

At a press conference about police recruitment in Elysian Park, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Police Chief William Bratton and Councilman Jack Weiss said they stood behind Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing's decision to gather extensive intelligence about local Muslim communities.

"Chief Downing has good intentions here," said Villaraigosa, who added that he had only learned of the new program through newspaper articles and at a short briefing. The Police Department respects "the civil and human rights of Muslims in Los Angeles," Villaraigosa said. The mapping program would be headed by Downing, who is in charge of the LAPD's anti-terrorism bureau.

"We want to map the locations of these closed, vulnerable communities, and in partnership with these communities . . . help [weave] these enclaves into the fabric of the larger society," Downing said in testimony about the program before Congress on Oct. 30.

At the hearing, Downing said his intentions were to "mitigate radicalization," and that law enforcement agencies everywhere faced "a vicious, amorphous and unfamiliar adversary on our land."The LAPD hopes to identify communities that "may be susceptible to violent, ideologically based extremism and then use a full-spectrum approach guided by an intelligence-led strategy," Downing said during the hearing.

Bratton tried to recast the program this morning, saying that incorrect words had been used to describe the LAPD's actions.
"We are seeking contact with many communities," he said. "We are doing it in a very transparent way here. We got hung up on the word 'mapping', this is 'community engagement.' "

Bratton then used an anecdote from his first days as police commissioner in New York City in the early 1990s, saying that officers there raided what appeared to be a store but turned out instead to be a mosque. Police can sometimes be ignorant of what is actually in their neighborhood, Bratton said, referencing the officers' mistake. The new initiative is designed to get officers out into communities, meeting with people and learning the local landscape, he said.

City officials repeatedly praised the LAPD for its transparency in describing the program, but police have yet to give any details of how the mapping would be carried out or which communities would be affected.

"Right concern, wrong program," Weiss said.

Concerns over clandestine racial profiling and spying by law enforcement are important concerns but do not apply to Downing's initiative, Weiss said. "This is not a program of subterfuge, it is a program of transparency." Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, has embraced the vaguely defined program "in concept" and was on hand this morning to support the city officials. In an earlier interview, Al-Marayati said he wanted to know more about the plan and that he would meet with the LAPD next week.

Other Muslim groups have harshly condemned the project. "We certainly reject this idea completely," Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, said in an earlier interview. "This stems basically from this presumption that there is homogenized Muslim terrorism that exists among us."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd10nov10,0,3960843.story?coll=la-home-center

Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

Posted by lois at 09:05 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2007

Time: What's Wrong With Florida's Prisons?

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007
What's Wrong With Florida's Prisons?
By Tim Padgett/Miami
Time Magazine

An uneasy sense of dèjá vu swept over Florida last week after an all-white jury acquitted seven juvenile boot camp guards and a nurse charged with aggravated manslaughter in the death of a black teen last year.

The shocking verdict came down despite a half hour of videotape that showed the guards hitting and kicking the 14-year-old, Martin Lee Anderson, and holding their hands over his mouth for as long as five minutes at a time, while the nurse stood by and watched. The jury seemed persuaded by the first and widely discredited autopsy report that blamed the boy's death on a sickle-cell condition, even though a second autopsy ordered by the state had ruled Anderson died from suffocation (the Justice Department has since announced it will investigate whether federal civil rights violations charges should be brought in the case). "It's wrong!" Anderson's mother, Gina Jones, shouted as she stormed out of the Panama City courtroom after the verdict was read. The Anderson decision was reminiscent of another bewildering verdict five years ago, when three Florida state prison guards charged with stomping 36-year-old inmate Frank Valdes to death in his cell in 1999 were acquitted — even though the guards' boot prints were found all over his back.

Both verdicts were vivid reminders of what critics call the rot of Florida's corrections culture. Despite its Sunshine State image, Florida's prisons and juvenile detention centers are often associated with the more troubled corrections systems of its Deep South neighbors. While no one is asking Florida to coddle its prisoners, adult or juvenile, many fear it has yet to break its dark habit of coddling abusive guards and other officials watching over those prisoners.

The state is facing lawsuits alleging that its prisons subject too many inmates, including the mentally ill, to a prisoner "warehousing" culture of unlawfully extreme isolation and deprivation, usually with little or no rehabilitation efforts to prevent recidivism. Other suits decry what one calls excessive as well as "malicious and sadistic" use of pepper spray and other chemicals to keep mentally ill prisoners under control. In many cases the sprays have burned off inmates' skin, according to the suit. "Florida prisons still need to end this kind of outrageous conduct," says Randall Berg, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute in Miami, which is participating in a suit filed against the state's current Corrections head, James McDonough, along with other department officials.

Neither McDonough nor other Florida corrections officials will discuss the suits, since they're still pending. But the state in the past has insisted that pepper spray is one of the more benign means of controlling violent and mentally ill prisoners — and Florida is hardly the only state that uses such chemical agents to handle unruly inmates. But beyond the pepper spray issue, groups like Berg's acknowledge that McDonough, an MIT grad and former Army colonel, has begun long-overdue reforms to tackle corruption and other abuses. "We're changing the culture of the Department," McDonough insists. "There had been an attitude that [the prison system] was a culture apart from the rest of the state government. Not anymore."

That attitude led to quite a few excesses. Ten years ago, when a malfunctioning electric chair caused a prisoner's leather mask to burst into flames during his execution, Florida's Democratic Attorney General Robert Butterworth joked that the problems with "Old Sparky" — the chair's nickname — were actually a good deterrent to murder. Things didn't improve much after then Governor Jeb Bush and the Republicans took power in Tallahassee in 1999, especially at the Department of Juvenile Justice. In June of 2003, Omar Paisley, 17, an inmate at a juvenile detention center in Miami that was filled 135% beyond capacity, died when nurses ignored his pleas for help after his appendix burst. The nurses were later charged with manslaughter and third-degree murder, to which they have pleaded not guilty, and their trials are pending. Prosecutors at the trial of Valdes — who was awaiting execution for murdering a Palm Beach County corrections officer in 1987 — contended that one of the reasons he was beaten was the letters he'd begun writing to the media about abuses at Florida State Prison under its then warden, James Crosby. That made it all the more surprising when Bush appointed Crosby secretary of the state's Corrections Department in 2003. Then last year Crosby was convicted after a sweeping federal probe of corruption inside the state's prisons — and he's now serving eight years in prison himself.

As Crosby's successor, McDonough surely knows he has to work overtime to regain credibility for his department. With that in mind, he has made prisoner rehabilitation more of a priority, channeling renewed effort and funding toward prison education, substance abuse counseling, vocational training and daily life-management skills. "I think Florida is actually out in front now compared to a lot of state prison systems," says McDonough, who believes his rehab emphasis will cut the state's recidivism rate by more than 10 percentage points by the start of the next decade.

That would be welcome in a state whose 92,000 inmates amount to the nation's third largest prison population. Over the past two decades, Florida has in many ways led a national get-tough-on-crime wave that has reduced some crime rates but has also given the U.S. the world's highest incarceration rate. Bush had championed the often rough boot camps for juvenile delinquents; but after Anderson's death, Florida's conservative legislature voted to abolish them. And it's beginning to listen to McDonough's argument that lowering recidivism will save the state the hundreds of millions of dollars it's spending these days on new prisons.

* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1672366,00.html

Posted by lois at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)

October 17, 2007

CA: Gov. Schwarzenegger turns a blind eye to injustice with veto of three modest bills.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Editorial: Injustice before inconvenience
Gov. Schwarzenegger turns a blind eye to injustice with veto of three modest bills.
An Orange County Register editorial

It's a sad day in California when it's too controversial to sign a trio of bills that make minor tweaks in the law to make it less likely that people will be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. Everyone wants serious criminals to be locked up for a long time, but it's hard for us to understand the unwillingness of the government to take every possible precaution to ensure that only guilty people are convicted.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave in to his worst political instincts and vetoed three bills that were advanced by a state Senate-created organization called the Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice. Noting that a number of innocent people have served long prison terms for crimes they did not commit, the commission was charged with proposing reforms that deal with specific problems. The bills were quite modest, yet the governor vetoed them and offered only the weakest explanation in his accompanying veto message.

The first legislation was Senate Bill 511, which would have required the recording of entire police interrogations of suspects. Some police departments already take this wise precaution, which protects not only defendants from being coerced into giving confessions but also protects police agencies. If a defendant claims he was coerced into admitting guilt, then the agency merely provides a tape showing that wasn't true. It also protects against selective editing of a confession. The genesis of this proposal was the confession of one innocent man after 17 hours of intense interrogations. The governor claimed that the measure would put "unnecessary restrictions on police investigators."

The second was SB756, which would create a task force to come up with voluntary guidelines for police lineups. Any proposals coming from that commission would still need to go back to the Legislature for approval, yet the governor bizarrely claimed that the bill went "too far." He again referenced the need for police agencies to be able to adopt their own policies without restriction. One case supporters point to involved a man who was wrongfully convicted after police used "suggestive" identification techniques with a suspect.

The third was SB609, which would have required that testimony from jailhouse informants be corroborated by other evidence. The commission pointed to a man who spent eight years in jail based on unreliable testimony by a prisoner. This seems like a basic measure, given that jailhouse informants have every reason to lie given that the authorities give them leniency in exchange for their testimony. The governor claimed that there are plenty of existing safeguards.

Given the cases publicized by the commission, there apparently are not sufficient safeguards. The governor's veto statements show a disturbing concern solely for any inconvenience to the government agencies and no obvious concern to the injustice inflicted on those wrongfully convicted. Like Gov. Gray Davis before him, Gov. Schwarzenegger has apparently decided that he's more willing to allow injustices to take place than to stand up to the state's law enforcement unions. This is too bad in a state once known for its concern about civil liberties

Posted by lois at 09:05 PM | Comments (0)

September 26, 2007

BOP to Restore Purged Religious Books

September 26, 2007
Prisons to Restore Purged Religious Books
By NEELA BANERJEE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Facing pressure from religious groups, civil libertarians and members of Congress, the federal Bureau of Prisons has decided to return religious materials that had been purged from prison chapel libraries because they were not on the bureau's lists of approved resources.

The bureau had said it was prompted to remove the materials after a 2004 Department of Justice report mentioned that religious books that incite violence could infiltrate chapel libraries.

After the details of the removal became widely known earlier this month, Republican lawmakers, liberal Christians and evangelical talk shows all criticized the government for creating a list of acceptable religious books.

The bureau has not abandoned the idea of creating such lists, Judi Simon Garrett, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. But rather than packing away everything while those lists were compiled, the religious materials would remain on the shelves, Ms. Garrett explained.

In an e-mail today, the bureau said: "In response to concerns expressed by members of several religious communities, the Bureau of Prisons has decided to alter its planned course of action with respect to the Chapel Library Project.

"The bureau will begin immediately to return to chapel libraries materials that were removed in June 2007, with the exception of any publications that have been found to be inappropriate, such as material that could be radicalizing or incite violence. The review of all materials in chapel libraries will be completed by the end of January 2008."

Only a week ago the bureau said it was not reconsidering the library policy. But critics of the bureau's program said it appeared that the bureau had bowed to widespread outrage.

"Certainly putting the books back on the shelves is a major victory, and it shows the outcry from all over the country was heard," said Moses Silverman, a lawyer for three prisoners who are suing the bureau over the program. "But regarding what they do after they put them back, I'm concerned."

The bureau originally set out to take an inventory of all materials in its chapel libraries in an effort to weed about books that might incite violence. But the list grew to the tens of thousands, and the bureau decided instead to compile lists of acceptable materials in a plan called the Standardized Chapel Library Project. The plan identifies about 150 items for each of 20 religions or religious categories.

In the spring, prison chaplains were told to remove all materials not on the lists and put them in storage. The bureau said it planned to issue additions to the lists once a year. In some cases, chaplains packed up libraries with thousands of books collected over decades. Unidentified religious experts helped the bureau shape the lists of acceptable materials, which independent scholars said omitted many important religious texts.

Ms. Garrett declined to elaborate on how the re-stocking of the prison libraries is progressing. She said the effort "is beginning immediately," but she would not say when it would be completed, which titles are being kept off the shelves and the specific criteria being used in such decisions.

Bob Moore, director of prison policy oversight at Aleph, an advocacy group for Jews in prison, said the lack of detail and transparency about how the lists are determined continued to trouble him.

"This is a positive step: it means they are not throwing the baby out with the bath water," he said of keeping books on the shelves for now. "But our position is there should not be a list of what should be on the shelves, but what shouldn't be."

Mr. Silverman said he had not yet spoken to the bureau, and the bureau has not posted its change in any public forum. The return of the books would "go a long way," he said, to resolving the lawsuit. But he added, "I remain concerned that the criteria for returning the books will be constitutional and lawful." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/27cnd-prisons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by lois at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2007

Prisons Purging Books on Faith From Libraries

September 10, 2007, NY Times
Prisons Purging Books on Faith From Libraries
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Behind the walls of federal prisons nationwide, chaplains have been quietly carrying out a systematic purge of religious books and materials that were once available to prisoners in chapel libraries.

The chaplains were directed by the Bureau of Prisons to clear the shelves of any books, tapes, CDs and videos that are not on a list of approved resources. In some prisons, the chaplains have recently dismantled libraries that had thousands of texts collected over decades, bought by the prisons, or donated by churches and religious groups.

Some inmates are outraged. Two of them, a Christian and an Orthodox Jew, in a federal prison camp in upstate New York, filed a class-action lawsuit last month claiming the bureau’s actions violate their rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons, said the agency was acting in response to a 2004 report by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The report recommended steps that prisons should take, in light of the Sept. 11 attacks, to avoid becoming recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The bureau, an agency of the Justice Department, defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize.”

Ms. Billingsley said, “We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to assure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts.”

But prison chaplains, and groups that minister to prisoners, say that an administration that put stock in religion-based approaches to social problems has effectively blocked prisoners’ access to religious and spiritual materials — all in the name of preventing terrorism.

“It’s swatting a fly with a sledgehammer,” said Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, a Christian group. “There’s no need to get rid of literally hundreds of thousands of books that are fine simply because you have a problem with an isolated book or piece of literature that presents extremism.”

The Bureau of Prisons said it relied on experts to produce lists of up to 150 book titles and 150 multimedia resources for each of 20 religions or religious categories — everything from Bahaism to Yoruba. The lists will be expanded in October, and there will be occasional updates, Ms. Billingsley said. Prayer books and other worship materials are not affected by this process.

The lists are broad, but reveal eccentricities and omissions. There are nine titles by C. S. Lewis, for example, and none from the theologians Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth and Cardinal Avery Dulles, and the influential pastor Robert H. Schuller.

The identities of the bureau’s experts have not been made public, Ms. Billingsley said, but they include chaplains and scholars in seminaries and at the American Academy of Religion. Academy staff members said their organization had met with prison chaplains in the past but was not consulted on this effort, though it is possible that scholars who are academy members were involved.

The bureau has not provided additional money to prisons to buy the books on the lists, so in some prisons, after the shelves were cleared of books not on the lists, few remained.

A chaplain who has worked more than 15 years in the prison system, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is a bureau employee, said: “At some of the penitentiaries, guys have been studying and reading for 20 years, and now they are told that this material doesn’t meet some kind of criteria. It doesn’t make sense to them. They’re asking, ‘Why are our tapes being taken, why our books being taken?’ ”

Of the lists, he said, “Many of the chaplains I’ve spoken to say these are not the things they would have picked.”

The effort is unnecessary, the chaplain said, because chaplains routinely reject any materials that incite violence or disparage, and donated materials already had to be approved by prison officials. Prisoners can buy religious books, he added, but few have much money to spend.

Religious groups that work with prisoners have privately been writing letters about their concerns to bureau officials. Would it not be simpler, they asked the bureau, to produce a list of forbidden titles? But the bureau did that last year, when it instructed the prisons to remove all materials by nine publishers — some Muslim, some Christian.

The plan to standardize the libraries first became public in May when several inmates, including a Muslim convert, at the Federal Prison Camp in Otisville, N.Y., about 75 miles northwest of Manhattan, filed a lawsuit acting as their own lawyers. Later, lawyers at the New York firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison took on the case pro bono. They refiled it on Aug. 21 in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“Otisville had a very extensive library of Jewish religious books, many of them donated,” said David Zwiebel, executive vice president for government and public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group. “It was decimated. Three-quarters of the Jewish books were taken off the shelves.”

Mr. Zwiebel asked, “Since when does the government, even with the assistance of chaplains, decide which are the most basic books in terms of religious study and practice?”

The lawsuit raises serious First Amendment concerns, said Douglas Laycock, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, but he added that it was not a slam-dunk case.

“Government does have a legitimate interest to screen out things that tend to incite violence in prisons,” Mr. Laycock said. “But once they say, ‘We’re going to pick 150 good books for your religion, and that’s all you get,’ the criteria has become more than just inciting violence. They’re picking out what is accessible religious teaching for prisoners, and the government can’t do that without a compelling justification. Here the justification is, the government is too busy to look at all the books, so they’re going to make their own preferred list to save a little time, a little money.”

The lists have not been made public by the bureau, but were made available to The Times by a critic of the bureau’s project. In some cases, the lists indicate their authors’ preferences. For example, more than 80 of the 120 titles on the list for Judaism are from the same Orthodox publishing house. A Catholic scholar and an evangelical Christian scholar who looked over some of the lists were baffled at the selections.

Timothy Larsen, who holds the Carolyn and Fred McManis Chair of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, an evangelical school, looked over lists for “Other Christian” and “General Spirituality.”

“There are some well-chosen things in here,” Professor Larsen said. “I’m particularly glad that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is there. If I was in prison I would want to read Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” But he continued, “There’s a lot about it that’s weird.” The lists “show a bias toward evangelical popularism and Calvinism,” he said, and lacked materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations.

The Rev. Richard P. McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame (who edited “The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism,” which did make the list), said the Catholic list had some glaring omissions, few spiritual classics and many authors he had never heard of.

“I would be completely sympathetic with Catholic chaplains in federal prisons if they’re complaining that this list is inhibiting,” he said, “because I know they have useful books that are not on this list.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10prison.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by lois at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)

August 30, 2007

Denver Univ. law students win prisoner byline rights

DU law students win prisoner byline rights
The three represented an inmate punished for writing an article. A district judge says the Federal Bureau of Prisons must allow it.
By Felisa Cardona
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/10/2007

Three University of Denver law students who represented a federal prisoner fighting for the right to publish articles from prison won their case against the Federal Bureau of Prisons on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger ruled that the prison byline regulations prohibiting prisoners from writing stories for the news media violated the First Amendment rights of prisoners and the press.

D

DU law professor Laura Lee Rovner, who oversaw the students' work, could not be reached Thursday evening for comment about the ruling. Donald Bounds, Jack Hobaugh and Michelle Young worked on the case for a year.

They represented Mark Jordan, a prisoner at Supermax, the ultra-high-security prison in Florence where many of the nation's most notorious are held, including Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

Jordan was convicted of bank robbery, and in 1999 he stabbed an inmate to death at the adjacent U.S. Penitentiary in Florence. He is scheduled to serve another 41 years behind bars.

Jordan had published several stories on prison life in Off!, a New York publication.

He was punished by prison officials in 2001 for publishing under a byline.

Krieger's ruling is not exclusive to Jordan. It says that the Federal Bureau of Prisons may not punish any inmate who decides to publish under a byline.

The government argued that inmates who act as reporters or publish under a byline could rise to undue prominence within the inmate population, thereby becoming a security risk. Also, the government was concerned that inmates could make a business out of it.

"No historical evidence that any inmate's publications in the news media created such security problems were presented," Krieger wrote in her ruling.

The judge also noted that punishment for the violation was inconsistent and said that Kaczynski had written articles under bylines without disciplinary action being taken against him.

"The Court finds that the evidence is insufficient to correlate a bylined publication in the news media with the danger of an inmate conducting a business," the judge wrote. "To the extent that there is a risk, the existing regulation prohibiting inmates from conducting a business is an easy and effective alternative to the regulation at issue."

ttp://www.denverpost.com//ci_6587810?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com

Posted by lois at 06:59 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2007

Padilla Case Offers New Model of Terrorism Trial

August 18, 2007
News Analysis
Padilla Case Offers New Model of Terrorism Trial
By ADAM LIPTAK

There were two perfectly predictable schools of thought being expressed after the conviction of Jose Padilla on Thursday on terrorism-related charges. Supporters of the Bush administration said the conviction justified the more than three years Mr. Padilla spent in military detention before his criminal prosecution, while the administration’s opponents said the verdict proved that the criminal justice system should have handled the case in the first place.

But the real innovation in Mr. Padilla’s case, some legal experts said yesterday, was more subtle than those dueling talking points suggested. The Justice Department’s strategy in the trial itself, using a seldom-tested conspiracy law and relatively thin evidence, cemented a new prosecutorial model in terrorism cases.

The central charge against Mr. Padilla was that he conspired to murder, maim and kidnap people in a foreign country. The charge is a serious one, and it can carry a life sentence. But prosecutors needed to prove very little by way of concrete conduct to obtain a conviction under the law.

“There is no need to show any particular violent crime,” said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at Wake Forest University and the author of a recent law review article on conspiracy charges in terrorism prosecutions. “You don’t have to specify the particular means used to carry out the crime.”

Indeed, the strongest piece of evidence in Mr. Padilla’s case was what prosecutors said was an application form Mr. Padilla filled out to attend a training camp run by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2000.

“It is a pretty big leap between a mere indication of desire to attend a camp and a crystallized desire to kill, maim and kidnap,” said Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University who has also written on conspiracy charges in terrorism prosecutions.

The conspiracy charge against Mr. Padilla, Professor Margulies continued, “is highly amorphous, and it basically allows someone to be found guilty for something that is one step away from a thought crime.”

Prosecutors have long loved conspiracy charges in all kinds of cases. Judge Learned Hand, widely thought to be the greatest American judge never to sit on the Supreme Court, called conspiracy “that darling of the modern prosecutor’s nursery” in a classic 1925 decision. More recently, Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, now the chief judge of the federal appeals court in Chicago, lamented that “prosecutors seem to have conspiracy on their word processors as Count I.”

But recent terrorism prosecutions are doing more than using an old tool with new aggressiveness, legal experts said. They are also using it for a new purpose: preventive detention.

Before allowing Mr. Padilla to be tried in the federal courts, the administration justified holding him as an enemy combatant in part by saying he would be dangerous if let go. Criminal prosecutions, by contrast, are almost always focused on conduct already committed.

But the sharp split between military detention and criminal prosecution starts to blur as conspiracy charges are added to the mix.

That is because conspiracies aim at the future. A successful conspiracy prosecution looks both backward, to punish the crime of conspiring, and forward, to stop dangerous people from completing their plans. The weaker the evidence of conspiracy is, the more such a prosecution can look like a request for judicially sanctioned preventive detentions.

In opinion articles and academic commentary, lawyers and law professors across the political spectrum have been arguing in recent months about whether the criminal law should be supplemented by legislation authorizing preventive detention. The Padilla verdict suggests that something similar may have already been achieved in the courts.

There was a second justification for Mr. Padilla’s prolonged military detention. In a sworn statement in 2003, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, then the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told a federal judge in New York that Mr. Padilla should be interrogated without access to a lawyer.

“It is critical to minimize external influences on the interrogation process,” Admiral Jacoby wrote. “Anything that threatens the perceived dependency and trust between the subject and interrogator directly threatens the value of interrogation as an intelligence-gathering tool.”

That sort of intensive and isolated interrogation, which Mr. Padilla lawyers have said caused him lasting psychiatric problems, could not have been accomplished in the criminal justice system, where the Constitution guarantees legal representation and other due process protections.

But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in her controlling opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the 2004 Supreme Court decision that endorsed the detention of at least some enemy combatants to prevent their return to the battlefield, rejected interrogation as a rationale for detention.

That same year, the Supreme Court ruled on a procedural question in the Padilla case but did not discuss whether his detention was proper. Just before the Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear his case again, the administration moved him to the criminal justice system.

If Thursday’s verdict is upheld, the administration may thus have achieved the last in a series of practical victories. It held and interrogated Mr. Padilla without interference from the courts, and now it has convicted him of a crime that could put him away for life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/nationalspecial3/18legal.html?ex=1188100800&en=ae497bcb24efa37d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

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

August 13, 2007

Justice Can Be Unequal In Reservation Crimes. On Tribal Land, Tragiic Arson Leads to a Life Sentence

Wall Street Journal
FEDERAL CASE
On Tribal Land, Tragic Arson Leads to a Life Sentence
Justice Can Be Unequal In Reservation Crimes

By GARY FIELDS

August 13, 2007; Page A1

LODGE POLE, Mont. -- In 2005, Bobbi Jo Wing and her husband were convicted of helping burn down a ramshackle house on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. At the time the fire started, the couple say they didn't know that Ms. Wing's 15-year-old cousin was asleep in a back bedroom. The girl's badly charred body was later found, after the house collapsed, in what had once been the basement.

Because Ms. Wing, 27 years old, and her husband are both members of a Native American tribe, they were tried in federal court. Since the arson caused a death, both were charged with felony murder, which automatically turned into a first-degree murder charge and a mandatory life sentence. Ms. Wing is now at a Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, Calif. Her husband is serving life in a Colorado prison. There is no parole in the federal system.

But if the crime had taken place off the reservation, just five miles to the east or southwest, the case would have gone to a local prosecutor. The likely state charge -- deliberate homicide -- carries a penalty as low as 10 years, with the chance of parole after as little as 2 1/2 years, according to the local state prosecutor and the state attorney general's office.

Indian tribes once had control over the dispensation of justice on reservations. But federal laws -- some passed a century apart -- have whittled away that authority, and, critics say, helped create a legal system that's often separate and unequal.

In 1883, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Dakota Territory court had no jurisdiction in a case in which a member of the Lakota nation killed a fellow member on tribal land. The decision overturned a death sentence and effectively gave exclusive jurisdiction for crimes to tribes. Congress, uncomfortable with the decision, passed the Major Crimes Act in 1885, taking away the tribes' authority to prosecute murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary and larceny. That meant serious crimes committed by Indians on reservations could be prosecuted only by the federal government.

Because the tribes don't have jurisdiction for serious crimes committed on their lands, outcomes of cases can be uneven. In some cases, the federal government doesn't have the resources to prosecute such crimes, allowing criminals to slip through gaps. But Native Americans who do end up being prosecuted face a federal system that has become tougher in recent years.

Since the 1980s, Congress has been toughening federal penalties by adding mandatory minimum sentences -- which are often more severe than those handed out by states. Coupled with that was the abolishment of parole in the federal system. As a result, American Indians, especially the million or so living on tribal land, can face harsher punishments than non-Indians for what are effectively local crimes, say tribal officials and legal experts.

Utah Federal District Court Judge Paul Cassells, a former federal prosecutor, says the federal sentencing guidelines were designed with a different set of criminals in mind, such as multiple, violent offenders. And yet, "we give everyone the same sentence, even when we know, and everyone in the courtroom knows, it's not the right thing to do."

Rescue Attempt

In Blaine County, Mont., where the fire took place, prosecutor Donald Ranstrom says he would have weighed the fact that the death was unintentional and that the defendants were involved in a rescue attempt. All three options available to him were less severe than the punishment the couple received. Whatever the sentence, the couple would have been eligible under state law for parole after serving one quarter of it.

The federal "guidelines and statutory requirements are very restrictive," says Mr. Ranstrom. "It's a train wreck anyway you look at it."

There are 3,470 American Indians serving time in the federal prison system. That's more, proportionately, than any other racial group. According to census and Bureau of Prisons data, tribal members living on reservations are incarcerated at a rate of more than 249 per 100,000 residents. The next group is African-Americans, who are imprisoned at a rate of 198 per 100,000.

The rate of incarceration only partially tells the story, according to a 2003 study commissioned by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a federal agency that creates the guidelines federal judges use in sentencing. It showed that Indian offenses amount to less than 5% of the overall federal caseload, but constitute a significant portion of the violent crime in federal court. "Over 80% of manslaughter cases and over 60% of sexual abuse cases arise from Indian jurisdiction and nearly half of all the murders and assaults arise from Indian jurisdiction," said the report.

Fort Belknap Reservation, like many reservations here, is far from any major population centers. Great Falls, the closest, is 160 miles away. The communities on the reservation are spread over 1,200 square miles, making them even more isolated. Lodge Pole is one of the larger ones, situated in the Little Rocky Mountain chain, where farming and ranching are the primary occupations.

Two years ago, Ms. Wing, who is about 5 feet tall with long, black hair, was attending Fort Belknap College in a health program. She says she wanted to do research for the tribe on a contaminated-water problem. She also worked with teens on the reservation, supervising those who were considered by the tribal court to be at risk for drugs and delinquency.

Before it burned, the house she lived in was a small, wood-frame structure with three bedrooms, a basement and a carport. It had neither plumbing nor a well. Water had to be hauled in, in five-gallon jugs and blue water bottles, from about a mile away. Residents had to use an outhouse.

April 9, 2005, began as a big party to celebrate multiple birthdays around that time. Cousins, friends, siblings, aunts and uncles -- all tribe members
-- gathered at the decrepit wood-frame house. Ms. Wing was the primary guest of honor. It was a Saturday and her 25th birthday was the following week.

Angel Lynn Denny, Ms. Wing's second-cousin, was there too. She left at one point and went home to call her parents, who were at a basketball tournament with her younger siblings.

"We told her she had to leave because there was drinking," says Ms. Wing's husband, Kenneth Arcand, 23, in a phone interview from the federal prison in Colorado where he is serving his sentence. There was beer and whisky. Some participants left and went to local bars before returning, Mr. Arcand and Ms. Wing say.

The alcohol brought out simmering animosities over a central question: Who owned the house? The land had been in the family for generations, evidenced by a vacant, one-room log cabin that had belonged to Ms. Wing's great-grandfather. But the house itself was claimed by two branches of the
family: that of Ms. Wing's father and that of her uncle. A fistfight broke out.

Two years later, no one is sure who started the fight or who came up with the idea to burn the house. What the participants do agree on is that most were drunk.

The fire that caused the most damage began in the living room, according to court documents. The party-goers evacuated and were standing outside the house when a young teen began crying, says Ms. Wing. Ms. Wing says her cousin Angel had returned to the house unnoticed and had been asleep in a back room.

Overcome by Smoke

Several people, including Mr. Arcand, tried to go back inside but were turned away by the heat and smoke, according to court testimony. "I ran through the back door and tried to get into the house but the flames were already climbing up the wall," he recalls. The crowd formed a human pyramid to boost would-be rescuers through the bedroom window. One of the rescuers thought he found the girl, but was overcome by the smoke and couldn't pull her out, according to court testimony.

After the body was discovered, tribal police, realizing the crime was out of their jurisdiction, called the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During questioning, the couple confessed to setting the fire, but later recanted. They were released on their own recognizance, and later received instructions through the mail on when to report to court.

At the time, prosecutors were operating under instructions from Attorney General John Ashcroft to pursue the severest possible charges in all cases. The federal district of Montana followed the instructions: In 2006, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, defendants there received sentences nearly double the national average.

Mr. Arcand recalls thinking that he and his wife would be found not guilty, because concluding that they had set out to purposely kill the young woman "was wrong."

It took the jury in Great Falls less than four hours to convict them.

As he sentenced Ms. Wing, federal district Judge Sam Haddon noted that a state court would have handed down a more lenient sentence. But he
continued: "My personal preference -- what I would do as an individual if not constrained by the law -- is, itself, in the view of the court, irrelevant." He said the court was "obliged to impose a sentence of life imprisonment."

During their subsequent appeal, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions. One judge on the three-judge panel, Richard Clifton, while upholding the convictions, wrote "separately to express my dismay at the consequences of the result we reach."

Judge Clifton continued: "It is appropriate that the defendants be seriously punished for what they did, but these life sentences do not square with my concept of justice." He expressed hope that the executive branch might intervene to reduce the sentence.

Anthony Gallagher, the federal public defender who defended Ms. Wing, says a clemency request for a pardon or commutation is his last option. The Supreme Court decided in June not to take the case.

Recently, Congress has begun discussing changing the way jurisdiction is decided on tribal land. A committee with the Federal Bar Association has taken up the cause of pushing for changes, as well as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Sitting in a conference room at the women's prison outside Oakland, Calif., Ms. Wing wiped away tears as she talked about her cousin, acknowledging how the incident has torn apart the tribe and her family. She says she has come to terms with the possibility she won't see her home or husband again.

Ms. Wing was offered a plea bargain that would have given her 30 years, but she wanted to go to trial. "We knew we would face life, but I wanted the truth to be known, that there was no malice and we didn't know she was there," she says.

She and Mr. Arcand once worked at the Tastee Bite Café in Chinook. Ms. Wing was a waitress. He had worked his way up from dishwasher to cook.

In letters written on their behalf before they were sentenced, the owners of the cafe, Karen and Frank LaTray, said they sometimes left the couple in charge. "I trusted them to operate the business in these occasions and also trusted them with the money. I knew every penny would be in the till and accounted for until I returned," Ms. LaTray said in court papers.

Now Ms. Wing reports for work at 6:20 a.m. at the prison's garment factory, which produces parachutes for the military and blankets used in disaster relief. There she works on a computer and helps develop cost estimates for the products the prison produces. Remembering the battle for the house, which led to her cousin's death, is painful, she says. "It was just greed."

Asking for Forgiveness

Ms. Wing has written to her cousin's immediate family asking forgiveness, but says they haven't responded.

"My life is nothing compared to Angel's," Ms. Wing says. "Nothing can ever replace her life. I do pray I get a second chance, but I know God has a plan," she says. "I'm not saying he'll take me out of here, but I know he has a plan."

The spot where Angel died is marked by a 6-foot white cross. Friends and family have left a softball and a pink, portable cassette player at its base, symbols of the teen's love of music, dance and sports. A small herd of horses graze at the site of the burned structure, and the outhouse is barely visible through the tall grass.

Less than a mile away, there is a sweat lodge, resembling a cloth-covered igloo, behind an uncle's home, heated by granite rocks in a pit. Several times, Ms. Wing's parents have gone there to sweat moral and physical impurities out of their system in preparation for a three-day fast and a sun dance, where they have prayed for the incarcerated couple and Ms. Wing's deceased cousin.

Angel's father, Bruce Denny, 50, sitting in the family living room that has become a shrine to the teen, says the incident has forever changed his family. At first, he refused to believe she was dead. "I was in shock. I went blank there. I'm still inside myself," he says. "Her high-school class just graduated. I couldn't go to the ceremony, I just couldn't."

Mr. Denny says he hasn't thought about whether the life sentences are just. "I just went with what the system said the punishment should be," he says. "We live by a system and whatever the system gives, that's what I go with."

Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com

Posted by lois at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2007

Homeland Security to Increase Funding for Detention Beds, Border Security, Visa Restrictions

"The Administration Will Further Increase Funding for Detention Beds So There are Places to Detain 31,500 Illegal Aliens Until They Can Be Returned. "
"The new test will emphasize fundamental concepts of American democracy, basic U.S. history, and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It will inculcate the basic values we share as Americans, and encourage civDHS Fact Sheet: Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1186757867585.shtm

Release Date: August 10, 2007

Today, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez Announced a Series of Reforms the Administration Will Pursue to Address Border Security and Immigration Challenges. The following reforms represent steps the Administration can take within the boundaries of existing law to secure our borders more effectively, improve interior and worksite enforcement, streamline existing guest worker programs, improve the current immigration system, and help new immigrants assimilate into American culture.ic knowledge and patriotism among prospective citizens. "

Border Security

1. The Administration Will Continue to Strengthen Security at the Border with Additional Personnel and Infrastructure. We are committed to implementing the following border security measures by December 31, 2008:
18,300 Border Patrol agents
370 miles of fencing
300 miles of vehicle barriers
105 camera and radar towers
Three additional UAVs

We will also work to ensure that 1,700 more Border Patrol Agents and an additional UAV are added in 2009.

2. The Administration will Maintain the Policy of "Catch and Return" for Illegal Aliens Apprehended at the Border. For years, limited detention space forced the release of many illegal border crossers from nations other than Mexico with nothing more than a Notice to Appear for a hearing before an immigration judge. Many aliens ignored these notices and instead blended into U.S. society. The Administration has ended this practice and instituted a policy of "catch and return," ensuring that all removable aliens caught trying to cross the border illegally are held until they can be removed.
The Administration Will Further Increase Funding for Detention Beds So There are Places to Detain 31,500 Illegal Aliens Until They Can Be Returned.
The Administration Will Also Press Recalcitrant Countries to Work with the United States to Repatriate Citizens Who Are in the United States Illegally.

3. The Departments of State and Homeland Security Will Strengthen Legal Efforts to Keep International Gang Members out of the United States. Gangs are at the root of many U.S. crime problems today, and many of the most dangerous gangs draw significant membership from abroad. The Federal government already denies visas to known members of certain gangs from China, the former Soviet Union, and El Salvador. Today, the President is directing the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand this list of dangerous organized gangs from other nations and to ensure that members of those gangs are barred from entry into the United States.

4. The Administration Will Expand Exit Requirements So Persons Who Overstay Limited-Duration Visits To The United States Can Be Identified.
By The End Of 2008, The US-VISIT Exit Requirement Will Be Underway At All U.S. Airports And Seaports. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to explore effective and cost-efficient means of establishing biometric exit requirements at land border crossings.
The Administration Will Establish A New Land-Border Exit System For Guest Workers, Starting On A Pilot Basis. This will help ensure that temporary workers in the country now follow the mandate to leave when their work authorization expires.

5. The Administration Will Require All Travelers To Our Ports Of Entry To Use Passports Or Other Similar Secure Documents. Since January 2007, air travelers have been required to carry a passport for entry into the United States. Because of passport processing backlogs, a temporary accommodation has been made for U.S. citizens traveling in the Western Hemisphere, which will be phased out. Starting January 31, 2008, DHS will phase in a requirement for passports or other secure documents for sea and land ports of entry.

6. Beginning This Fall, The Secretary Of Homeland Security Will Deliver Regular "State Of The Border" Reports. These reports will keep the American people informed of the Federal Government's progress in securing the border and hold the Administration accountable for continuing improvement.

Interior Enforcement

7. The Administration Is Training Hundreds Of State And Local Law Enforcement Officers To Address Illegal Immigration In Their Communities. The Administration is maintaining the 287(g) program and expanding other measures that help State and local law officials. These measures include a broad array of enforcement tools, such as formal task forces, greater use of the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center, delegated border search and seizure authority under Title 19, and enhanced partnerships to address location-specific threats, such as gangs.

8. By This Fall, U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement Teams Devoted To Removing Fugitive Aliens Will Have Been Quintupled In Less Than Three Years. There were 15 seven-member Fugitive Operations Teams in 2005. As of this week there are 68; there will be 75 by the end of September.

9. The Justice Department Will Initiate Regulatory Action To Close The "Voluntary Departure" Loophole Manipulated By Many Illegal Immigrants. Illegal immigrants who settle their cases by agreeing to voluntarily depart sometimes then gain extra time inside the United States by filing a procedural motion to reopen the case. New regulations will clarify that filing such a motion will terminate the voluntary departure status and make the alien subject to the order of removal. They will also set a presumptive $3,000 civil penalty for failing to comply with a voluntary departure agreement.

Worksite Enforcement

10. Today, The Department Of Homeland Security Issued A "No-Match" Regulation That Will Help Employers Ensure Their Workers Are Legal And Help The Government Identify And Crack Down On Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Workers. In cases in which an employer has a significant number of employees with inaccurate personal identity information, the Social Security Administration will send the employer a "No-Match" letter. The regulation clarifies that employers may be held liable if they ignore the "No Match" problems by failing to take specified steps within 90 days of receiving the letter.

11. In The Coming Months, The Administration Will Publish A Regulation That Will Reduce The Number Of Documents That Employers Must Accept To Confirm The Identity And Work Eligibility Of Their Employees. Presently, no fewer than 29 categories of documents can be used to establish identity and work eligibility. Employers have little capacity to verify the authenticity of these documents, and the sheer quantity of accepted documents is an invitation to fraud. This regulation will reduce unlawful employment by weeding out insecure documents now used often for identity fraud.

12. As A Civil Counterpart To The Administration's Strategy Of Using Criminal Investigations To Deter Illegal Employment, The Department Of Homeland Security Will Raise The Civil Fines Imposed On Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Immigrants By Approximately 25 Percent. Efforts to secure the border will fail unless the "magnet" that attracts illegals is turned off. Unfortunately, the fines for relying on illegal workers are so modest that some companies treat them as little more than a cost of doing business. DHS will use existing authority to update civil fines for inflation in order to boost fines by about 25 percent, as much as is allowed under current law.

13. The Administration Will Continue To Expand Criminal Investigations Against Employers Who Knowingly Hire Large Numbers Of Illegal Aliens. Arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for criminal violations have increased from 24 in FY 1999 to a record 716 in FY 2006. There have been 742 criminal arrests since the beginning of FY 2007 (through July 31), and there is anecdotal evidence that companies are taking notice and adjusting their business practices to follow the law.

14. The Administration Will Commence a Rulemaking Process To Require All Federal Contractors And Vendors To Use E-Verify, The Federal Electronic Employment Verification System, To Ensure That Their Employees Are Authorized To Work In The United States. The Federal government ought to lead by example. As there are more than 200,000 companies doing Federal business, this will significantly expand use of E-Verify, and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain jobs through fraud.

15. The Administration Will Help States Make Greater Use Of E-Verify. Some States already mandate the use of E-Verify by some or all of their hiring agencies, and other States are considering similar requirements. The Administration will assist such efforts through outreach and offers of technical assistance.

16. The Administration Will Bolster E-Verify By Expanding The Data Sources It Can Check. This will make it easier to catch individuals who commit identity theft. New sources of data will include cross-checks of visa and passport information.

17. The Administration Will Seek Voluntary State Partners Willing To Share Their Department Of Motor Vehicles Photos And Records With E-Verify. Agreements to allow E Verify access to the repository of photographs in state DMV databases will help prevent illegal immigrants from using fraudulent driver’s licenses to obtain employment. Such agreements will also lay the groundwork for further expansion of the electronic employment eligibility verification system.

Streamlining Existing Guest-Worker Programs

18. The Department Of Labor (DOL) Will Reform The H-2A Agricultural Seasonal Worker Program. No sector of the American economy requires a legal flow of foreign workers more than agriculture, which has begun to experience severe labor shortages as our Southern border has tightened. The President has therefore directed DOL to review the regulations implementing the H-2A program and to institute changes that will provide farmers with an orderly and timely flow of legal workers, while protecting the rights of laborers.

19. The Department Of Labor Will Issue Regulations Streamlining The H-2B Program For Non-Agricultural Seasonal Workers. Because businesses in seasonal industries such as landscaping and hospitality frequently have a difficult time locating temporary workers, the H-2B program has proven quite popular. Some employers report significant processing delays, however. DOL's proposed rule will speed processing by moving from a government-certified system to an employer-attestation system akin to the PERM system that has reduced backlogs in other areas.

20. The Department Of Homeland Security Will Extend The Visa Term For Professional Workers From Canada And Mexico To Attract More Of These Talented Workers To The United States. The United States must compete for foreign professional workers, and those who elect to lend their talents to the U.S. economy should be welcomed with open arms, not given a bureaucratic runaround. Yet the roughly 65,000 workers who enter the United States each year on the TN visa must go to the trouble of renewing their visa every year. This regulation will extend the TN visa duration to three years – the same term as other popular professional visas.

21. The Department Of Homeland Security And The Department Of Labor Will Study And Report On Potential Administrative Reforms To Visa Programs For Highly Skilled Workers.

Improving Existing Immigration

22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.

23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.

Assimilation

24. The Office Of Citizenship Will Announce A Revised Naturalization Test In September 2007. The new test will emphasize fundamental concepts of American democracy, basic U.S. history, and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It will inculcate the basic values we share as Americans, and encourage civic knowledge and patriotism among prospective citizens.
The New Standardized Test Will Ensure Fairness By Eliminating Current Wide Variations In The Quality Of Testing Between Regional Offices.

25. The Office Of Citizenship Will Provide Additional Training For Volunteers And Adult Educators Who Lead Immigrants Through The Naturalization Process. In October 2007, the Office of Citizenship will introduce a web-based training program that covers U.S. government, civics education, and the naturalization process. To complement these online materials, USCIS will convene eight regional training conferences, beginning in October 2007, to improve the ability of citizenship instructors and volunteers to teach American history, civics, and the naturalization process to immigrant students. An on-line training module will also be available by the end of the year.

26. The Department Of Education Will Launch A Free, Web-Based Portal To Help Immigrants Learn English, And Expand This Model Over Time. Knowledge of English is the most important component of assimilation. An investment in tools to help new Americans learn English will be repaid many times over in the contributions these immigrants make to our political discourse, economy, and society.

Posted by lois at 06:02 PM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2007

Pregnant woman dies at ICE detention center in El Paso

Pregnant woman dies at ICE detention center in El Paso

Associated Press

EL PASO — A pregnant woman in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement died after complaining of leg pain and losing consciousness, the agency said.

Rosa Contreras Dominguez, 38, was taken to an El Paso medical center Tuesday night when nurses noticed she was losing consciousness, said Leticia Zamarripa, a spokeswoman for the agency. She died about 3 1/2 hours after first complaining about pain behind her left knee, Zamarripa said.

Dominguez, a legal U.S. resident, arrived at the ICE detention center on Aug. 1 to begin deportation proceedings stemming from her conviction for importing 65 pounds of marijuana into the country, Zamarripa said.

Dominguez, who had already served an 18-month sentence in federal prison for the drug conviction, was given a medical exam when she arrived at the detention center and received constant medical attention for her pregnancy, Zamarripa said. Dominguez was taking prenatal medication.

"It's unfortunate, but as you can see, she was given proper medical attention when she requested it as well as when she was under observation," Zamarripa said.

Lizbeth Morales, Dominguez's niece, said Dominguez had been complaining about the pain in her leg since she was first detained. The family expected to receive an autopsy report today, Morales said.

The family feels that Dominguez, the mother of five children, didn't receive proper medical treatment while in custody, Morales said.

"They're still human beings, and they should be treated fairly," Morales said.

Posted by lois at 06:55 PM | Comments (0)

August 07, 2007

Center for National Security Studies: Analysis of FISA Bill

Executive Summary of Grave Concerns about the FISA bill, S. 1927
*This is CNSS’ analysis of the bill before it was signed into law on August 5, 2008
Center for National Security Studies

The Center for National Security Studies strongly opposes the administration’s FISA bill, S. 1927, because it would permit the National Security Agency to acquire and analyze all international communications of Americans, without any meaningful judicial oversight. The administration legislation would allow the NSA warrantless access to virtually all international communications of Americans with anyone outside the US, so long as the government declared that the surveillance was directed at people, which includes foreigners and citizens, reasonably believed to be located outside the US, a definition that covers billions of people.

The administration rejected all reasonable efforts to require that such surveillance be focused on foreigners, be directed at terrorist targets or be limited to protecting against international terrorism. They also rejected efforts to include meaningful court review of the rights of individual Americans’ swept in or even an independent audit of the affect on the privacy of Americans.

This legislation would sunset or expire in six months. However, the sunset has an exception that would allow any directives by Attorney General Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence McConnell that commandeer access to US telephone and internet companies to remain in effect until their expiration (which is likely to be until the end of the administration since the directives can be issued for up to one year, so could be issued to last for the next six months and then reissued on the eve of the sunset, in January 2008, to remain in effect until this administration is finally over in January 2009).

Detailed Analysis

The administration approach would allow the NSA warrantless access to virtually all international communications of Americans with anyone outside the US, so long as the government declared that the surveillance was directed at anyone reasonably believed to be overseas.

* This would be the effect of Sec. 105A which puts outside the definition of electronic surveillance “surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.”

* It would authorize surveillance much broader than that described by the President in the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” – communications between an overseas target and someone in the U.S. where one person is suspected Al Qaeda. Instead, the NSA could collect the communications of billions of people overseas and seize millions of international communications of Americans every day for the foreseeable future.

* This approach would also permit the warrantless surveillance of countless Americans traveling, working or fighting in the armed services abroad under the carve-out for directing surveillance against individuals abroad. The bill provides no judicial oversight of such interceptions.

There is no requirement that the surveillance be directed at suspected terrorists.

* For all these millions of American communications, there would be no requirement that the American even be suspected of any contact with or connection to al Qaeda or any other terrorists.

* Indeed, there is not even any requirement that even the overseas targets have any connection with al Qaeda or with any suspected terrorist or group. The administration approach is not about targeting, particular foreign terrorists, and the purpose of the surveillance that would be authorized under the bill is to gather "foreign intelligence" generally, not just intelligence about terrorism.

The administration approach would allow massive surveillance of Americans with no meaningful judicial oversight or individualized probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

* No judicial order would be required for before the acquisition of calls to or from Americans, which is required under current law to protect the privacy of Americans’ international communications from be acquired from US phone and internet companies here.

* This would be accomplished by carving out surveillance scooping up communications of anyone overseas (and any Americans they talk to) from the protections in FISA against acquiring such communications here in the US. It would allow the NSA to bypass the warrant requirements of FISA intended to guarantee the Fourth Amendment rights of American residents.

* The administration refused all reasonable proposals to ensure that the courts are involved to protect the rights of Americans to the privacy of their international calls. By refusing any proposal that required even after the fact court review to protect Fourth Amendment rights, the administration undermined its manufactured claims that legislation was truly needed for security. If changes to the law were truly essential for our security, it would be unreasonable to refuse such changes because they include meaningful and independent checks by the courts to protect Americans’ rights.

The administration’s legislation does not provide the adequate and independent review required by the Fourth Amendment’s checks.

* The administration's proposal to require approval by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, is not an adequate substitute for independent judicial review of surveillance that would invade the privacy of millions of Americans. It is only too clear that the Executive Branch cannot police itself, as the Founders recognized in providing for separated and independent powers.

* The administration may claim there is judicial review, but this section is merely window dressing. Four months after passage, the FISA court would be asked to review the government’s procedures for determining that its surveillance is directed at persons overseas. Even if the court thought the government’s procedures were not sufficient, it could not stop the program unless it found the government’s approach was “clearly erroneous,” an exceedingly difficult standard for reversal. And even then the program would continue unless the Supreme Court decided against the government under that very high standard.

This is not a "new" proposal, predicated on a disagreement with the courts.

* While administration allies have just leaked information about a secret court ruling that they claim necessitates this change, every draft FISA proposal by the administration and its allies since early 2006, well before any court ruling, would have given the NSA a blank check to access Americans’ international communications.

* If the FISA court has expressed concerns about NSA surveillance being legal or constitutional, those concerns ought to be publicly disclosed, rather than brushed aside by an effort to simply cut out the court’s role.

The administration’s approach would allow the executive to conduct such surveillance with virtually no oversight whatsoever.

The bill contains no meaningful reporting requirements to the FISA court concerning even the number of Americans, here or abroad, who would be monitored under these new surveillance authorities. The administration does not want any other branch of government or the American people to know the true scope and effect of their monitoring of innocent Americans.

* The administration's proposed reporting to Congress is a sham. The administration would only report to the Congress if an agency or agent exceeded the exceptionally broad power the bill would grant to acquire all international calls and e-mails of Americans. It would require no reporting on how many calls and individuals were surveilled. The administration refused all efforts to get an independent audit on the effect on Americans.

The administration has not demonstrated that the bill would benefit intelligence or the men and women in the intelligence community.

* This so-called modernization proposal would make the needles in the haystack even harder to find by opening the floodgates on monitoring virtually all calls or e-mails to or from Americans involving any foreign terminal, without warrants.

* The men and women in our intelligence community deserve better than this. They deserve clear rules subject to genuine checks that honor the American people they are working tirelessly to protect.

The Six-Month Sunset Has an Exception to Allow Such Warrantless Access until the End of the Bush Administration

* This legislation would sunset or expire in six months. However, the sunset has an exception that would allow any directives by Attorney General Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence McConnell that commandeer access to US telephone and internet companies to remain in effect until their expiration.

* The directives are likely to last until the end of the administration even though the legislation would sunset if Congress does not renew it, because the directives can be issued for up to one year, and so could be issued to last for the next six months and then reissued on the eve of the sunset, in January 2008, to remain in effect until this administration is finally over in January 2009.

* This cleverly written sunset will give the Bush Administration legal license to engage in wide-ranging surveillance of all international communications of Americans, not just for six months but for the rest of this president and vice president’s term in office.

http://www.cnss.org/CNSS%20Views%20on%20S1927.htm

Posted by lois at 07:06 PM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2007

Real Cost of Prisons Project Website Reminder

The Real Cost of Prisons Project website (www.realcostofprisons.org) is constantly updated with new research and papers focused on providing ideas and information to strengthen the work of organizers, family members, students, policy makers and others. PDFs of our three comic book are on line in addition to individual comic book pages which can be downloaded free and used for flyers, tabling, newsletters. There also links to hundreds of organizations. Two of our newest sections: "Comix from Inside" and "Writing from Prison" include political and analytical writing and artwork by men and women who are incarcerated.

Posted by lois at 11:22 AM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2007

NY: New Bill Encourages People To Report Dubious Behavoir

Newsday
If suspicious, speak up
New bill encourages citizens who witness dubious behavior to report it to authorities without fear of lawsuits
BY MELISSA MANSFIELD
June 27, 2007

ALBANY - New legislation awaiting the governor's approval would allow people to report suspicious, possibly terrorist, behavior without fear of a lawsuit. It's an effort to encourage citizens to turn in those acting in a dubious fashion.

In November six Muslim imams were taken off a plane in Minneapolis after a number of passengers and airline employees complained the men were praying loudly, making comments about Allah and Saddam Hussein, and moving around the cabin.

The Council on American Islamic Relations, a nonprofit advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit against the airline and the "John Does" who reported the imams' behavior. Security experts voiced concerns that the lawsuit would discourage people from speaking up.

"Sept. 11 changed the way all of us have to think in terms of protecting ourselves," said state Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), the bill's Senate sponsor. "We see in airports and train stations warnings to report things that are suspicious. We're all encouraged to do this, but now ... [some who did] are being sued."

Assemb. Rory Lancman (D-Flushing) noted the need for law enforcement officials to get information from "ordinary" New Yorkers. "It would be a tragedy if a terrorist attack that could have been foiled wasn't because someone didn't want to be sued," he said. "It's important to law enforcement to report what we see. I don't want anyone to feel afraid of doing that."

The "freedom to report terrorism act" passed both houses unanimously late last week. The governor's office would not comment until the governor had a chance to review it.

The New York State Trial Lawyers Association, a 4,600-member group, supported the measure. "It strikes a reasonable balance between encouraging people to make reasonable reports, with a genuine basis of terrorist risk and the need to protect citizens from being harassed because they might look or act slightly different," said a spokesman, Gene DeSantis.

The legislation was introduced in April but gained momentum earlier this month after four people were arrested on suspicion of plotting to blow up a fuel line for Kennedy Airport that runs through residential neighborhoods in Queens.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stterr275271578jun27,0,4273731.st
ory?coll=ny-statenews-headlines

Posted by lois at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2007

Justice Dept. Reshapes Its Civil Rights Mission

Justice Dept. Reshapes Its Civil Rights Mission
By NEIL A. LEWIS, NY Times

WASHINGTON, June 13 — In recent years, the Bush administration has recast the federal government’s role in civil rights by aggressively pursuing religion-oriented cases while significantly diminishing its involvement in the traditional area of race.

Paralleling concerns of many conservative groups, the Justice Department has successfully argued in a number of cases that government agencies, employers or private organizations have improperly suppressed religious expression in situations that the Constitution’s drafters did not mean to restrict.

The shift at the Justice Department has significantly altered the government’s civil rights mission, said Brian K. Landsberg, a law professor at the University of the Pacific and a former Justice Department lawyer under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

“Not until recently has anyone in the department considered religious discrimination such a high priority,” Professor Landsberg said. “No one had ever considered it to be of the same magnitude as race or national origin.”

Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement that the agency had “worked diligently to enforce the federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion.”

The changes are evident in a variety of actions:

Intervening in federal court cases on behalf of religion-based groups like the Salvation Army that assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money.

Supporting groups that want to send home religious literature with schoolchildren; in one case, the government helped win the right of a group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes as part of a religious message that the red stripes represented the blood of Christ.

Vigorously enforcing a law enacted by Congress in 2000 that allows churches and other places of worship to be free of some local zoning restrictions. The division has brought more than two dozen lawsuits on behalf of churches, synagogues and mosques.

Taking on far fewer hate crimes and cases in which local law enforcement officers may have violated someone’s civil rights. The resources for these traditional cases have instead been used to investigate trafficking cases, typically involving foreign women used in the sex trade, a favored issue of the religious right.

Sharply reducing the complex lawsuits that challenge voting plans that might dilute the strength of black voters. The department initiated only one such case through the early part of this year, compared with eight in a comparable period in the Clinton administration.

Along with its changed civil rights mission, the department has also tried to overhaul the roster of government lawyers who deal with civil rights. The agency has transferred or demoted some experienced civil rights litigators while bringing in lawyers, including graduates of religious-affiliated law schools and some people vocal about their faith, who favor the new priorities. That has created some unease, with some career lawyers disdainfully referring to the newcomers as “holy hires.”

The department’s emphasis has been embraced by some groups representing Muslims, Jews and especially Christian conservatives, who have long complained that the federal government ignored their grievances about discrimination.

“We live in a society that is becoming more religiously diverse, even by the hour,” said Kevin Seamus Hasson, who founded the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 12 years ago. “So it’s entirely appropriate and slightly overdue that the Justice Department is paying more attention to the various frictions that increasing religious diversity is causing in the society.”

Combating racism remains an important mission, Mr. Hasson said, but one that has changed over the years. “We can now deal with the problems of racism more effectively on a more local level,” he argued. “We don’t always need the federal government to come riding over the hill.”

Some religious figures, though, are more wary about the changes at the Justice Department. Robert Edgar, president of the National Council of Churches, a liberal-leaning group, agreed that it was important to take on issues like religious discrimination and human trafficking.

But the problems of race and poverty in America “still require the highest caliber of attention,” said Mr. Edgar, who cited the flawed government response to New Orleans and its mostly poor, black population after Hurricane Katrina. He said he was distrustful of the Justice Department’s leadership to make appropriate decisions as to the nation’s civil rights priorities.

A New Mission

Some critics say that many of the Justice Department’s religious-oriented initiatives are outside its mandate from Congress. While statutes prohibit religious discrimination in areas like employment and housing, no laws address some of the issues in which the department has become involved.

“They are engaging in freewheeling social engineering,” said Ayesha Khan, counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and “using the power of the federal government to put in place an ideological, not constitutional agenda.”

The department declined to make available for interviews Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, who heads the civil rights division, or Eric Treene, who holds the newly created position of special counsel for religious discrimination.

Ms. Magnuson, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said it was justified in devoting so much attention to the issue because Congress has demonstrated its interest by including religion in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and enacting the 2000 law involving zoning restrictions, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Ms. Magnuson also said the department had not diminished its interest in enforcing racial and national origin discrimination cases. The changes at the Justice Department began under Attorney General John Ashcroft, but have accelerated under Alberto R. Gonzales, his successor.

Mr. Gonzales has increasingly cited his agency’s record on behalf of religious causes as among his most important accomplishments, often noting the successful intervention in cases on behalf of people who had suffered discrimination for wearing Muslim head coverings. In speeches, he routinely says that religious freedom is the nation’s “first freedom because our founders saw fit to place it first in the Bill of Rights.”

President Bush has also talked of the department’s religion-related activities in appearances before religious conservatives, an important element of his support. Aside from any political benefit of satisfying conservative groups, the Justice Department’s shift has brought a more subtle dividend: a defense to the criticism leveled at past Republican administrations that they were half-hearted about civil rights enforcement.

Changing Mission

The Bush administration has avoided that problem by changing the civil rights mission to something its Justice Department can take on with enthusiasm.

The department has prevailed in many, if not most of the cases in which it has become involved. It has, in effect, duplicated in the religious arena its past success in cases involving race and national origin.

At the same time, the department has sharply reduced its efforts to combat voting rights plans that may dilute black electoral strength.

Ms. Magnuson, the department spokeswoman, said that the civil rights division had brought more voting rights lawsuits under Mr. Bush than had been brought in the Clinton administration.

But an examination of the Justice Department’s Web site listing of the cases brought through early 2007 shows that many of them involved a different part of the law, one that requires voting materials be available in languages other than English in places with high concentrations of Asian and Hispanic voters.

Joseph D. Rich, who recently stepped down as head of the voting rights section after a 37-year career at Justice, said that only the federal government had the resources to bring voting dilution cases, while private groups have been able to bring the language cases. The civil rights division also brought the first case ever on behalf of white voters, alleging in 2005 that a black political leader in Noxubee County, Miss., was intimidating whites at the polls.

The shift in priorities at the criminal section of the civil rights division has been especially stark. The criminal section — which previously had mostly focused on hate crimes or lawsuits against police officers who may have violated someone’s civil rights — began taking on human trafficking cases that had previously been handled elsewhere.

During Mr. Bush’s second term, the section brought dozens of cases against people charged under a new law with bringing women into the country to work in brothels. The new employees with religious backgrounds were enthusiastic about such cases, seeing them akin to combating slavery, a former career lawyer in the division said.

Pursuing trafficking cases, rather than those involving hate crimes or police abuse, was seen as important to moving ahead in the department, current and former career officials said. They added that political appointees in supervisory positions frequently vetoed proposed hate crime investigations or questioned them to death.

“You only needed for that to happen a few times and people got the message they shouldn’t be eager to send up such cases,” said one lawyer who would talk only on condition of anonymity.

Rigel C. Oliveri, a law professor at the University of Missouri who worked in the civil rights division during the Clinton and early Bush years, said it became increasingly frustrating to bring what she said were worthy civil rights cases, because the political appointees would not act on them. “It was like a black hole,” she said.

Whatever cases may have been slowed or ignored, some religious leaders said they were grateful for actions the department had taken.

The Rev. N. J. L’Heureux, the executive director of the Queens Federation of Churches in New York, said the department had helped several Christian, Muslim and Jewish congregations deal with local governments trying to block houses of worship in neighborhoods. In Hollywood, Fla., for example, the department successfully sued the city for denying a permit to an Orthodox synagogue.

Sometimes, Mr. L’Heureux said, an inquiry from Mr. Treene, the special religious affairs counsel, had been enough to encourage local governments to drop their resistance. The civil rights division favorably resolved 16 of 26 zoning investigations simply by expressing interest in them, according to the Justice Department.

Kareem W. Shora, the executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that Mr. Treene had also intervened in cases the group brought to him about Arab prison inmates having access to prayer opportunities.

In so-called equal-access cases, the department has mostly won court rulings allowing religious organizations like the Child Evangelism Fellowship to have the same access to public school students as nonreligious groups, a principle generally approved by a divided Supreme Court in 2001.

In the candy cane case, for example, school officials in Westfield, Mass., had suspended students for handing out candy canes with religious messages, saying it was disruptive and lurid. The students said that the “J” shape represented Jesus and the red stripes his blood, the white his purity. In a pending case from San Diego, the government defended the city’s campground lease to the Boy Scouts, which had been challenged because of the group’s religious tenets. The department has also challenged so-called Blaine amendments, which are state constitutional provisions enforcing separation of church and state more rigidly than does the United States Constitution. The federal government sued because the amendments could impede Mr. Bush’s religion-based initiative, which provides money to religious groups for social programs.

Reshaping the Staff

As it has reoriented its priorities, the department has also tried to remake the cast of government lawyers who enforce civil rights. A number of career lawyers who served as section heads or deputies in the civil rights division have been replaced.

In Congressional testimony in March, Mr. Rich said seven managers had been removed or marginalized for what he characterized as political reasons or perceived disloyalty. Department officials acknowledge the changes, but dispute the reasons.

In addition, Mr. Ashcroft arranged for the agency’s senior political appointees to take over the decades-old system used to hire recent law school graduates for entry-level career jobs that are supposed to be nonpartisan.

Under the system, known as the honors program, nonpolitical career lawyers had screened applicants. Those selected were almost exclusively graduates of top-ranked law schools and often had had prestigious judicial clerkships or other relevant experience.

Monica M. Goodling, a former senior aide to Mr. Gonzales, testified to a House committee last month that she had improperly used politics to hire some people as assistant federal prosecutors and for other civil service jobs, a possible violation of federal employment laws.

But the pattern of hiring on an ideological basis was more widespread than what Ms. Goodling described, according to interviews and department statistics.

Figures provided by the department show that from 2003 through 2006, there was a notable increase of hirings from religious-affiliated institutions like Regent University and Ave Maria University. The department hired eight from those two schools in that period, compared to 50 from Harvard and 13 from Yale.

Several career lawyers said that some political appointees favored the religious-oriented employees, intervening to steer $1,000 to $4,000 annual merit bonuses to them.

Ms. Oliveri and several other law professors said placement officers and faculty at their schools found that graduates seeking work at the Justice Department had a better chance by cleansing their résumés of liberal affiliations while emphasizing ties to the Federalist Society, a Washington conservative group, or membership in a religious fellowship.

Ms. Oliveri recalled that when she was hired in 2000 by the Justice Department, she was impressed by the accomplishments of her peers. But once the political appointees controlled the hiring, she said, “The change in the quality of people who were chosen was very pronounced.”

When the front office sent around the résumés of those newly hired for the honors program, she said, “It was obvious what they had: conservative and religious bona fides.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14discrim.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

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

June 11, 2007

Prisons ban books over fear of radicals

June 10, 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Prisons ban books over fear of radicals

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

NEW YORK -- Inmates at the federal prison camp in Otisville, N.Y., were stunned by what they saw at the chapel library on Memorial Day - hundreds of books had disappeared from the shelves.

The removal of the books is occurring nationwide, part of a long-delayed, post-Sept. 11 federal directive intended to prevent radical religious texts, specifically Islamic ones, from falling into the hands of violent inmates.

Three inmates at Otisville filed a lawsuit over the policy, saying their Constitutional rights were violated. They say all religions were affected.

"The set of books that have been taken out have been ones that we used to minister to new converts when they come in here," inmate John Okon, speaking on behalf of the prison's Christian population, told a judge last week.

Okon said it was unfortunate because "I have really seen religion turn around the life of some of these men, especially in the Christian community."

The government maintained that that the new rules don't entirely clear the shelves of prison chapel libraries.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Feldman told U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain that prison libraries limited the number of books for each religion to between 100 and 150 under the new rules. He said officials would expand the number after choosing a new list of permitted books.

Feldman said the removal order stemmed from an April 2004 Department of Justice review of the way prisons choose Muslim religious services providers. It is not exactly clear why it took so long for the order to be put into effect, but prison officials said they needed time to examine a long list of books.

Feldman said the study was made out of a concern that prisons "had been radicalized by inmates who were practicing or espousing various extreme forms of religion, specifically Islam, which exposed security risks to the prisons and beyond the prisons to the public at large."

Feldman said the review by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons concluded that prison chapel libraries were not adequately supervised.

"The presence of extremist chaplains, contractors or volunteers in the BOP's correctional facilities can pose a threat to institutional security and could implicate national security if inmates are encouraged to commit terrorist acts against the United States," the bureau's report said.

The review suggested audio and video monitoring of worship areas and chapel classrooms and screening of religious service providers. It also recommended that prisons reduce inmate-led religious services and consider constant staff monitoring of inmate-led services.

A Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman in Washington did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Feldman said inmates are permitted to order books on their own and bypass the chapel libraries. "So fundamentally this is not a case about what books the inmates have the ability to read," he said.

However, inmates say the rules have had a chilling effect.

Inmate Moshe Milstein told the judge by telephone that the chaplain at Otisville removed about 600 books from the chapel library on Memorial Day, including Harold S. Kushner's best-seller "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," a book that Norman Vincent Peale said was "a book that all humanity needs."

"There is definitely irreparable harm done to us already, and we would like the court to issue the injunction to get the books back as soon as possible," he said.

Inmate Douglas Kelly, who described himself as a representative of the prison's Muslim community, complained of "a denial of our First Amendment rights."

He said books on Islam already were the least represented in the library's collections and were reduced by half in the Memorial Day removal.

"A lot of what we are missing were definitely prayer books or prayer guides and religious laws on the part of the Muslim faith," he said.

The judge said the lawsuit might be premature because the inmates had not yet followed prison administrative complaint procedures. She declined to block the book removals, the remedy sought by the lawsuit.

Ron Kuby, a civil rights lawyer who has represented a former head Islamic chaplain banned from the state prison system after he was accused of making extremist statements, called the prison book removal "a mass Memorial Day book burning."

But he also said there might be limits to relief the prisoners can seek because prisoners' First Amendment rights are severely limited.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Prison_Book_Ban.html

Posted by lois at 08:24 PM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2007

Bob Herbert: Poisonous Police Behavoir

June 2, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist, NY Times
Poisonous Police Behavior
By BOB HERBERT

You most likely have no idea of the abusive treatment that students and teachers at many of New York City’s public schools are enduring at the hands of overly aggressive police officers and security aides assigned to the schools.

Students are being belittled, shouted at, cursed at, intrusively searched and improperly touched by cops and security aides who answer to the Police Department, not school authorities. In many cases, the students are roughed up, handcuffed, arrested and taken off to jail for behavior that does not even begin to approach the criminal. Teachers and administrators who have attempted to intervene on the behalf of students have themselves been abused, and in some cases arrested.

This poisonous police behavior is an extension into the schools of the humiliating treatment cops have long been doling out to youngsters — especially those who are black or Latino — on the city’s streets.

In January, a 15-year-old girl at Samuel J. Tilden High School** in Brooklyn was manhandled for no discernible reason by an armed police sergeant. The sergeant had grabbed her book bag and ordered her into a school detention room. When the girl replied, “That’s where I’m going,” the sergeant is alleged to have pushed her. The girl then said she was going to take down his name and badge number.

When she said that, according to a new study of police practices in the public schools by the American Civil Liberties Union, the sergeant jerked the girl’s left arm behind her back at a painful angle. The girl’s right hand slammed against a wall and she began to cry.

Students inside the room cried out in protest, but to no avail. The girl was taken to the police station and given a summons. That night the school’s assistant principal called the girl’s home and apologized to her mother for the incident.

One morning last fall a large contingent of police officers arrived unannounced at Wadleigh, a high school for the performing arts in Harlem, to do a spot check for weapons by herding students through portable metal detectors. One of the students, the vice president of the school government association, was afraid his cellphone would be confiscated so he called his mother and asked her to come get it. He waited outside the school for her to arrive.

When police officers approached him, he explained that his mother was coming to meet him and would be there in just a few minutes. The police, according to the report, called him a smart-aleck, seized his cellphone, handcuffed him, took him to the local stationhouse and put him in jail.

Unaware that her son had been arrested, the mother was frantic when she couldn’t find him at the school. The charges against the boy were later dropped.

There is nothing unusual about this type of activity. A math teacher at the Urban Assembly Academy of History and Citizenship rushed outside the school one day last fall when he heard that a student was being assaulted. He saw a police officer slam a boy against a car. Explaining that the boy was his student, the teacher said, “He’s just a kid.”

According to the report, the police officer then hit and shoved the teacher. People in a group that had gathered cried out: “He’s a teacher! He’s a teacher!”

A second officer reportedly grabbed the teacher from behind and threw him onto the sidewalk. The teacher’s head bounced against the pavement. While on the ground, the teacher was handcuffed as students and school staffers looked on. He was arrested and taken off to jail.

The report, a must-read for anyone interested in the reality of public school life in New York, is titled “Criminalizing the Classroom” and was released jointly by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Racial Justice Program of the national A.C.L.U.

“Girls,” the report said, “are particularly targeted for intrusive searches. Girls whose underwire bras set off metal detectors must lift up their shirts so (security aides) can verify that they are not concealing metal objects. Many girls reported that officers ordered them to unbuckle and/or unzip their pants for the purpose of verifying that the students were not concealing cellphones.”

There is no excuse whatever for this systematic mistreatment of New York City students. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in charge of the school system, and he and Commissioner Ray Kelly run the Police Department. Parents across the city should demand that they step in and bring this cruel madness to an end.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02herbert.html?hp

Posted by lois at 09:11 PM | Comments (0)

May 31, 2007

Know Your Rights: A Guide to Young People's Rights in Juvenile Delinquency Court.

Know Your Rights: A Guide to Young People's Rights in Juvenile Delinquency Court. (May 2007) The booklet is designed to teach young people their basic constitutional rights as it applies to the law.
According to the Know Your Rights booklet in 2003:
2.2 million arrests were made of persons under the age of 18;
136,500 of these arrests were for violating curfew and loitering laws;
Black youth account for 27% of all juvenile arrests, even though they only make up 16% of the youth population; and
Girls account for 29% of all juvenile arrests, which represents a 45% increase in arrests of girls over a period of approximately twenty years
Additionally, the booklet cites in recent years, reports of abuse and mistreatment in youth correctional facilities have increased. For example, in 2004 there were 2,821 reports of sexual violence against youth and 26 deaths of youth in facilities.
http://www.gaultat40.info/pdfs/kyr_booklet.pdf

Posted by lois at 05:57 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2007

WI: Her first vote put her in prison

Here's an example of the so-called "voter fraud" Monica Goodling & Co were so intent in prosecuting. Lois

Her first vote put her in prison
Woman is one of five from city convicted of voter fraud
By BILL GLAUBER
Posted: May 21, 2007

Union Grove - Kimberly Prude is 43, a grandmother of three and the face of voter fraud in Wisconsin.

The first vote she cast in her life, in the 2004 presidential election, landed her in the middle of a political storm and put her on a road to a two-year sentence inside the Robert E. Ellsworth Correctional Center.

"At this point, I'm not interested in voting," Prude said last week in a measured voice as she sat in a spare meeting room at the minimum security prison.

It was her first interview since her conviction in September 2005. She wore a gray T-shirt, blue jeans and white tennis shoes. She smiled and appeared comfortable discussing her life in prison, where she earns 26 cents an hour as a cleaner in the kitchen and is studying to complete a high school equivalency diploma.

On advice of her attorney, she declined to discuss the case, which is on appeal.

How Prude got from the streets of Milwaukee to a prison in Racine County is now the stuff of American political history.

Prude cast an illegal vote in 2004. As a felon on probation and under state supervision, she was ineligible to vote.

A woman who dropped out of high school in 10th grade, struggled with substance abuse and compiled a criminal record, Prude found herself up against the might of the federal system.

"I tried to get help in the beginning," she said. "I wrote Oprah (Winfrey's) O Magazine. I got my daughter to call certain talk show hosts, Montel Williams, Maury Povich. There was no interest."

In almost any other election year in perhaps any other state, such a vote might have gone unnoticed and unpunished.

But in Wisconsin - a key battleground state - the closely contested 2004 presidential election between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry
(D-Mass.) was placed under a microscope, especially in Milwaukee. GOP warned of fraud

In the days leading to the election, Republicans leveled accusations that the vote was subject to fraud and challenged 5,600 addresses of voters on Milwaukee's rolls, while Democrats warned of intimidation and potential suppression of minority voters including African-Americans, such as Prude.

The election was held. The votes were counted. The debate died down.

But the issue did not go away.

In early 2005, Republican officials in Wisconsin complained to senior White House political adviser Karl Rove that Milwaukee U.S. Attorney Steven M. Biskupic was not being aggressive enough in pursuing voter fraud cases.

Biskupic has said he was unaware of those complaints and has repeatedly denied that his office prosecuted any voter fraud case because of White House pressure. As early as 2005, Biskupic was on an "evolving list" of 26 U.S. attorneys to be fired by the Bush administration, according to The Washington Post.

After all the allegations of voter fraud made during the 2004 presidential campaign, federal attorneys in Milwaukee brought 14 cases. Six of those were dismissed before trial, and only five convictions were secured, all Milwaukee residents. Prosecutors had to prove that the voters intended to defraud the system. 10% of all U.S. cases

Although 14 cases may not sound like a lot, they made up more than 10% of all the federal voter fraud cases brought in the United States from 2002 to 2006, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

Four of the cases here involved allegations of double voting, and 10 others involved felons accused of voting.

As in a majority of states, Wisconsin prohibits felony offenders from voting until they have completed probation and parole. Only two states deny the right to vote for all ex-offenders, and nine other states restrict certain ex-offenders or impose a waiting period to vote, according to The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group.

One of those charged by prosecutors here was Derek Little, a felon from Milwaukee, who registered to vote and then cast a ballot on the same day. The only identification he had was a parolee card.

"In big bold letters, it says OFFENDER, and they still let me vote," Little said. "I thought it was their job to know the rules."

Federal attorneys dropped the case. But the experience left Little shaken.

"The Department of Corrections should take the time out and make sure a person understands each and every one of the rules 100 percent," he said. "I don't want anyone else to go through this situation. It will turn you into a nervous wreck."

Prude's case was different.

She worked as a local volunteer for the John Kerry-John Edwards campaign, even calling people to inform them how they could vote.

Went to Sharpton rally

On Oct. 22, 2004, she volunteered for a rally that featured the Rev. Al Sharpton. As the rally ended, Sharpton encouraged the crowd to follow him to City Hall, where people could register to vote. Prude joined the crowd, registered to vote and then submitted an absentee ballot. While waiting in line, she said, she heard someone asking for people to work the election-day polls. Prude signed up.

Later, Prude said she notified her parole agent that she had a job as a poll worker and the agent told her she couldn't vote. Prude claimed she called the election commission to attempt to withdraw her ballot but that a person she spoke with told her not to worry about the vote.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling said Prude's story "changed repeatedly."

"You didn't get the sense (from Prude), 'I made a mistake, I forgot.' This was, 'I did it, now I'm trying to cover.' "

During the three-day trial, Prude testified she made a "terrible mistake" by voting and tried to correct it.

The government said Prude was amply warned that felons under supervision could not vote. Prude's parole officer testified that on Sept. 27, 2004, he warned her not to vote.

The government said that at the polls on election day, "Prude improperly vouched for individuals she had never met. She also signed as the corroborating witness on two on-site registration cards for the same voter."

A jury convicted Prude of voter fraud.

She was sentenced to serve two years concurrent with a state sentence for forgery. She pleaded guilty to the state charge in 2000; her six-year prison term was stayed and she was placed on supervision.

The voting fraud conviction contributed to her probation being revoked.

Due for release in fall

Prude is expected to be released from prison in the autumn. She plans to return home and pursue a job lead.

For now, she said, the things she misses most are holidays. Asked what gift she wants for her first Christmas at home, she thought for a moment and said, "You know what, I want no surprises this year."

Original Story URL: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=608187

Posted by lois at 05:09 PM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2007

OK: House passes faith-based prisoner re-entry program

May 23, 2007
House passes faith-based prisoner re-entry program
TIM TALLEY
Associated Press Writer

OKLAHOMA CITY ‹ Legislation that encourages churches and other faith-based groups to prepare state inmates for life after prison and reduce the number of repeat offenders was overwhelmingly approved by the Oklahoma House Tuesday.

Lawmakers voted 93-4 for the legislation in spite of concern that it may violate the constitutional separation between church and state and would give faith-based groups some of lawmakers' oversight authority over the state Department of Corrections.

Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, said he agreed with the goals of the legislation. "They are extremely meritable and worthy. But you are crossing the line," Morrissette said.

He complained that the bill would grow government by creating a new Office of Faith Based Initiatives and that there would be little accountability for how tax dollars allocated to the office would be spent.

Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City, said it is appropriate for church groups to work with state prisoners but they should pay for the services with money the groups raise on their own, not state tax dollars.

"State government has no business paying for programs run by a church," Lindley said.

The Department of Corrections already sponsors faith- and character-based programs at two state prisons, the Mabel Bassett Correctional Center for women in McCloud and the medium-security Oklahoma State Reformatory in Granite, said DOC spokesman Jerry Massie.

The programs are patterned after similar programs in Texas, Kansas and Florida and are designed to provide opportunities for offenders "to make positive, lasting life changes," Massie said. The programs are voluntary and anyone can apply to participate.

"Institutions that have implemented these programs in other states have reported less violence among inmates, fewer inmate misconducts and a decrease in recidivism," Massie said.

Character training curriculum was developed with the help of the Character Training Institute of Oklahoma City, a nonprofit group that provides seminars and consulting services to encourage success in business, schools and other organizations by developing good character, he said.

Massie said character training is performed by prison staff and volunteers and religious training is performed exclusively by volunteers. A total of 200 inmates are enrolled in the yearlong program at Mabel Bassett, he said.

In Arkansas, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative has a capacity for 50 female prisoners at the state's Wrightsville Unit. The state's Tucker Unit can take 120 men.

In the Bible-based Arkansas program, inmates live in a separate unit and attend classes on skills including computer skills and anger management. They also participate in religious devotionals. After being released from prison, participants receive guidance from a mentor and a local religious group for at least six months.

Rep. John Wright, R-Broken Arrow, said Oklahoma's faith-based legislation offers "a glimmer of hope" to state inmates who need help as they prepare to leave their prison cells and re-enter society.

"Send a ray of hope that you think their lives can be productive. And give them some help," Wright said.

The measure's author, House Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah, said government should not discriminate against faith-based and volunteer groups that want more input in counseling and rehabilitation of state inmates.

"If it's a good program, demonstrated results, it's worthy of support," Cargill said.

He said the faith-based program will initially be funded with $100,000 in state funds. A policy council composed of lawmakers, prosecutors, crime victims and former inmates will review prison re-entry policies and suggest improvements.

Cargill has said statistics point out that two-thirds of all prison inmates commit new offenses and wind up back behind bars within three to five years.

The measure would establish incentives for partnerships between prison officials and faith-based and community groups. It would also encourage private and public groups to help inmates find jobs and services before they are released.

"I think faith plays an important role in a person's life," Cargill said. "A government program doesn't love anybody. People love people."

The measure, House Bill 2101, now goes to the Senate for final action.
http://ap.ardmoreite.com/pstories/state/ok/20070522/171975133.shtml

Posted by lois at 05:38 PM | Comments (0)

April 25, 2007

Prison Legal News Settles First Amendment Suit with CA

Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Last modified Friday, April 13, 2007

California settles First Amendment lawsuit with Prison Legal News

By: Associated Press -

SACRAMENTO -- California prison officials have agreed to provide a nonprofit legal newsletter to state inmates to settle a First Amendment lawsuit filed this week in federal court.

The lawsuit by Seattle-based Prison Legal News alleges that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation violated inmates' free speech and due process rights by blocking inmates from receiving their paid subscriptions to the monthly publication. The newsletter covers legal news like court decisions and gives legal self-help advice to inmates.

The department agreed in December to pay the publisher $65,100, most of which will go for five-year subscriptions of the newsletter for each of the 157 prison legal libraries at its 33 adult prisons. The department also agreed to update its mail policy to eliminate several restrictions it had placed on publications.

The publication's attorneys filed the suit Thursday in federal court in Oakland to ensure the settlement is legally binding, said Amy Whelan, an attorney for the newsletter.

Prison Legal News has about 5,000 subscribers, 80 percent of whom are in jail or prison. About 1,000 subscribers are in California prisons. The company also publishes more than 40 books, some of which have been blocked from reaching inmates who ordered them, the suit alleges.

"This is an important vindication of significant constitutional rights," Paul Wright, the newsletter's editor and publisher, said in a statement.

Corrections spokesman Seth Unger said the publications were blocked under policies that required publishers to be on an "approved vendors list," that prohibited hardcover books for security reasons, restricted the weight of mail inmates could receive, and limited the amount of written material an inmate could have at one time.

"It was not an attempt at censorship," Unger said.

However, the department is changing all those policies under the settlement.

Prison Legal News has won similar lawsuits or settlements in Alabama, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/state/21_57_444_13_07.prt

Posted by lois at 05:26 PM | Comments (0)

April 21, 2007

IL; Bill would restrict sex offenders at the polls

Please go to this URL for comments in response to this Bill which are NOT in support of this legislation.

http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/112656.asp

Bill would restrict sex offenders at the polls
By LAURA CAMPER
STATE CAPITOL BUREAU

Published Friday, April 20, 2007

Child sex offenders would be banned from voting in polling places in schools under a bill passed by the Illinois House Thursday.

House Bill 263, which sailed through on a vote of 110-3, would require a child sex offender to vote early or by absentee ballot. The current election code allows the offender on school grounds to vote, though they cannot go there otherwise.

Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, said she had sponsored an earlier bill that would have closed the schools on Election Day, but it was defeated in committee. Rep. Roger Eddy, R- Hutsonville, a co-sponsor of HB 263, brought the legislation to her, Osmond said.

"We were both looking at the same concept of how not to have any child sex offender in the school area at all," Osmond said. "I feel this was a good way of doing it by not denying him or her the right to vote, but giving specific parameters where (the sex offender) should go to vote."

Rep. Careen Gordon, D-Coal City, who voted against the bill, questioned its constitutionality.

"It would be the only group of people that we would single out in this state to restrict where they are allowed to vote," Gordon said.

"The right to vote is a constitutional right," she added. "It's something we hold very, very dear, and when you decide to pick out a group, as horrible as they may be - and I am the first in line to vote for stronger laws on sex offenders as a former prosecutor - but we end up on a slippery slope."

Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union, offered a similar sentiment.

"It's hard for me to believe that we have to undermine the right to vote in this instance without really taking into account that there might be other steps we could take," Yohnka said.

A similar bill passed the Illinois Senate on March 29 by a vote of 57-0.

Senate Bill 417 would ban everyone subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act from voting in schools and libraries. The legislation also requires the Illinois State Police to provide each election authority a list of registered sex offenders within their jurisdiction, who would in turn give a list to each election judge.

Yohnka said the ACLU opposes both bills.

"It's curious as to why suddenly there's an issue with sex offenders, as opposed to really providing safety and security in the school," he said.

Gordon agreed.

"The reason why we keep them out is because of the offenses that they've committed," she said. "If they are going there to vote, it's a completely separate situation. Even a regular person can't randomly walk around a school on Election Day."

The State Board of Elections is neutral on the bill, said Cris Cray, director of legislation for the agency.

"This has been a really hot topic for the last three years," Cray said. "We've had a lot of legislation dealing with sex offenders and voting."

She said the board is still analyzing the bills.

Posted by lois at 12:14 AM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2007

Inmates vs. Animals: U.S. Fails the Test of Civilization

Inmates vs. Animals: U.S. Fails the Test of Civilization
By Ben Zipperer, AlterNet
Posted on April 18, 2007

Legend has it that in the fifth century the Asian monk Telemachus ran into a Roman arena to stop the brutality of the gladitorial games. For his interruption, the indignant crowd stoned him to death, but his actions impressed Emperor Honorius enough to put an end to the fights.

The past millenium and a half has arguably witnessed a general improvement in the cultural level of society, in particular many countries having preserved and extended their intolerance of sports that brutally exploit the disadvantaged. Today even cock fighting and pitting canines against each other are illegal in most industrialized nations.

Remnants of gladitorial combat nevertheless persist, notably at two prison rodeos in Angola, La., and McAlester, Okla., where Americans buy tickets to watch inmates wrestle bulls and participate in crowd favorites like "Convict Poker." Also called "Mexican Sweat," the poker game consists of four prisoners who sit expectantly around a red card table. A 1,500-pound bull is unleashed, and the last convict to remain sitting wins. Especially thrilling for the audience is the chaotic finale "Money the Hard Way" in which more than a dozen inmates scramble to snatch a poker chip dangling from the horns of another raging bull.

Unlike prisoners of ancient Rome, convicts at the annual Angola and Oklahoma State rodeos aren't physically forced to compete in the games, or even executed after their performance. Instead, they're paid handsomely -- upwards of $200 for winning "Convict Poker," or $100 for successfully grabbing the chip in "Money the Hard Way." A tour guide clarifies the basic economics: "Since $100 is worth about four months' pay to these hardened criminals, be ready for one hell of a scrap for that c-note."

There are of course some ethical concerns. When "someone raises a question about the propriety of the rodeo," a Washington Post article explains, the focus remains on the abuse of bulls and broncos, like the pleas of the animal rights group PETA to cancel the rodeo on animal cruelty grounds. An official from In Defense of Animals writes elsewhere that the event provides inmates with "the right to torment and abuse frightened animals in front of a cheering audience." Moral questions don't arise about the propriety of cheering while bulls pummel convicts.

Prison rodeos may be rare, but it shouldn't be surprising that the mainstream toleration they receive stems from the willingness of the United States to incarcerate 2.2 million of its people. While less than one out of every 20 humans lives in the United States, almost one quarter of the world's prisoners sit in American jails. The U.S. criminal justice system has no parallel in the contemporary world. History, however, reveals the origins of the system's scope, in addition to the national obsession of denying criminal offenders the decency and rights normally afforded to other humans.

More Americans in prison

In the international race to incarcerate, the United States dominates, with few rivals and no rich countries within shouting distance. Incarceration rates across countries are best measured as shares of national populations. Last year, for every 100,000 people in the United States, 738 were in prison. Second-place Russia, whom the United States succeeded in 2000, currently boasts a rate of 603, but the only other OECD country with a rate above 200 is Poland at 229. The U.K. incarceration rate of 145 is the highest of any Western European country. Although African-Americans suffer the greatest relative burden of U.S. imprisonment, the incarceration rate for whites in the United States is still more than three times the OECD average.

To its credit, the United States hasn't always imprisoned such a large share of its population. Incarceration rates were steady, sometimes falling, and always below 200 throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. The prison population rate rose sharply from 1973 to 1980, and then skyrocketed, more than tripling over the past 25 years.

What caused such a tremendous spike in imprisonment? Increases in crime rates surely made some contribution, but the road to prison involves other components of the criminal justice system, like prosecutorial and judicial decisions, and the time served in jail. Isolating these factors during the period from 1980 to 1996, Carnegie Mellon professor Alfred Blumstein and Bureau of Justice statistician Allen Beck conclude that only 12 percent of state incarceration growth resulted from the increased number of offenses. The rest of the prison population growth was due to decisions to incarcerate arrested individuals and their subsequent sentence length -- namely, policy choices made by legal and political representatives.

Coinciding directly with this astounding expansion of the prison population is the U.S. "war on drugs." Nonviolent drug offenses accounted for less than 8 percent of prisoners in 1980, but by 1993 that share had risen to about 25 percent, where it remains today. By contrast, more than half of those imprisoned in 1980 were violent criminals, who now comprise a bit less than half of the prison population. As a proportion of illicit activity, drug use therefore either tripled in just slightly over a decade and then stabilized, or the focus and severity of U.S. penal and sentencing policy shifted dramatically.

International comparisons also reveal the stark and decisive contribution of criminal justice policies to incarceration rates. Cross-country crime surveys from the late 1980s through the present place the United States slightly above average, but well within the range of Western European criminal activity. The United States is now, of course, off the charts in terms of incarceration, imprisoning on a per capita basis six times the average of other OECD countries.

Incarceration rates in the United States and Finland were not dissimilar in the mid-1960s. Over the following 30 years, the United States saw a near fivefold increase in the rate of violent crime and a threefold increase in the rate of imprisonment. Violent crime also rose in Finland by a factor of three, but over roughly the same period, the promotion of sentencing alternatives to incarceration and deliberate reductions in the length of prison sentences helped to cut the Finnish incarceration rate by more than half.

Assessing these trends, criminologist Michael Tonry writes that whereas U.K. punishment policies were originally not out of the ordinary compared with Western Europe, since 1993 England and Wales "have consciously emulated American crime control policies," resulting in the near doubling of the prison population. In Germany, despite a doubling of the violent crime rate between the early 1960s and 1990s, "no radical decisions were made to increase or decrease the imprisonment rate," and so the German incarceration rate stagnated and even fell somewhat over this period. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that incarceration rates are driven primarily by policy choices, not by crime rates or inexorable laws of nature.

Permanent exclusion

Unsatisfied with mere prison sentences, the United States especially has decided that offenders should continue to pay for their crimes even after release. Some states prohibit hiring teachers or child care workers with criminal records, and drug felons are often denied the occupational mobility necessary for employment in general due to required suspensions or revocations of drivers' licenses. Federal law also allows states to deny offenders public housing, or to bar welfare benefits or food stamps from drug felons, sometimes permanently. Drug-related records can invalidate eligibility for student loans or aid. Even exile has its place in the United States: Foreigners with certain criminal convictions are increasingly deported, a practice which grew twelvefold between 1989 and 2004.

Some of these punishments isolate the United States from the rest of the industrialized world. Most states in this country deny current prisoners the right to vote, some bar felons from voting during probation or parole, and a few strip the vote from felons for life. Although the United States is hardly alone in denying voting rights to the imprisoned, many European nations, including Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, even allow current prisoners to vote. Nonetheless, the United States appears to be the only democratic country that indefinitely disenfranchises nonincarcerated felons. The United Nations Human Rights Committee recently proclaimed that these felon disenfranchisement practices violate international law, namely the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party.

Crediting the United States for such exclusionary policies would be unfair. Like prison rodeos and gladiatorial games, these traditions have deep roots in history, as outlaws in ancient Rome and Germanic tribes were likewise deprived of conventional human rights. The United States of today embraces the legal and moral standards of medieval Europe, where disenfranchisement and other practices amounted to what was called "civil death." Criminals there were consequently "dead in law," prevented from performing the normal legal functions of citizenry.

Coupled with the severe and disproportionate toll of the criminal justice system on black America, the reach of civil death is staggering. More than 13 percent of African-American men cannot vote because their felony conviction puts them in prison or on parole, or just simply denies their suffrage. In eight states, at least one out of four black men is disenfranchised. Christopher Uggen at the University of Minnesota and Jeff Manza at Northwestern University calculate that felony disenfranchisement affected a total of 5.4 million Americans in 2004.

Criminal offenders are not only excluded from society by imprisonment and post-prison sanctions, but also due to the subtle fact that those in prison are ignored by most measures of economic well-being. For instance, the unemployment rate measures the nonworking share of the labor force -- those who are actively seeking work. Omitted from this definition, however, are the institutionalized and in particular the incarcerated.

Sociologists Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett note that while Europe is regularly chastised for high labor inactivity, counting the imprisoned as unemployed drastically changes the economic standing of the United States among European countries. In 2004, the standardized U.S. unemployment rate for men was 5.6 percent below the OECD average of about 6.2 percent. Including the prison population as unemployed raises the male U.S. unemployment rate to 7.9 percent, exceeding the modified OECD average (6.6 percent), and placing the United States below only the top five high unemployment countries of Europe.

The point is not that the incarcerated should be counted in the conventional unemployment rate, but rather that vast numbers of able-bodied men are forcibly removed both from civil society in general, and from our very conception of it. Rates for employment, poverty, inequality and virtually every socioeconomic indicator exclude the incarcerated. Prisoners' invisibility to society in conjunction with civil death -- in the United States, at least -- cannot possibly help to ensure their human rights.

Nearly a century ago Winston Churchill remarked that "the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country ... [these actions] mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it." U.S.-style criminal treatment includes disenfranchisement, exile, prison rodeos and innumerable other practices that punish, exclude and effectively erase millions of people. Do these signs constitute our virtue? Are we failing the test of civilization?

Ben Zipperer is a research assistant at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/50428/

Posted by lois at 05:12 PM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2007

Is the U.S. Ready for Human Rights?

YES! Magazine Spring 2007 Issue:
Is the U.S. Ready for Human Rights?
Mere Justice
by Jesse Wegman

The drive to punishment is making us forget that prisoners have a right to be heard.

Scales of Justice image (Creative Commons)
The plea was straightforward, Chris O’Bryant’s court-appointed lawyer told him: Take a life sentence on each of two counts and get out in 25 years, maybe sooner.

O’Bryant had wanted to go to trial and claim voluntary intoxication—after all, he didn’t remember robbing anyone or shooting at a police officer. He hadn’t even hurt anybody. But his lawyer told him there was no such defense and urged him to plead guilty instead. O’Bryant, only 23 at the time, trusted his lawyer and did as he was advised.

The problem was, the lawyer was dead wrong: there was such a defense. Even worse, the lawyer had misunderstood the terms of the plea, which in fact put O’Bryant in prison for life without the possibility of parole. And because of a 1996 law limiting his right to get these errors addressed through a writ of habeas corpus, there’s nothing he can do about it.

The Great Writ
A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary legal remedy available to a person in government custody. The “writ” itself is a court order requiring the state (or federal government) to prove that it has a legal right to hold you in jail or in prison. When the government is served with a writ of habeas corpus, it must prove that your federal constitutional rights have not been violated. If the proof is not there, the court may order a new trial or sentencing, or even release you outright.

Habeas corpus has been a touchstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence for nearly a millennium. It is protected explicitly in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has called it “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.”

It is also a universal human right. It appears in, among other places, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights. In short, it is a constitutional right, enshrined in international law, that offers a last line of defense for an imprisoned individual against the indifference of or abuse by the State.

But why should we care whether someone like Chris O’Bryant is able to challenge the legality of his sentence? After all, he doesn’t deny that he shot at a cop. Isn’t habeas corpus really a concern for, say, those Middle Eastern men sitting in cramped cages at Guantánamo Bay, unable to challenge their detention in any civilian court? Surely it is, and since soon after September 11 there has been no shortage of coverage of the clashes between the three branches of the federal government over this fundamental question.

But obscured by these headlines is a bigger story: the decade-long rollback of the right to petition for habeas corpus aimed at the more than 2 million people held in U.S. federal and state prisons. Tens of thousands of prisoners try to file habeas petitions each year: some of them claim innocence; most claim some form of constitutional error in their arrest or trial—but all of them are entitled not to be imprisoned illegally. By preventing them from exercising this basic human (and constitutional) right, we undercut the integrity of the criminal process, as well as the principles on which this nation was founded. And that’s a threat you don’t need to sympathize with a prisoner to comprehend.

The End of “Prisoner-Coddling”
On April 24, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. AEDPA, as it is known, was triggered by the Oklahoma City bombing a year earlier. It was enacted in part to speed up the death penalty appeals process (that is, to execute more people, faster). But another central purpose of AEDPA—one which the bill’s backers had sought for a long time—was to restrict dramatically the availability of habeas corpus to all prisoners.

“Habeas corpus reform … is the Holy Grail [of AEDPA],” said Representative Henry Hyde in the days before the bill became law. “We have pursued that for 14 years.”

The groundwork Hyde was referring to was laid in the ‘70s and ‘80s, as an increasingly conservative Supreme Court began to retreat from rulings of the previous two decades that had made it easier for prisoners to file habeas petitions. (That availability had itself been a long time coming; until the 20th century, convicted prisoners were largely prohibited from petitioning for habeas corpus.)

Around the same time, the number of habeas petitions filed increased dramatically—100 percent between 1987 and 1996—and public pressure to stem the flow intensified. It did not seem to matter that the increase was due primarily to the ballooning national prison population—in fact, the rate of habeas filings per thousand inmates decreased during the same period. Nor did it matter that many inmates were raising potentially meritorious claims of innocence or major trial error. Habeas had become a vague yet powerful symbol of prisoner-coddling, and politicians were eager to find a way to attack it.

AEDPA, passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, codified the retrenchment that had occurred during the ’70s and ’80s. Among the roadblocks it set up were a one-year filing deadline and a near-total prohibition against filing more than one petition, even if new evidence comes to light later on.

But hardest to overcome was the “unreasonable” requirement: in order for a federal court to overturn a state court’s ruling on a prisoner’s federal constitutional claim, it must find that ruling not simply wrong, but “unreasonably wrong.” Of course state courts can, and not infrequently do, misapply federal law. But under AEDPA, unless the error is unreasonable—and it is rarely found to be—the federal court must go along with it.

Even though AEDPA drastically curtailed crucial, hard won constitutional and international human rights that have existed, in some form, for centuries, it was surprisingly easy for politicians to sell to the average voter. “The people back home won’t understand what you’ve done, but they will understand that you’ve made it harder for people to get out of prison, and that’s a good thing,” says Bryan Stevenson, executive director of Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, and a professor at New York University School of Law.

Stevenson, who has spent his career defending death-row inmates throughout the South, was among the many critics who argued that AEDPA was the wrong approach. “Instead of saying, ‘We’re convicting a lot of people illegally, we’re convicting a lot of innocent people, let’s fix that,’ what I think most politicians have said is, ‘Let’s just turn off this complaint valve. We shut this down, then it’s just not going to be a problem for us,’” Stevenson says.

Blowback
AEDPA may have made politicians look good, but its longer-term effects have become a problem for nearly everyone else.

For starters, the law was so confusingly drafted that much of the habeas litigation of the past decade has revolved around making sense of what it means. And as a result of the ever-growing prison population and the scramble to meet the new filing deadline, the rate of habeas petitions actually increased after AEPDA’s passage—from 13 filings per 1,000 inmates in 1995 to 17 per 1,000 in 2000. This irony was not lost on the law’s supporters, who countered with a proposal for a stronger dose of the same bad medicine: the Streamlined Procedures Act (SPA).

Introduced in May 2005, the SPA is ostensibly aimed, once again, at speeding up executions. But, like its predecessor AEDPA, it would set new roadblocks in the way of any prisoner seeking to challenge his or her conviction on any grounds.

So far, the bill has run into intense opposition. But it is not yet dead, and there’s no guarantee that the new Democratic Congress will defeat it.

“It’s not as if the Democrats are against restricting habeas and the Republicans are in favor of it,” says Stevenson, pointing out that it was Bill Clinton who signed AEDPA in an effort to strengthen his own tough-on-crime credentials.

Despite its historic importance as both a civil and a human right, habeas corpus has never been a get-out-of-jail-free card. Federal courts grant the writ in a minuscule number of the 20,000 to 25,000 petitions filed each year, statistics that lead some prisoners and prisoner advocates to downplay the importance of AEDPA and related legislation.

“If you look at the number of successful habeas petitions, it’s like winning the lottery,” says Paul Wright, who served 17 years for murder in Washington State, during which time he became a respected jailhouse lawyer and started Prison Legal News, an inmate-written legal newsletter he still edits today.

To Wright, the main concern is what happens before a habeas petition gets filed—that is, in the state courts of appeals. These courts—often populated by elected judges who run under tough-on-crime platforms—cursorily deny the vast majority of criminal appeals that come before them. Combine that problem with the extreme deference AEDPA requires of federal courts reviewing state-court rulings, and habeas corpus petitions often seem to be no more than a formality.

As a result, Wright thinks that the “Great Writ” looks a lot more powerful than it is. “It’s like saying you have a spoiler on the back of your car. It looks nice, but what does it actually do?”

Bryan Stevenson agrees that there have always been obstacles to the granting of habeas—such as getting lawyers, developing the evidence, getting someone, anyone, to care. The difference, he says, is that those obstacles “weren’t the law itself.” He adds, “Your opportunity, if you were innocent, to get out of jail was still dramatically greater throughout most of our history than it is today.”

Prying open the courtroom doors
Even if you’re not innocent, but you want to challenge the constitutionality of your trial, your plea, or your sentencing, habeas corpus is essentially your only hope. That’s Chris O’Bryant’s problem: even though his trial lawyer later admitted his errors, O’Bryant missed the one-year deadline for filing his habeas petition—thanks to being hopped up on a regimen of anti-psychotic drugs prison officials prescribed shortly after he arrived.

Today O’Bryant is off medications and understands the law much better—so much so that he has become a jailhouse lawyer, assisting other prisoners with their legal claims. Like him, many of them are time-barred under AEDPA from filing their own habeas corpus petitions, regardless of the constitutional issues they may raise. O’Bryant is likely to see many more of these men: now 35 years old, he will live out his days in a cell at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Lake City, Florida.

Jesse Wegman
Jesse Wegman is a writer and lawyer living in New York.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1635

Posted by lois at 03:26 PM | Comments (0)

April 08, 2007

Sex Offenders Living Under Miami Bridge With State Approval

April 8, 2007, NY Times
Sex Offenders Living Under Miami Bridge
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MIAMI, April 7 (AP) — Five convicted sex offenders are living under a noisy highway bridge with the state’s grudging approval because an ordinance intended to keep predators away from children has made it nearly impossible for them to find housing.
The conditions are a consequence of laws prohibiting sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places children gather. Miami-Dade County’s 2005 ordinance says sex offenders must live at least 2,500 feet from schools.

“They’ve often said that some of the laws will force people to live under a bridge,” said Charles Onley, a research associate at the federally financed Center for Sex Offender Management in Silver Spring, Md. “This is probably the first story that I’ve seen that confirms that.”
The five men, who live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, are the only known sex offenders authorized to live outdoors in Florida, said Gretl Plessinger, a State Corrections Department spokeswoman.
“This is not an ideal situation for anybody, but at this point we don’t have any other options,” Ms. Plessinger said. “We’re still looking. The offenders are still actively searching for residences.”
County Commissioner Jose Diaz said he had no qualms about the ordinance, which he created.
“My main concern is the victims, the children that are the innocent ones that these predators attack and ruin their lives,” Mr. Diaz said. “No one really told them to do this crime.”
The men must stay at the bridge from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. because a parole officer checks on them nearly every night, Ms. Plessinger said.
They have fishing poles to catch food, cook with small stoves, use battery-powered televisions and radios and keep their belongings in plastic bags.
Javier Diaz, 30, who arrived this week, said he had trouble charging the tracking device he is required to wear because there were no power outlets nearby. Mr. Diaz was sentenced in 2005 to three years’ probation for lewd and lascivious conduct involving a girl under 16.
The whoosh of cars passing overhead echoes loudly under the causeway, which runs over Biscayne Bay, connecting Miami and Miami Beach.
About 100 feet away are the bay’s blue-green waters, where a family with young children played in the water this week. In the near distance, luxury condominiums rise from the coastline.
Javier Diaz said he and the other men feared for their lives, especially because of “crazy people who might try to come harm sex offenders.”
“You just pray to God every night,” he said, “so if you fall asleep for a minute or two, you know, nothing happens to you.”
The five committed crimes including sexual battery, molesting and abuse. Many of the offenses were against children.
The state moved the men under the bridge from their previous home — a lot next to a center for sexually abused children and close to a day care center — after they were unable to find housing they could afford that did not violate the sex offender ordinance.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/us/08bridge.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by lois at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2007

F.B.I. Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act

"The inspector general traced the increase in the use of the letters after Sept. 11, 2001. There were 8,500 in 2000, the year before the Patriot Act broadened surveillance powers. There were 39,000 in 2003, 56,000 in 2004 and 47,000 in 2005, the years covered in Mr. Fine’s review."

March 10, 2007
F.B.I. Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 9 — Bipartisan outrage erupted on Friday on Capitol Hill as Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, conceded that the bureau had improperly used the USA Patriot Act to obtain information about people and businesses.

Mr. Mueller embraced responsibility for the lapses, detailed in a report by the inspector general of the Justice Department, and promised to do everything he could to avoid repeating them. But his apologies failed to defuse the anger of lawmakers in both parties.

M
“How could this happen?” Mr. Mueller asked rhetorically in a briefing at the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is I am to be held accountable.”

The report found many instances when national security letters, which allow the bureau to obtain records from telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit companies and other businesses without a judge’s approval, were improperly, and sometimes illegally, used.

Moreover, record keeping was so slipshod, the report found, that the actual number of national security letters exercised was often understated when the bureau reported on them to Congress, as required.

The repercussions were felt far beyond Mr. Mueller’s office. Democratic lawmakers, newly in control of Congress, promised hearings on the problems. Several Republicans expressed anger and dismay, as well.

“It is time to place meaningful checks on the Bush administration’s ability to misuse the Patriot Act by overusing national security letters,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “National security letters are a powerful tool, and when they are misused, they can do great harm to innocent people.” Mr. Leahy said his panel would hold extensive hearings on the inspector general’s findings.

In the House, Representative Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat who heads the Intelligence Committee, said that the inspector general had painted “a highly troubling picture of mismanagement” and that it was up to Congress to “conduct vigorous oversight of this situation.”

Among the Republicans voicing anger was Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “When it comes to national security, sloppiness should be reserved for the hog lot, not the F.B.I.,” said Mr. Grassley.

Mr. Mueller attributed the inaccuracies to “deficiencies in the database” and the failure to retain signed copies of national security letters in all cases.

“We have already taken steps to correct these deficiencies,” he said.

Mr. Mueller emphasized that the report determined that the lapses were a result of errors rather than criminal or malicious intent, that apparently no person or business was harmed and that the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, agreed that the national security letters were a vital tool in the post-Sept. 11 world.

But he conceded that the abuses, however unintentional, were contrary to American traditions of law and respect for privacy. And even if the actual number of mistakes is relatively small, “nonetheless it is a serious problem,” he said, promising to do whatever he could to reassure skeptics on Capitol Hill.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales noted that the information discussed throughout Mr. Fine’s document was the kind that the bureau “would have been entitled to if we had followed the rules.”

But Mr. Gonzales, who was by coincidence speaking to reporters after a privacy conference here, said he viewed Mr. Fine’s conclusions as serious.

Mr. Mueller left open the possibility that some F.B.I. employees might be disciplined for their errors involving national security letters. In response to a question, he said there had been “no discussion” on whether he should step down.

The inspector general traced the increase in the use of the letters after Sept. 11, 2001. There were 8,500 in 2000, the year before the Patriot Act broadened surveillance powers. There were 39,000 in 2003, 56,000 in 2004 and 47,000 in 2005, the years covered in Mr. Fine’s review.

But his office found that the number of letters in case files was 20 percent higher than those recorded in the central legal office at the bureau. Those discrepancies, plus slowness in gathering and transmitting data, meant that the numbers of national security requests reported to Congress were “significantly understated,” Mr. Fine wrote.

Although the investigation uncovered no examples of lives turned upside down or businesses disrupted, the privacy problems went beyond the theoretical in a few instances. One letter demanding telephone toll-billing records yielded voice messages because a recipient was overly cooperative.

Another letter demanding e-mail transaction records was answered by e-mail contents and images.

In other incidents, though rare, national security letters seeking data on individuals were answered by information on the wrong people “due to either to F.B.I. typographical errors or errors by the recipients” of the letters, Mr. Fine wrote.

Moreover, he added, mistakes of that nature were not always reported promptly to the legal office, as regulations require.

The inspector general also criticized the bureau for using what are called exigent letters in improper circumstances. An exigent letter is meant to be used to obtain information in an extreme emergency like a kidnapping when the bureau has already sought subpoenas for the information. In too many instances, such letters were used in nonemergencies when the bureau had not requested subpoenas, Mr. Fine wrote.

Some of the sternest critics of the bureau were not mollified by Mr. Mueller’s apologies and promises.

“This confirms some of our worst suspicions,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Romero scoffed at the notion that Mr. Gonzales could help turn around the problem.

“This attorney general cannot be part of the solution,” Mr. Romero said. “He is part of the problem.”

Mr. Romero said the Patriot Act, which Congress re-enacted a year ago after extensive debate, should be given another look, so the provisions on national security letters could be improved.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee (and, like Mr. Leahy, a former prosecutor), told reporters that the bureau had apparently “badly misused national security letters.”

“This is, regrettably, part of an ongoing process where the federal authorities are not really sensitive to privacy and go far beyond what we have authorized,” Mr. Specter said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10fbi.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat on the judiciary panel who voted against the original Patriot Act, said the inspector general’s inquiry “proves that ‘trust us’ doesn’t cut it” when it comes to the F.B.I.

Posted by lois at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 04, 2007

Doubts Rise as States Detain Sex Offenders After Prison

March 4, 2007
Doubts Rise as States Detain Sex Offenders After Prison
By MONICA DAVEY and ABBY GOODNOUGH, Page 1, NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/04civil.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
graphs at this URL

The decision by New York to confine sex offenders beyond their prison terms places the state at the forefront of a growing national movement that is popular with politicians and voters. But such programs have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.

About 2,700 pedophiles, rapists and other sexual offenders are already being held indefinitely, mostly in special treatment centers, under so-called civil commitment programs in 19 states, which on average cost taxpayers four times more than keeping the offenders in prison.

In announcing a deal with legislative leaders on Thursday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, suggested that New York’s proposed civil commitment law would “become a national model” and go well beyond confining the most violent predators to also include mental health treatment and intensive supervised release for offenders.

“No one has a bill like this, nobody,” said State Senator Dale M. Volker, a Republican from western New York and a leading proponent in the Legislature of civil confinement.

But in state after state, such expectations have fallen short. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the laws in part because their aim is to furnish treatment if possible, not punish someone twice for the same crime. Yet only a small fraction of committed offenders have ever completed treatment to the point where they could be released free and clear.

Leroy Hendricks, a convicted child molester in Kansas, finished his prison term 13 years ago, but he remains locked up at a cost to taxpayers in that state of $185,000 a year — more than eight times the cost of keeping someone in prison there.

Mr. Hendricks, who is 72 and unsuccessfully challenged his confinement in the Supreme Court, spends most days in a wheelchair or leaning on a cane, because of diabetes, circulation ailments and the effects of a stroke. He may not live long enough to “graduate” from treatment.

Few ever make such progress: Nationwide, of the 250 offenders released unconditionally since the first law was passed in 1990, about half of them were let go on legal or technical grounds unrelated to treatment.

Still, political leaders, like those in New York, are vastly expanding such programs to keep large numbers of rapists and pedophiles off the streets after their prison terms in a response to public fury over grisly sex crimes.

In Coalinga, Calif., a $388 million facility will allow the state to greatly expand the offenders it holds to 1,500. Florida, Minnesota, Nebraska, Virginia and Wisconsin are also adding beds.

At the federal level, President Bush has signed a law offering money to states that commit sex offenders beyond their prison terms, and the Justice Department is creating a civil commitment program for federal prisoners.

Even with the enthusiasm among politicians, an examination by The New York Times of the existing programs found they have failed in a number of areas:

¶Sex offenders selected for commitment are not always the most violent; some exhibitionists are chosen, for example, while rapists are passed over. And some are past the age at which some scientists consider them most dangerous. In Wisconsin, a 102-year-old who wears a sport coat to dinner cannot participate in treatment because of memory lapses and poor hearing.

¶The treatment regimens are expensive and largely unproven, and there is no way to compel patients to participate. Many simply do not show up for sessions on their lawyers’ advice — treatment often requires them to recount crimes, even those not known to law enforcement — and spend their time instead gardening, watching television or playing video games.

¶The cost of the programs is virtually unchecked and growing, with states spending nearly $450 million on them this year. The annual price of housing a committed sex offender averages more than $100,000, compared with about $26,000 a year for keeping someone in prison, because of the higher costs for programs, treatment and supervised freedoms.

¶Unlike prisons and other institutions, civil commitment centers receive little standard, independent oversight or monitoring; sex among offenders is sometimes rampant, and, in at least one facility, sex has been reported between offenders and staff members.

¶Successful treatment is often not a factor in determining the relatively few offenders who are released; in Iowa, of the nine men let go unconditionally, none had completed treatment or earned the center’s recommendation for release.

¶Few states have figured out what to do when they do have graduates ready for supervised release. In California, the state made 269 attempts to find a home for one released pedophile. In Milwaukee, the authorities started searching in 2003 for a neighborhood for a 77-year-old offender, but have yet to find one.

Supporters of the laws offer no apologies for their shortcomings, insisting that the money is well spent. Born out of the anguish that followed a handful of high-profile sex crimes in the 1980s, the laws are proven and potent vote-getters that have withstood constitutional challenges.

“There has to be a process in place that prevents someone from rejoining society if they’re still dangerous,” said Jeffrey Klein, a Democratic member of the New York State Senate who has pushed for civil confinement there.

Martin Andrews, 47, of Woodbridge, Va., who was abducted, buried in a box and repeatedly sexually assaulted for a week when he was 13, also supports the laws.

“If they can’t control themselves,” Mr. Andrews said, “we need to do it for them.”

But the myriad problems have concerned some advocates for victims of sexual abuse, who suggest the money is being wasted and that other options for dealing with dangerous sex offenders — such as giving them longer prison terms, preventing sentencing deals with prosecutors and mandating treatment during incarceration — would be more effective.

“Civil commitment is a huge, huge assignment of resources,“ said Anne Liske, the former executive director of the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a victims’ advocacy group. “This wholesale warehousing — without using the proper assessment tools and with throwing treatment in when they are not people who can be treated — has already proven not to be working, so why would we do it more?”

A Series of Convictions

Leroy Hendricks was a likely candidate for commitment as he prepared to leave a Kansas prison in 1994.

Mr. Hendricks’s most recent crime, for which he had been convicted a decade earlier, had been “indecent liberties” with two 13-year-old boys in an electronics shop where he worked. All told, his convictions left a painful trail reaching back to 1955: exposing himself to young girls; molesting 7- and 8-year-old boys at a carnival where he was the ride foreman; molesting a 7-year-old girl; playing strip poker with a 14-year-old girl; preying on his own family members, including a boy with cerebral palsy.

Like Mr. Hendricks was, thousands of soon-to-be-released prisoners are screened for commitment each year by state corrections departments, prosecutors and panels. The process varies widely from state to state, as do standards for the evaluators, but in most states, those recommended for commitment have trials before judges or juries.

Mr. Hendricks may have sealed his own fate when he testified in 1994 that he could not “control the urge” to molest when he got “stressed out.” He said his mother, Violet, had wanted a girl when he was born and had dressed him as one when he was growing up.

“I sure don’t want to hurt anybody again,” he told the court, but then conceded that he could not ensure the safety of children in his presence. “The only way to guarantee that is to die,” he said.

More often, these cases come down to contentious duels between psychologists over how best to analyze an offender’s history and likelihood of repeating crimes. In most states, commitment is for an indefinite period, but offenders are allowed to have their cases reviewed by a court periodically.

The results of the screening process are inconsistent. Some offenders are passed up for civil confinement, only to commit vicious crimes again; others’ physical ailments alone make them unlikely repeat predators.

Even though Minnesota prison officials had classified Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., a convicted rapist, in a category of sex offenders most at risk to commit more crimes, Mr. Rodriguez went home when his term ended in May 2003. That November, he kidnapped and killed Dru Sjodin, a North Dakota college student who was beaten and raped.

Likewise, Jerry Buck Inman was charged with raping and strangling a college student in South Carolina last June, nine months after his release from a Florida prison after serving 17 years for rape and other crimes. The authorities in Florida looked at his records but decided not to seek commitment.

Meanwhile, some prosecutors seek commitment for others convicted of noncontact crimes like public exposure. In Florida, prosecutors tried unsuccessfully to civilly commit a man who was imprisoned for driving drunk even though his last sex arrest was decades earlier.

“The population that is being detained is a very, very mixed group,” said Richard Wollert, a psychologist in Portland, Ore., who evaluates civilly committed offenders. “There are cases that are appalling in terms of being kept in custody at the taxpayers’ expense when there are probably alternative placements for them.”

Predicting who is likely to commit future sex crimes has become more of a science over the last decade, but many still find the methods questionable.

Actuarial formulas — akin to the tables used for life insurance — play a central role in deciding who is dangerous enough to be committed. They calculate someone’s risk of offending again by looking at factors such as the number of prior sex offenses and the sex of the victims. Men with male victims are graded as higher risk, for example, because statistics show they are more often repeat offenders.

“The danger is that these numbers will blind people,” said Eric Janus, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul who has challenged Minnesota’s civil commitment law in court.

Politics and emotion also factor heavily into who gets committed, with decisions made by elected judges or juries who may be more affected by the raw facts of someone’s offense history or the public spectacle over their crimes than the dry science of risk prediction.

“It’s so emotional for them,” said Stephen Watson, an assistant public defender who represented an offender in Florida. “They don’t even want to hear the research.”

New Laws Follow Publicized Cases

Earlier in the 20th century, many states had sexual psychopath laws that allowed them to hospitalize offenders deemed too sick for prison. But by the 1980s most such laws had been repealed or fallen into disuse.

But a handful of horrific and highly publicized cases in the 1980s and ’90s spurred lawmakers to act again. Washington State adopted the first civil commitment law in 1990 after men with predatory histories killed a young woman in Seattle and sexually mutilated a boy in Tacoma.

After state courts upheld Washington’s law, Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin passed versions in 1994, followed by California in 1996.

Then, in a 5-to-4 decision in 1997, the United States Supreme Court found civil commitment to be constitutional in Kansas v. Hendricks, the same Mr. Hendricks still confined in Kansas.

In the ruling, the justices found that a “mental abnormality” like pedophilia was enough to meet a standard to qualify someone for commitment, not the different standard of “mental illness” that had been traditionally used. The court also rejected the notion that civil commitment amounted to double jeopardy (a second criminal punishment for a single crime) or an ex post facto law (a new punishment for a past crime), noting that Kansas’s statute was not meant to punish committed men but, like other acceptable civil commitment statutes, intended “both to incapacitate and to treat” them therapeutically.

“We have never held that the Constitution prevents a state from civilly detaining those for whom no treatment is available, but who nevertheless pose a danger to others,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, later adding, “By furnishing such treatment, the Kansas Legislature has indicated that treatment, if possible, is at least an ancillary goal of the act, which easily satisfies any test for determining that the act is not punitive.”

Since then, state officials, civil liberties advocates and lawyers have wrestled with exactly what that treatment requirement means.

“There’s no question about it,” Professor Janus of William Mitchell College said, “it’s a very murky area of the law.”

Since the Hendricks ruling, the courts have indicated that states have “wide latitude” when it comes to treatment for the civilly confined, meaning that unsuccessful treatment alone or an untreatable patient would not be enough to undo the laws.

In 2001, the Supreme Court, in Seling v. Young, decided the case of Andre Brigham Young, a committed man in Washington State who argued that the conditions he was being held under were so punitive and the treatment so inadequate as to amount to a second criminal sentence. The court ruled against Mr. Young.

A year later, in 2002, the Supreme Court made clear the limits of who may be committed by states, saying the authorities must prove not just that an offender is still dangerous and likely to commit more crimes but also that he or she has a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior.”

Some civil libertarians and prisoner advocates, who still object to the laws, have not given up on finding a challenge that the Supreme Court might view favorably. Despite the court rulings, these groups insist civil commitment amounts to a second sentence for a crime.

Even the look of commitment centers reflects the dichotomy at the core of their stated reason for being — to lock away dangerous men (only three women are civilly committed) but also to treat them.

Most of the centers tend to look and feel like prisons, with clanking double doors, guard stations, fluorescent lighting, cinder-block walls, overcrowded conditions and tall fences with razor wire around the perimeters.

Bedroom doors are often locked at night, and mail is searched by the staff for pornography or retail catalogs with pictures of women or children. Most states put their centers in isolated areas. Washington State’s is on an island three miles offshore in Puget Sound.

Yet soothing artwork hangs at some centers, and cheerful fliers announce movie nights and other activities. The residents can wander the grounds and often spend their time as they please in an effort to encourage their cooperation, including sunbathing in courtyards and sometimes even ordering pizza for delivery. The new center in California will have a 20,000-book library, badminton courts and room for music and art therapy.

Diseases like hepatitis and diabetes are common among the committed, and severe mental illness — beyond the mental “abnormalities“ described by the Supreme Court — a scourge. A survey in 2002 found that 12 percent of committed sex offenders suffered from serious psychiatric problems like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Most severely mentally ill men cannot participate in sex offender treatment and receive few services besides medication. Verwayne Alexander, a self-described paranoid schizophrenic who has been detained at the Florida Civil Commitment Center since 2003, has sliced himself so many times with razor blades that a guard often watches him around the clock, lawyers said. Mr. Alexander has sought unsuccessfully to be moved to a psychiatric hospital.

Those who choose to participate in sex offender treatment spend an average of less than 10 hours a week doing so, but the hours differ vastly from state to state. The structure of therapy, too, varies widely, a reflection, perhaps, of the central question still looming in the field: Can treatment ever really work for these offenders?

Admitting to previous crimes is a crucial piece of a broad band of treatment, known as relapse prevention, that is used in at least 15 states and has been the most widely accepted model for about 20 years.

Some of the institutions, too, devote time to other therapies and activities that seem to have little bearing on sexual offending. In Pennsylvania, young residents take classes to improve their health and social habits called “Athlete’s Foot,” “Lactose Intolerance,” “Male Pattern Baldness,” “Flatulence” and “Proper Table Manners.”

In California, they can join a Brazilian drum ensemble or classes like “Anger Management Through Art Therapy” and “Interpersonal Skills Through Mural Making.”

But many of those committed get no treatment at all for sex offending, mainly by their own choice. In California, three-quarters of civilly committed sex offenders do not attend therapy. Many say their lawyers tell them to avoid it because admission of past misdeeds during therapy could make getting out impossible, or worse, lead to new criminal charges.

For those who decline treatment — sometimes including hundreds of “detainees” awaiting commitment trials — boredom, resentment and hostility to those in treatment lead to trouble. Some sneak in drugs, alcohol and cellphones, sometimes with the help of staff members, or beat up other residents, sometimes coercing them into having sex.

“There’s rampant sexuality going on in there,” said Natalie Novick Brown, a psychologist who has evaluated 250 men at Florida’s center.

The people who run civil commitment centers say that a constant, nagging question hangs over them: How to keep order while not treating argumentative, sometimes violent offenders like prisoners? The low-level staff members are not prison guards and tend to be poorly educated, trained and paid. Their job titles — in Illinois, security therapy aide — reflect the awkward balance they must achieve between security and therapy.

Because civil commitment centers are neither prisons nor traditional mental health programs, no specialized oversight body exists. None has been created, in part because its base of financial support, the 19 civil commitment programs around the country, would be too small, several experts who study the programs said. But the need, they said, is urgent.

“They ought to be reviewed by an independent entity with the highest possible standards,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic in Baltimore.

Few Signs of Progress

Around the country, relatively few committed sex offenders finish treatment and are released.

“Every year I go to his hearing, and every year there’s no progress in his case,” said Armand R. Cingolani III, a lawyer with a client in Pennsylvania who was committed in 2004 after being adjudicated as a juvenile for sexual assault on two different minors. “It doesn’t seem that anyone gets better.”

Nearly 3,000 sex offenders have been committed since the first law passed in 1990. In 18 of the 19 states, about 50 have been released completely from commitment because clinicians or state-appointed evaluators deemed them ready. Some 115 other people have been sent home because of legal technicalities, court rulings, terminal illness or old age.

In discharging offenders, Arizona, the remaining state, has been the exception. That state has fully discharged 81 people; there, the facility’s director said records were not available to indicate the reason for those discharges.

An additional 189 people have been released with supervision or conditions (excluding Texas, where there is no commitment center and those committed are treated only as outpatients). And an additional 68 (including 58 in
Arizona) are in a higher, “transitional” phase of the program, but still technically committed and often living on state land.

The backlogs have led to an aging population. Inside many facilities, wheelchairs, walkers, high blood pressure and senility are increasingly expensive concerns. Florida’s center filled 229 prescriptions for arthritis medication one recent month, and 300 for blood pressure and other heart problems.

More than 400 of the men in civil commitment are 60 or older, and a number of studies indicate a significant drop in the recidivism rate for this group, many of whom have health problems after years in prison. David Thornton, treatment director of Wisconsin’s center and an expert on recidivism rates, said the decline was increasingly well-documented.

The growth of the committed population has become a political quagmire. No legislator wants to insist on the release of sex offenders, but few are able to swallow the mounting costs of civil commitment. The costs of aging and sick offenders, such as Mr. Hendricks in Kansas, are especially high in part because of their special needs and physical ailments.

From 2001 to 2005, the price of civil commitment in Kansas leapt to nearly $6.9 million from $1.2 million, a state audit there found. “Unless Kansas is willing to accept a higher level of risk and release more sexual predators from the program,” the audit said, “few options exist to curb the growth of the program.”

But as more states consider granting some offenders supervised release, the cost is turning out to be nearly as prohibitive.

For $1.7 million, Washington converted a warehouse in Seattle into a home for men on conditional release. It has 26 cameras monitoring residents, a dozen workers, a surveillance booth overseeing the living area and a 1,700-pound magnetic door.

Two men live there so far.

With the logjams and frustrations mounting, many states have lengthened prison sentences for sex offenders. Virginia last year increased the minimum sentence for certain sexual acts against children to 25 years, from 10, though it also sharply expanded the number of crimes that qualify an offender for civil commitment.

Ida Ballasiotes, whose daughter’s rape and murder in 1988 helped spur the first civil commitment law, in Washington State, said that no sexual predator should walk free and that longer prison sentences should “absolutely” be considered.

“I don’t believe they can be treated, period,” Ms. Ballasiotes said.

After Release, Objections

Even for those sex offenders considered safe enough to be released, going home is no simple process. Kansas authorities decided two years ago that Mr. Hendricks, who was the first person that state committed under its law and who after a decade had progressed to one of the highest phases of treatment, should be moved from Larned State Hospital to a group home in a community where he would be watched around the clock.

Mr. Hendricks would not be allowed onto the home’s porch or patio without an escort, according to court documents. Besides, his medical problems, including poor hearing and eyesight, meant he could not walk down the 40-yard gravel driveway outside the house without falling, the documents said.

But as with many men with his history, the community balked. In California, so many towns object to men leaving civil commitment that some of those released have to live in trailers outside prisons.

“You can’t just sneak them in,” said John Rodriguez, a recently retired deputy director in the California Department of Mental Health. “You’ve got hearings, the court announces it, it’s all over the press.”

In Mr. Hendricks’s case, residents of Lawrence, where he was initially to be moved, collected petitions. “You can tell me that he’s old, but as long as he can move his hands and his arms, he can hurt another child,” said Missi Pfeifer, 37, a mother of three who led the petition drive with her two sisters and mother.

Then officials in Leavenworth County, picked as an alternative, said the choice violated county zoning laws. Mr. Hendricks lasted two days there, in a house off a road not far from a pasture of horses, before a judge ordered him removed.

State officials said they had no choice but to move Mr. Hendricks back to a facility on the grounds of a different state hospital, where he still is.

Through a spokeswoman for the state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Mr. Hendricks declined to speak to The New York Times.

Two years ago, he told The Lawrence Journal-World that he would be living in a group home “if somebody hadn’t opened their damn mouth,” adding, “I’m stuck here till something happens, and I don’t know when that will be.”

Next: Inside the troubled center for sex offenders in Florida.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by lois at 04:53 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2007

NY: State Plans to Incarcerate People Covicted of Sex Offences After Prison Sentences End

March 2, 2007
State Plan to Monitor Sex Offenders Goes Beyond Detention
By DANNY HAKIM, NY Times

ALBANY, March 1 — New guidelines and procedures announced by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and legislative leaders on Thursday for confining sex offenders who have completed prison sentences go well beyond detaining the most violent predators. The law, which would be one of the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would also provide mental health treatment to inmates while they are jailed or confined and impose supervision and treatment after their release.

Even those under 18 at the time of an offense could be subject to civil confinement under the agreement, though officials said such cases would probably be rare. Those convicted of any of a wide range of sex-related felonies would be reviewed for potential detainment after their prison sentences end, including those convicted of some nonviolent crimes like giving minors indecent material.

The agreement would eliminate parole for a greater number of sex crimes and give judges discretion to impose far longer terms of post-release supervision during an offender’s initial sentencing, to as much as 25 years from a maximum of 5 years now.

The agreement would also create a new “sexually motivated felony” that would apply to those who intended to commit a sex crime but did not.

“My hope and expectation is that our approach will become a national model,” Mr. Spitzer said at a joint news conference with legislative leaders. He noted that the proposed legislation went well beyond what has been discussed before by the Legislature.

Civil libertarians have long voiced concern about similar laws that exist in varying forms in nearly 20 other states.

Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said a legal challenge “would certainly be a possibility,” though it would require a test case. She said it was difficult to respond because the deal was negotiated behind closed doors.

“Despite all the talk of reform and openness and a new era in Albany, we once again have three men in a room cutting a deal on a very serious issue without the Legislature even being in town and with no plan for a hearing,” she said.

The legislation is virtually certain to pass because it was negotiated by the leaders of both houses and the governor. The issue of whether offenders younger than 18 could be confined after release was a major sticking point for Assembly Democrats, who relented after it was agreed that those classified by judges as youthful offenders would be exempt.

Washington State passed the first civil confinement law for sex offenders in 1990, and similar laws have been challenged in a number of other states. In 1997, in a 5-to-4 decision upholding a Kansas law, the Supreme Court ruled that states could confine violent sex offenders in mental hospitals even if the offenders did not meet the typical criteria for commitment of the mentally ill.

The new deal here would put in place a complex set of procedures. Before release from prison, sex offenders would be screened by mental health professionals to determine whether they might be predisposed to commit further sex offenses.

If an offender is judged a risk, the case will be referred to the attorney general’s office, which will decide if a jury should be convened to determine whether the inmate requires further supervision. A unanimous decision would leave it to a judge to decide whether to confine the person or impose supervision after release.

Most detainees would be housed in an existing mental health facility in St. Lawrence, north of Syracuse. Talks are continuing on building a dedicated facility to house sex offenders, which legislative officials have said could cost $200 million.

The deal was seen as a new victory for Mr. Spitzer, who succeeded in forging a compromise where George E. Pataki had failed, despite the fact that Mr. Spitzer has at times openly berated lawmakers in both parties. Republicans long accused Democrats of holding up a deal, while Democrats said their own proposals were rejected. And Mr. Pataki’s fractious relationship with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver often caused negotiations to break down.

The deal came two days after lawmakers announced a plan to overhaul the state’s workers’ compensation system, another divisive issue. Mr. Spitzer said the civil confinement legislation was “perhaps too long in the making,” adding, “Like workers’ comp, there was an impasse that required a concerted effort to overcome.”

Senate Republicans credited the governor’s aggressive approach to negotiating deals for breaking the deadlock.

“Steamrolling works,” said Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, referring to a machine the new governor has likened himself to.

“Governor, thank you for providing the leadership, getting us together,” Mr. Bruno said. Referring to Mr. Silver, he added, “Shelly, thank you for being such a great partner — sometimes.”

Mr. Silver said, “For the record, I want to state very clearly that in 2005 we had a comprehensive child safety and sexual predator punishment and confinement strategy in the Assembly.”

There appeared to be concessions on both sides. The Senate conceded two key points to the Assembly. The trials would be held in the counties where the inmates were convicted, not where they are imprisoned. And initial screenings would be done by mental health professionals instead of by officials in the Division of Criminal Justice Services. Senators prevailed in creating a sexually motivated felony and apply the system to those under 18; the governor supported both provisions.

“It was a compromise that didn’t make either side happy,” said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat who was a central player in the discussions.

Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for the governor, said it was “extremely unlikely” that offenders younger than 18 would be affected. But she added that civil confinement should be considered at any age if the convict “has a mental abnormality and is determined likely to commit sex offenses if released.”

What all this would cost remains to be seen, but some said it would be far more than the $19 million in new financing that the governor has proposed in his budget.

Senator Dale M. Volker, a Republican from western New York who has sponsored bills on the issue for more than a decade, said the new law would require more parole officers and mental health workers, not to mention a new facility.

“This is not going to be cheap,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/nyregion/02civil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

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

March 01, 2007

NYC: Amid Claims of Police Profiling, Study Will Review ‘Stop and Frisks’

March 1, 2007
Amid Claims of Police Profiling, Study Will Review ‘Stop and Frisks’ By AL BAKER

The New York City Police Department has commissioned a six-month independent review of the way it stops people on the streets, sometimes searching them for illegal weapons, after the release of statistics that showed the department stopped 508,540 people in the five boroughs last year, officials said yesterday.

The study will focus on the role that race plays in everyday street stops: some critics have suggested that minorities, particularly black people, were unfairly singled out, a claim the police deny. It will be done by the RAND Corporation, a private nonprofit organization that has studied the issue in other cities, including Oakland, Calif., and Cincinnati, officials said.

Nearly two months ago, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly commissioned RAND to review several aspects of firearm use in the department after the fatal police shooting of Sean Bell in Queens in November. That study is still under way.

The issue of stopping people on the streets — known in department parlance as “stop and frisks” — has been a source of occasional tension between the police and residents. As part of the study, analysts from RAND will not only examine last year’s 508,540 stops, but also ride with police officers on duty. The officers will be interviewed about their decisions to make stops.

Analysts will also see firsthand how officers complete forms known as UF-250s, which they are supposed to fill out after all such stops. The form captures several points of data, including the circumstances that led to the stop, whether physical force was used, whether the stop included a frisk, and the race or ethnicity of the person stopped. A factor cited frequently on the forms is “area has high crime incidence.”

The analysts will also review an electronic database of all the stops made by officers last year and “take steps to audit the data collection process,” said Greg Ridgeway, the associate director of RAND’s Safety and Justice Program, who will lead the research in New York.

Police officials released statistics on Feb. 2 showing that the number of people stopped last year increased to 508,540 from 97,296 in 2002, the last time the department divulged the data from a single calendar year.

The officials have said that the steep increase is partly due to greater adherence to departmental rules for filling out the stop-and-frisk forms and more aggressive crime-fighting activities, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods. They have repeatedly said that officers do not practice racial profiling.

In a statement announcing the RAND study yesterday, Mr. Kelly said that while the department’s own analysis of its data “in general terms showed that stops were consistent with concentrations of crime and of victim descriptions of suspects,” the RAND analysts would work “to determine whether there are any flaws that we may need to address.”

Responding to complaints of profiling, the department noted that while 55.2 percent of those stopped were black, 68.5 percent of reported crimes involved suspects described as black.

Mr. Kelly added, “We thought it was important to have a separate, independent review, and we turned to RAND again because of its reputation for objectivity and quality research.”

The study will cost $120,000 and will be paid for by New York City Police Foundation, a charity that supports the Police Department.

Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said that the department’s raw data — not just its own summary of its data — should be disclosed publicly and to an array of interested parties, not just to its “chosen consultants” at RAND.

“The situation cries out for an independent review,” she said.

Critics have said that the summary the department released in early February raises as many questions as it answers and, in isolation, is hard to understand.

For instance, according to the department’s data, the average number of people arrested per quarter as a result of street stops doubled to 5,317 last year, from 2,819 in 2002. But Ms. Lieberman pointed out that the story behind the numbers was that in 2002, one person was arrested for every 8.5 stops, while last year, one person was arrested for every 25 stops.

Thomas A. Reppetto, a police historian, said he was eager to hear what RAND finds.

“I want the constitutional question answered,” Mr. Reppetto said. “Are these stops, frisks and searches reasonable? That is what the U.S. Constitution demands, that searches not be unreasonable.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/nyregion/01rand.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by lois at 06:12 PM | Comments (0)

February 27, 2007

Raymondville: Inside the Largest Immigration Prison Camp in the U.S.

Raymondville: Inside the Largest Immigration Prison Camp in the US
Friday, February 23rd, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/23/1536249

The largest immigrant prison camp is in Raymondville, Texas. Some two thousand undocumented immigrants are currently being held in the prison awaiting deportation. We speak with Jodi Goodwin, an immigration lawyer representing a number of immigrants being held there.

The number of undocumented immigrants currently imprisoned in the United States has reached a record of more than twenty six thousand people. To keep pace with the increasing number of detainees, the government is rapidly expanding its federal immigration detention system. The largest immigrant prison camp is in Raymondville, Texas - in the remote southern tip of the state. Some two thousand undocumented immigrants are currently being held in the prison awaiting deportation. The $65 million jail was built last summer by the Management Training Corporation.

The Washington Post describes the Raymondville facility as a “futuristic tent city...made of Kevlar-like material” without windows and ringed by barbed wire. Many of those being held there say they have insufficient food, clothing, medical care and access to the outside world.

AMY GOODMAN: Staying with the immigration issue for another minute, we're going to go now to Jodi Goodwin, who is an immigration lawyer from Harlingen, Texas, about twenty miles from the Raymondville prison, that huge tent city. She represents a number of immigrants being held there. She's joining us on the phone today from Houston. Jodi Goodwin, you're one of the few lawyers who have gotten into the facility. Can you describe what it is?

JODI GOODWIN: Well, it looks like a large series of circus tents put up in the middle of a field. There's a cement foundation and a steel frame, like ribs, and then there’s canvas that’s stretched over the steel frame. And there's ten tents just like that, all in a row.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Jodi Goodwin, I’m very familiar with Raymondville and Willacy County. It's one of the poorest counties in the United States, largely Mexican American. Any sense of the reaction of the surrounding community to the erection of this enormous detention center?

JODI GOODWIN: Well, it's interesting, the reaction of the community, because it's mixed. It is one of the poorest counties in the United States, and the Rio Grande Valley in general in the five-county area is the poorest area in the United States. So the thought of vast employment, which the prison did provide, I think, was welcomed by the community, because it provided a wealth of jobs for an area that has high unemployment. Now, there's questions about the training that was available prior to the prison opening and, even still, you know, whether or not the people that were hired have appropriate training as of yet.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the people you represent in Raymondville -- you call, what is it that you call it? Ritmo?

JODI GOODWIN: Now made famous by the Washington Post, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Taking after Gitmo, Guantanamo. What kind of access to food, to healthcare? What is their treatment by the guards?

JODI GOODWIN: Well, I think generally the access to healthcare is good. But there have been rampant reports and repeated reports -- and I can't say whether these are isolated incidences or not, but there are repeated reports of my clients and other people that I’ve talked to at the detention center that aren't my clients, that indicate they would put in requests for sick calls to be seen by a doctor or one of the nurses at the public health service, and days would go by before those requests would be answered. Now, I know that ICE has responded to those types of complaints by saying that that's just not true, but I have heard repeatedly from my clients and those who are not my clients that that's the case.

I’ve also heard repeatedly and over time that food service is not consistent, in terms of the timing that food is served, that the quantity of the food that is being served is not fulfilling. I mean, I went to the detention center once about probably the last part of November last year, and I walked into one of the pods, and I just opened the door and said, “Buenos dias. Como estan todos?” And they responded to me, “Muriendo de hambre” -- “We're dying of hunger.” And, you know, this is just their immediate reaction to someone coming in and asking, “How are you?” Now, ICE has responded that they are providing food within the caloric limit that’s approved by dietary services, etc., etc.

But even recently, as most recently as two weeks ago, I had a client write to me a pleading letter asking for medical attention and decent food, because he had been served rancid milk days in a row, and he and other detainees in his pod were throwing up and had stomach problems, because they had been served spoiled food. So, you know, for whatever that's worth, I know ICE's comments are completely opposite to that, but that’s what the reports that I get from my clients and from detainees there are.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Jodi Goodwin, any sense of how long the average detainee is being held there? Clearly, after the Mariel boatlift years ago, or decades ago now, some of the Cuban migrants were held for years in detention by United States Immigration. What's the situation there?

JODI GOODWIN: Well, you know, it's interesting, because the facility went up so quickly. It was contracted in mid-June, and it was housing 500 detainees by mid-August. It was at least designed to be a temporary facility, and I’m not really sure what's the number limitation that ICE would use to refer to “temporary,” but I’ve seen many, many people detained at the facility two, three, four, five months, and then there are people that are detained at the facility that have been transferred around the country and eventually end up in Willacy County, probably because it's cheaper to house detainees down in Willacy County than it is in places like New York or Boston. But I’ve seen those people that come into Willacy County after already having been in immigration detention in various facilities around the country five, six months.

I saw a woman from Ghana that had been transferred around from five different facilities in an eight-month period of time, and she was supposedly only waiting to be deported. So why does it take eight months in five facilities to deport somebody to Ghana? I’m not really sure.

AMY GOODMAN: Can we talk for a minute about who built this facility, Management Corporation of America, a private company, and how it compares to the public prisons or the ones run by the Department of Homeland Security?

JODI GOODWIN: Well, actually, Management Training Corporation is a contractor who runs [inaudible] the operations at the facility. It was a different contractor who actually constructed the facility, and I can't remember the name of that contractor. It was a contractor out of Houston, actually.

And as far as how does it compare to ICE-run facilities? Oh, night and day. We have an ICE-run facility that's a fairly large detention center that's only about forty-five minutes away from the Raymondville facility. That’s the Port Isabel Detention Center, and that’s an ICE-run facility, as opposed to a contractor-run facility. And to compare the two, and Port Isabel is Club Med compared to Raymondville. In fact, when there’s discipline problems or when someone starts complaining about their conditions at Port Isabel, almost as a joke, but really and truly it's not taken in jest, they say, “Do you want me to send you to Willacy?” You know, that people would rather stay at Port Isabel than be sent to Willacy.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think, Jodi Goodwin, has to happen right now?

JODI GOODWIN: We need immigration reform. I think that there needs to be a comprehensive approach to reform. And, you know, reform has to encompass a lot of different aspects. We can't just settle on a guest-worker program. We can't just focus on enforcement. The reform aspect needs to encompass the people who are here, needs to encompass the need of American companies for workers. It needs to encompass enforcement and just enforcement of the law. It needs to have all of those aspects to be able to be effective. And I have my hopes that Congress can set aside some of their partisanship and do something that will actually work good and be acceptable to both sides of the issue.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what is your sense in a state like Texas and the other border states in your part of the country that clearly most feel the impact of the immigration issue, in terms of the willingness of both Democrats and Republicans this year to come up with some comprehensive immigration reform?

JODI GOODWIN: Well, it’s interesting. I’ve met with staffers in Washington, D.C. and talked to different representatives and senators with respect to the proposals. I think that there's a clear recognition by all of the border representatives in Congress that there's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. And the mere fact that they’re willing to start a dialogue on the issue, I think, is hopeful. It's gotten to a point that it's a crisis situation, so those individuals are, I think, finally realizing that they need to take action, now that they’ve recognized the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Jodi Goodwin, I want to thank you for being with us, immigration lawyer from Harlingen, Texas, representing immigrants held in the Raymondville prison, about twenty miles from Harlingen. She was speaking to us from Houston.

Juan, as we wrap up today, there's an interesting editorial in the New York Times called "They Are America," that began, “Almost a year ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers and their families slipped out from the shadows of American life and walked boldly in daylight through Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, New York and other cities. ‘We Are America,’ their banners cried. The crowds, determined but peaceful, swelled into an immense sea. The nation was momentarily stunned.”

And it goes on to talk about a lot that has happened since then. The country “summoned great energy to confront the immigration problem, but most of it has been misplaced, crudely and unevenly applied.”

“Border enforcement. What little the last Congress did about immigration was focused on appeasing hard-line conservatives by appearing to seal the border. President Bush’s new budget continues that approach, seeking 3,000 more Border Patrol officers and another $1 billion for a 700-mile fence, adding to the billions spent to militarize the border since the 1990s. That still isn’t enough to build the fence and it hasn’t controlled the illegal flow;” they say, “you need more visas and better workplace enforcement to do that. It has directed much traffic into the remote Southwest desert, making more immigrants vulnerable to smugglers and leaving many people dead.”

And then there's the federal raids, like at the Swift packing plant, the local crackdowns, the gutted due process, the web of suspicion, the rise of hate.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I think the reality is that, yes, there was a lot of attention last year, but nothing really emerged in terms of comprehensive immigration reform, and I do not see at this stage that there is any momentum, already in this new year, by this new congress, to address the immigration issue, and I think it's going to clearly necessitate another upsurge of mass protest to be able to even put it on the agenda, and I suspect that this spring we're going to see more of that.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it's interesting that the main goal of people who are organizing the protest was just to stop any immigration legislation from passing, because they felt in a Republican congress there could only be trouble. And yet, now the Democrats are in power. What have they done, and is it on their agenda?

JUAN GONZALEZ: No. As I said, I don’t think it is right now, and I think it’s going to necessitate both the corporations who are increasingly realizing the necessity to have comprehensive immigration reform, as well as a mass movement and the labor movement to put it on the agenda, because, otherwise, with the war and the other major issues confronting the country right now, it's going to continue to be pushed back in terms of addressing what is clearly needed as some kind of comprehensive immigration reform.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we're going to link to your story on the NYU protest: "Find an Illegal Immigrant." The Republican club held it, and hundreds of students then wore little notes on them that said "illegal immigrant." Is that right?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes. “I am an illegal immigrant.”

AMY GOODMAN: “I am an illegal immigrant.”

Posted by lois at 06:09 PM | Comments (0)

Human Rights Groups Call for Closure of Hutto Prison Holding Undocumented Immigrants

Human Rights Groups Call for Closure of Texas Jail Holding Undocumented Immigrants
Friday, February 23rd, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/23/1530247

Human rights groups are calling for the U.S. government to shut down a jail in Texas where about 200 immigrant children, some only infants, are being detained. Ten months ago the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began holding families in The Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas, owned by the private prison company, Corrections Corporations of America.

Many of the families held at the facility are seeking asylum in the United States. For months immigration officials refused to allow outside groups or the media into the center. But late last year researchers from the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service were allowed inside.

The two groups have just released a report titled “Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families.” Michelle Brane is co-author of the report. She is the director of the detention and asylum program at the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, and she joins us from Washington, D.C. And with us here in New York is Immigration Attorney Joshua Bardavid. Earlier this week he filed a habeas petition on behalf of five members of a Palestinian family being held in another immigration prison in Texas.

We repeatedly called both the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Corrections Corporations of America to invite them on the program. They did not respond to our requests.

Michelle Brane. Director of the detention and asylum program at the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. She is co-author of the report “Locking Up Family Values.” Joshua Bardavid. Immigration attorney in New York. He is representing families held in immigration prisons in Texas.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Human rights groups are calling for the US government to shut down a jail in Texas, where about 200 immigrant children, some only infants, are being detained. Ten months ago, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement began holding families in the Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas, owned by the private prison company, Corrections Corporation of America. Many of the families held at the facility are seeking asylum in the United States. For months, immigration officials refused to allow outside groups or the media into the center, but late last year, researchers from the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service were allowed inside.

AMY GOODMAN: The two groups have just released a report called “Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families.” Michelle Brane is co-author of the report. She’s the director of the Detention Asylum Program at the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. She joins us from Washington, D.C. And with us here in our firehouse studio is immigration attorney Joshua Bardavid. Earlier this week, he filed a habeas petition on behalf of five members of a Palestinian family being held in another immigration prison in Texas. We repeatedly called both the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, and the Corrections Corporation of America to invite them on the program. They didn't respond to our requests.

Let's begin with Michelle Brane in Washington, D.C. Can you talk about the major findings in your report, "Locking Up Family Values"?

MICHELLE BRANE: Sure. We were investigating the use of family detention by ICE overall, and they’re using two facilities to hold families. So we visited both the facility in Berks County, Pennsylvania, and the facility that you mentioned in Hutto in Texas. When we went to Texas, we went in on December 4th of 2006. And really, what we found is that it's a former prison that is now being used to house families, and it still looks and feels very much like a prison. And even though they've made some modifications to accommodate children, such as putting railings on the bunk beds and painting some murals, it doesn’t really change the fact that it’s a prison, and people in there are treated still very much like prisoners.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the people who being detained here, are these folks who have entered the country illegally? Are they largely asylum applicants?

MICHELLE BRANE: We weren’t able to get exact statistics on what percentage of the people being held there are asylum seekers, but it does appear that the majority of them are seeking asylum. Everybody who’s there is in some sort of immigration proceeding. Either they've been apprehended at the border crossing illegally, or they’ve -- some of them have been apprehended inside the country, and I think your other guest can speak to his clients in that case. So there's people in all sorts of proceedings, but what is interesting is that none of the people held at these facilities have any criminal charges pending against them, nor do they have any criminal backgrounds.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you give us, Michelle Brane, a historical context for locking up whole families?

MICHELLE BRANE: Sure. It's a fairly new thing to lock up families together as family units.
The Department of Homeland Security used to separate families, and before, INS. They sometimes held families in hotel rooms, but for the most part, families were either released, pending a hearing, or what they started to do post-9/11 more, as they kind of were ending the practice of releasing people to the community, was separating families. So they would take the adults in the family and put them in adult facilities -- you know, the mother in a facility for women, the father in a male facility -- and the children would be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office for Refugee Resettlement, who takes custody of unaccompanied children in these proceedings. And they would be responsible for them until the case was resolved.

When Congress heard about this, they expressed concern about separating families and instructed ICE to stop separating families. And, actually, what they recommended was that ICE use alternatives, such as a program that currently exists that is run by ICE called the Intensive [Supervision] Appearance Program. And what they recommended also was that if these programs couldn't be used and detention was necessary, that home-like non-penal environm