The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

July 01, 2009

MA: Organizations and Officials Call for Reform of CORI

Changes urged to state criminal records law
June 30, 2009
By Vivian Nereim, Globe Correspondent

Legislators, government officials, and community organizers called today for changes to the state's criminal records law that they said would help ex-offenders reenter society, including shortening the waiting period to seal records and a simplification of the sealing process.

Supporters of the changes to the Criminal Offender Record Information law, speaking at a State House rally, argued that revisions to the law would help people released from prison to find jobs and housing, reducing recidivism.

"The CORI law is broken, and on a daily basis opportunity is lost," said Kevin Burke, secretary of the state Executive Office of Security and Public Safety.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino urged immediate action. "Let's do CORI reform this session. Let's get it done now," he said, adding, "I just put a young man to work who spent 15 years in jail."

Under current state law, a criminal record may be sealed after a waiting period of 10 years for a misdemeanor and 15 years for a felony.

Victoria Binney, who attended the rally, said she was arrested for for driving to endanger and possession of marijuana when she was 18. Now, at age 25, she has been unable to find the healthcare job she said she has always wanted because of her record, so she is working as a barber in Worcester. "I've had problems getting mediocre jobs at Blockbuster," she said. "It's been a real big struggle." Under current law, she will have to wait another seven years before her record can be sealed.

The rally included supporters of three CORI reform bills, each with differing details. Governor Deval Patrick filed a bill in May that would reduce the waiting period to seal a record to five years for a misdemeanor and 10 years for a felony. A bill filed in January by Representative Elizabeth Malia, a Democrat from Boston, and Senator Harriette Chandler, a Democrat from Worcester, would reduce the waiting period to three years for a misdemeanor and seven years for a felony. Another bill filed in January by Representative Gloria L. Fox, a Democrat from Roxbury, and supported by Menino, would prevent many employers from inquiring about criminal record information.

Malia and many other speakers argued that CORI reform would provide economic benefits. "Every person without a job requires some kind of state or city resource," she said.

Tommie White, of Worcestor, who attended the rally as a member of EPOCA, Ex-Prisoners and Prisoners Organizing Community Advancement, said members of her family who have criminal records have been unable to find jobs. "I can't understand how you can train a man in jail and then you don't open up jobs when they get out," she said. "They're just going to go right back out and do more crime."

Hakim Cunningham, a community organizer for the Boston Workers' Alliance, echoed White. "You get the violence, the crime and the drugs because you have people who can't work who have the time to do the devil's work," he said.

Chandler said she hopes legislators will be able to work together to take the best from each of the three bills. "I think this is the year," she said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/changes_urged_t.html

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

Alex Sanchez's Arrest by Tom Hayden

THE NATION LAW & JUSTICE
Alex Sanchez's Arrest
by TOM HAYDEN
June 29, 2009

As a state legislator Hayden was a leading proponent of gang peace efforts, including Homies Unidos, and testified for asylum in the Alex Sanchez case.

The indictment of Alex Sanchez, a revered gangbanger-turned-peacemaker, raises new doubts about whether the Los Angeles police department has reformed sufficiently to be released from a federal court order.

It also brings back strong memories in Los Angeles barrios of the Sleepy Lagoon case during war hysteria in 1942, when the LAPD and media helped railroad three young Mexican men into long murder sentences. The verdicts were later overturned and twelve defendants freed from prison. At the time, the lawyer and future Nation editor Carey McWilliams wrote that the case was a "ceremonial lynching."

In more immediate terms, the Sanchez case repeats the history of a decade ago, when the same charges were hurled by the LAPD and a federal anti-gang task force, that Sanchez's community-based violence prevention work was only a "front" for ties to Mara Salvatrucha, the feared immigrant street gang that arose after the 1970s Central American wars.
The Rampart scandal, named after a police precinct in the immigrant Pico-Union neighborhood, erupted in the late 1990s when a corrupt police officer, Rafael Pérez, began testifying to widespread police criminality after being caught selling cocaine out of his locker room. The US Justice Department charged a pattern and practice of constitutional violations, including shootings, brutality and planting of evidence. Sanchez was targeted for deportation by the LAPD and INS in January 2000, months after testifying publicly about police harassment of community peace workers. As the scandal mounted, federal prosecutors chose not to prosecute him for illegal entry to the US, where his 2-year old son and family lived, but turned the case over to an INS court. On July 10, 2002, the INS judge granted him political asylum, the first such verdict in history.
Since those days, Sanchez has built Homies Unidos, a transnational gang peace organization from the US to El Salvador. Its hazardous work centers on trying to prevent gang violence and open alternative paths for young people, including art therapy, spiritual exercises, education, rehabilitation, training and job development. Alex became a beloved figure in the community, making endless presentations before wider audiences around the country. His activity spawned enemies in the gang world, and never satisfied the LAPD and federal war-on-gangs units' desire to retaliate against one who caused them unprecedented embarrassment.
The escalating war against Mara Salvatrucha provided prosecutors the opportunity. The use of federal racketeering and conspiracy laws is the favored prosecution tool in this war, charging large numbers of alleged MS members with operating a large top-down enterprise with a board of directors and finding them guilty of conspiracy instead of trying them on individual counts of drug-dealing or violence. Alex Sanchez is named in the indictment as one of four "shot-callers" in the Normandie neighborhood in Pico-Union. He therefore is held accountable for the crimes of anyone who can be connected with the organization. The indictment includes 153 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate the racketeering laws.
Fifty-six of the overt acts consist of street-corner drug sales to undercover FBI informants. The serious counts include eight murders and one murder plot, five of them occurring between 2001 and 2003. Instead of bringing murder charges in individual cases, where evidence might be difficult to accumulate, the defendants need only to be "associated" with the conspiracy to be found guilt.
Alex Sanchez is accused of being heard on wiretapped phone calls on May 6 and 7, 2006, in which several members of MS "conspired" to kill Walter Lacinos, whose street name was Cameron. On May 15, an alleged MS member killed Cameron in La Libertad, El Salvador.
To illustrate the nature of the charge, imagine that the following conversation took place: First party: That dude should be shot. Second party: No question.
In an ordinary criminal trial, it would be difficult to connect these words to an actual deed one week later. There would be evidence, for example, that all kinds of people wanted Cameron dead. He was deported to El Salvador after serving at least fifteen years in California state prisons as a high-ranking gang member. He had enemies as well as friends. But in the conspiracy model, it is easier for the prosecution to "prove" that the wiretapped voices are people who "conspired" in his death.
This example is purely hypothetical. The government has not released the actual content of the tapes, nor a list of its witnesses, nor any of the documents it will be compelled to hand over to the defense at trial.
Alex Sanchez denies the charges.
Most gang researchers and defense attorneys are critical of RICO and state laws like California's Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. Malcolm Klein, considered the dean of gang research at the University of Southern California, thinks the notion of vertically organized cartels with an Al Capone at the top makes no sense.
"These [federal] agencies know and understand organized crime. They do not know street gangs. They often assume the two are similar, when in fact they are not.... Calling each kind of group a gang leads to the application of cartel thinking to street gangs" (Klein,The American Street Gang, Oxford, 1995, p. 167).
Even more dismissive is Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit who works directly with street gang members in Homeboy Industries, the most well-known organization of its kind in the country, from whose June 28 e-mail I quote here:

This is all heartbreaking, I've sent a letter for the granting of bail.... A New York Times reporter called me and what they think they have is a "gang interventionist gone bad" story. I've told two reporters here's your story: law enforcement is unable to interpret what they have.

There is a gulf between what they have [wiretap evidence, witnesses] and what they think they have. The FBI could multiply their tools and resources and this still would not issue in actual knowledge of how gangs think or operate.

I spoke to two MS members who I trust and who would tell me the unvarnished truth about Alex. They actually hadn't heard the news. I said, "They claim that Alex is the shot caller for the Normandie clique of MS." They laughed and deemed the whole thing ridiculous. They would have told me otherwise if it was true. I didn't need affirmation in this but it just underscores my point. Law enforcement will never have access or knowledge of this issue. But they see through a glass darkly and so Alex gets caught up in their ignorance.

Just yesterday, a homie who works for me, gets stopped by Hollenbeck cops, who tell him, "I know for a fact that Fr. Greg is affiliated with the Mexican Mafia." A month ago, a cop tells another homie that the Mexican Mafia holds meetings at Homegirl Cafe (Chief Bratton has his Tues. morning meeting at the Homegirl Cafe every week--but I don't know when the EME has their meetings at my place.)

They aren't just trying to discredit me--I think they believe this stuff--because they know very little about gangs, and so have to interpret what they see from a place of real ignorance. Yet every jury and judge in the land think law enforcement (and of course, the FBI,) know what they're talking about. But no one who lives in any of the 12 hot-zones in LA think cops know very much about this. Anyway--it's complex. The cops must force the square peg into the round hole. It's not a conspiracy to get Alex, it's what happens when you only possess half the pieces to the jigsaw puzzle and feel forced to assert that they have all the pieces.

Later I received a follow up e-mail from the priest:

You know me--I'm not much of a conspiracy buff--it requires so much sophistication. Cops don't possess this. All of this is cultural--a bias and predisposition, a by-product of wholesale demonizing. Which is to say, it's worse than a conspiracy.

Had mass at the Chino YTS last night--again, illuminating to speak to MS guys. They were very clear about Alex's role in the community and how he was, in fact, the opposite of "shot caller" for MS. If he is the shot caller, why do all his troops not know it?
All this raises severe questions about whether--and how--the LAPD has been reformed, almost a decade after agreeing to terminate its patterns and practices about rampant constitutional violations at Ramparts.

Posted by lois at 06:40 PM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2009

Jena 6' beating case wraps up with plea deal…

JENA, La. – Five members of the Jena Six pleaded no contest Friday to misdemeanor simple battery and won't serve jail time, ending a case that thrust a small Louisiana town into the national spotlight and sparked a massive civil rights demonstration.

State District Judge Tom Yeager then sentenced the five, standing quietly surrounded by their lawyers, to seven days unsupervised probation and fined $500. It was a far less severe end to their cases than seemed possible when the six students — all of whom are black — were initially charged with attempted murder in the 2006 attack on Justin Barker, a white classmate. They became known as the "Jena Six," after the central Louisiana town where the beating happened.

Jena 6' beating case wraps up with plea deal…
By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer Mary Foster, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 26, 2009

"I just thank God that it's all over," said John Jenkins, father of Carwin Jones. "It's been a long, painful journey for everyone on both sides of this thing."

Barker and his family and friends sat without expression throughout the hearing. Barker's attorney said he graduated and is now an oil field worker. The family did not comment.

As part of the deal, one of the attorneys read a statement from the five defendants in which they said they knew of nothing Barker had done to provoke the attack.

"To be clear, not one of us heard Justin use any slur or say anything that justified Mychal Bell attacking Justin nor did any of us see Justin do anything that would cause Mychal to react," the statement said.

The statement also expressed sympathy for Barker and his family, and acknowledged the past 2 1/2 years had "caused Justin and his parents tremendous pain and suffering, much of which has gone unrecognized."

Barker spent several hours in the emergency room after the attack, but was discharged and attended a school event the next night.

By pleading no contest, the five do not admit guilt but acknowledge prosecutors had enough evidence for a conviction. LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters said in a statement that he could have won convictions but wanted to end the matter for Barker.

Charges against Jones, Jesse Ray Beard, Robert Bailey Jr., Bryant Purvis and Theo Shaw had previously been reduced from attempted murder to aggravated second-degree battery. All but Shaw were assessed $500 in court costs. The judge did not tack that punishment on to Shaw's case because he stayed in jail for almost seven months, unable to raise bail, following his initial arrest.

Each paid the fine and court costs immediately. The payment of restitution to Barker was also part of the deal, but the amount was not released. A lawsuit filed by Barker against the group was also settled Friday, though the terms were confidential.

The only member of the group to serve jail time was Bell, who pleaded guilty in December 2007 to second-degree battery and was sentenced to 18 months in jail.

Four of Friday's defendants have graduated from high school, and all are attending or getting ready to attend college. Purvis has completed his first year and Bell is planning to attend college this fall. Beard is a senior in high school in Connecticut.

"They can move along with their lives," said Bailey's attorney, James Boren. "And because there are no felonies they can look forward to full lives ahead."

The severity of the original charges brought widespread criticism and eventually led more than 20,000 people to converge in September 2007 on the tiny town of Jena for a major civil rights march. Some $275,000 was raised to hire a large defense team for the six, said Beard's attorney, David Utter.

Racial tensions at Jena High School reportedly grew in the months before the attack. Several months prior to the attack, nooses were hung in a tree on the campus, sparking outrage in the black community. Residents said there were fights, but nothing too serious until December 2006 when Barker was attacked.

"Everybody pointed a finger at Jena during this, but this happens to African-American males across the country," Utter said. "These young men were lucky that people cared and donated money so they could afford good attorneys. That made the difference."

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

June 16, 2009

Bail granted for imprisoned HIV-positive pregnant woman in Maine

Bail granted for imprisoned HIV-positive pregnant woman in Maine

This morning, National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Center for HIV Law and Policy, and Elizabeth Frankel and Valerie Wright of the Maine law firm Verrill Dana, LLP, filed an emergency amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief on behalf of 28 public health experts, advocates, and organizations challenging the imprisonment of an HIV positive pregnant woman in order to protect her “innocent” “unborn child.”

Ms. Quinta Tuleh, a 28 year-old woman from Cameroon, was arrested in January 2009 for allegedly having false immigration documents. Shortly after her arrest, she learned she was both pregnant and HIV positive. On May 14, 2009, instead of sentencing her to “time served,” which was consistent with the federal sentencing guidelines and the recommendations of her attorney and the United States Attorney’s Office, United States District Court Judge John Woodcock extended Ms. T’s sentence to 238 days, making clear that the sentence was calculated specifically to ensure that she remained incarcerated for the duration of her pregnancy. See Judge Jails Pregnant Woman Until Baby is Born and Behind Bars for Being Pregnant and HIV-Positive.

Judge Woodcock stated: “My obligation is to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and that public, it seems to me at this point, should include the child she’s carrying…I don’t think the transfer of HIV to an unborn child is a crime technically under the law, but it is as direct and as likely as an ongoing assault.” Judge Woodcock reasoned that the Federal Sentencing Guideline permits enhanced sentencing for pregnant women and that extended imprisonment would protect her “unborn child. ”

As is often the situation in cases involving pregnant women, Courts feel pressed to make decisions without benefit of full briefing, input from experts or amicus participation. Indeed, uncertain of Ms. T’s due date and how long he would need to extend the sentence to ensure she was imprisoned through her due date, the Judge looked out over the courtroom and said “So maybe we ought to consult with the women here. Any sense of what a safe range would be?”

The Amicus brief filed this morning provided the Court with the expert information unavailable at the sentencing hearings. The brief outlines legal problems with depriving pregnant women of their liberty in order to advance alleged state interests in fetal health and the public health problems with assuming that jails and prisons provide superior or even adequate health care. As an expert declaration filed by Dr. Robert L. Cohen stated: “Based upon my thirty years of experience in the delivery, administration, research, evaluation, and monitoring of medical care in jails and prisons throughout the United States, it is my opinion that it is very often the case that the medical care available to prisoners falls well below that available to non-prisoners.”

Ms. T is being represented by Zachary L. Heiden of the Maine ACLU.

NAPW and Center for HIV Law and Policy are grateful to Laura McTighe, Director of Project UNSHACKLE, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), for her extraordinary help in this effort and the numerous public health experts, advocates, and organizations appearing as amici on this brief, including:

National Women’s Health Network, National Association of People with AIDS, Frannie Peabody Center, Mardge H. Cohen, M.D., Howard Minkoff, M.D., ACT UP Philadelphia, African Services Committee, AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Alliance of AIDS Services – Carolina, American Medical Students Association, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Chicago Women’s AIDS Project, Circle of Care, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project, HIV Law Project, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Liberty Research Group, National AIDS Fund, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Twin States Network, Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Disease (WORLD), Women Rising Project, Women Together for Change Project, Jeff Berry, Wendy Chavkin, M.D., MPH, Leslie Gise, M.D., and Sean Strub.

We are pleased to report that the Court granted bail this morning, allowing Ms. T’s release pending appeal in the case.
Posted by Wyndi on June 15, 2009 01:54 PM

and

Dear Friends and Allies:

NAPW is pleased to announce that yesterday morning a federal District Court judge, responding to a motion for bail and our emergency amicus brief, released Quinta Tuleh, a 28 year-old pregnant woman, from federal custody.

Ms. Tuleh, a woman from Cameroon, had already served 114 days in jail for allegedly having false immigration documents. Shortly after her arrest, she learned she was both pregnant and HIV positive. On May 14, 2009, instead of releasing her, a US District Court Judge extended Ms. Tuleh's sentence to ensure that she remain incarcerated for the duration of her pregnancy. (Judge Jails Pregnant Woman Until Baby is Born and Behind Bars for Being Pregnant and HIV-Positive.)

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Woodcock stated: "My obligation is to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and that public, it seems to me at this point, should include the child she's carrying...I don't think the transfer of HIV to an unborn child is a crime technically under the law, but it is as direct and as likely as an ongoing assault."

As is often the situation in cases involving pregnant women, Courts make decisions without the benefit of full briefing or input from experts. Indeed, uncertain of Ms. Tuleh's due date and how long he would need to extend the sentence to ensure she was imprisoned through her due date, the Judge looked out over the courtroom and said "So maybe we ought to consult with the women here. Any sense of what a safe range would be?"

Yesterday morning, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the Center for HIV Law and Policy and attorneys Elizabeth Frankel and Valerie Wright of the Maine firm Verrill Dana, LLP filed an emergency amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief on behalf of 28 public health experts, advocates, and organizations, as well as a declaration from prison health expert Dr. Robert L. Cohen. The brief and expert testimony provided legal and public health information challenging the incarceration of a pregnant woman in order to protect an "innocent" "unborn child."

The judge called the brief "articulate and helpful" during yesterday's hearing where he released Ms. Tuleh on bail pending an appeal of her sentence to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Tuleh will now be receiving medical, housing, and other support coordinated by the Frannie Peabody Center, a Portland, Maine community-based HIV resource center. Ms. Tuleh has expressed that she is deeply touched by all of the support she has received. The picture of her yesterday, smiling from ear to ear speaks volumes.

Ms. Tuleh is being represented on her appeal by Zachary L. Heiden of the Maine ACLU.

NAPW and Center for HIV Law and Policy are grateful to Laura McTighe, Director of Project UNSHACKLE, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), for her extraordinary help in this effort.

Your continued support of NAPW makes this kind of effective, cross issue collaboration possible. Please contribute what you can to NAPW so that we can continue our collaborative and successful advocacy on behalf of all pregnant women.
Yours Truly,
Lynn M. Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org

Posted by lois at 07:25 PM | Comments (0)

June 04, 2009

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

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

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

June 02, 2009

Project UNSHACKLE is building a powerful community-based movement at the complex intersection of HIV and mass imprisonment.

Welcome to Project UNSHACKLE!
Confronting HIV and Mass Imprisonment
Project UNSHACKLE is building a powerful community-based movement at the complex intersection of HIV and mass imprisonment.

We are uniting people who are formerly imprisoned, HIV policy advocates, researchers, AIDS service providers, prison justice organizers, people with HIV and other community members, and organizers from allied movements.
Together we are working to address the ways that imprisonment makes our communities more vulnerable to HIV.
http://www.champnetwork.org/unshackle

--------------
Dear CHAMP NY and UNSHACKLE supporters nationwide,

This Friday, June 5th, there will be a public hearing to review two devastating proposals for cutting costs in New York City's jails...

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!
Public Hearing on the Department of Corrections Request
to Reduce Days for Recreation and Visits in the City Jails
Friday, June 5th
9AM
Spector Hall
22 Reade Street, Manhattan

What are the proposed changes?

#1: Limit the Jail Visiting Schedule to four days per week, rather than the five days that is required under the current standards.

#2: Limit the Recreation Schedule to five days per week (Thursday - Tuesday), rather than meeting the current standard of seven days per week.

Why are these changes being proposed?

The Department of Corrections is trying to cut recreation and visiting days to save costs and balance its budget. We want the Department to explore other ways of balancing its budget that do not cut programming and services for people in prison and their loved ones.

Proposals like this are trickling down across the country, as prison budgets get tightened by cities and states in economic crisis. Our Project UNSHACKLE partners in Philadelphia recently fought a proposal to charge an admission fee for everyone entering the Philadelphia jails, and WON!

Community response is just as critical now in New York City! We need to speak out about the devastating impact these changes would have on people inside the jails, and on the family members and friends who support them.

What can you do about it?

The Board of Corrections has to approve any changes to the minimum standards in the New York City jails. That's why they're holding this public hearing on June 5th at Specter Hall, 22 Reade Street, Manhattan.

This hearing is your chance to tell the Board what you think of the proposals! When you arrive, there will be a sign-up sheet if you wish to provide testimony. Generally, people are called to testify in the order in which they signed up. Be prepared to explain (briefly, since usually people are given a very limited time to speak) how these proposed changes will compromise the well-being of people in prison and their families.
For more information about the hearing and the proposals to cut visiting and recreation days, please email Matthew Schwartz.

If you don't live in New York?

Look into what changes and cuts are being proposed for your local jails and prisons. Project UNSHACKLE can help you with messaging and communications to TAKE ACTION in your area!

------
Laura McTighe
Director of Project UNSHACKLE
Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP)

----

Posted by lois at 07:38 PM | Comments (0)

MA: Representative Gloria L. Fox’s statement regarding visit to Old Colony Correctional Center

Representative Gloria L. Fox’s statement regarding visit to Old Colony Correctional Center
By Herald staff | Monday, June 1, 2009 |
Saturday , May 30, 2009
REPRESENTATIVE GLORIA L. FOX

"Those who know my work in the communities I serve know that a critical part of my platform for entering public service was reform of the Commonwealths Corrections system. More Black and Latino brothers and sisters are incarcerated than go to college this should be a concern to us all. For over 20 years, I have been a leader in CORI reform efforts because the ability of those released to get jobs and earn a livable wage for themselves and their families is essential in reducing recidivism. Since there has been no substantial CORI reform, we are left with a revolving door system and our communities have had to disproportionately bear the negative impacts of joblessness and the lack of services for the newly released who want to turn their lives around.

When a group of inmates decided to tackle the violence in our community by putting together a video titled Voices From Behind the Wall, which is a document style video against the senseless street violence too many of our teens are engaged in, I was very supportive of this effort. Through the community group producing this video, I learned that some of the inmates involved in the project had some serious issues internally with a few corrections officers. Because of my history of fighting prison injustices, I was asked by the group as an elected official to hear their grievances directly. My visit to the facility was to listen at length to the issues raised by the inmates. I was totally unaware that there was an alleged relationship between Ms. Marinova who was a member of the Voices From Behind the Wall production team, and my transportation to the facility that day. I refuse to have anyone cast me as a perpetrator of any kind for doing my duty as a public servant. With that said, there really isn’t anything else to this story and I will not comment any further.

Yours in community service,

Representative Gloria L. Fox
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1176139

Posted by lois at 06:56 PM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2009

AZ: Acting Director of AZ DOC attends Marcia Powell's Memorial Service---organizing continues

Charles Ryan Attends Marcia Powell's Memorial Service, Says He Didn't Know Powell Had Guardian
By Stephen Lemons in Feathered Bastard
Saturday, May. 30 2009 @ 3:05PM

About 200 people packed the pews at Encanto Community Church today at noon for a memorial service for Marcia Powell, the 48-year-old inmate at Goodyear's Perryville Prison who died early the morning of May 20. This was following her confinement the day before in an outdoor cage where she endured temperatures of more than 107 degrees for at least four hours before collapsing.

The service was presided over by Rev. Liana Rowe, and featured prayers, hymns, and speakers such as criminal defense advocate Jameson Johnson and Middle Ground Prison Reform's Donna Hamm. Powell's body is still being held by the Medical Examiner pending an investigation into next of kin by Powell's court-appointed guardian, the Maricopa County Public Fiduciary. Instead of a casket, there were two photos of Powell on the dais next to a tall lit candle.

The most notable attendee was Arizona Department of Corrections' Interim Director Charles Ryan, whom I questioned outside the church following the service. It's Ryan who made the decision to discontinue Powell's life support after she had been transported to West Valley Hospital.

Friday, the ADC announced that the use of outside enclosures like the one Powell was caged in would be suspended until they were retrofitted with shade and a water supply. Ryan went even further today when asked about the possibility of doing away with the cages altogether.

"After conferring [yesterday] with the Governor's office and the Governor," said Ryan. "We have decided we are going to discontinue using the holding enclosures, in spite of consideration for retrofitting with shade or water. We will no longer use them."

Ryan said Powell was being transferred to an observation cell when she was left in the outside cage. In the future, Ryan said such transfers will be taken to a holding area inside a building that's climate controlled, so that the weather is no longer an issue.

Regarding Ryan's decision to pull the plug on Powell while she was at West Valley Hospital on life support, Ryan said he did so on the advice of Powell's doctors, who told him it would be inhumane to do otherwise. He also indicated that at the time he made the decision, he was unaware that Powell had a guardian.

"The search of the records at the department, at the institution file, and the electronic record did not reveal any guardians," claimed Ryan. "There was no legal guardian known to the department at the time the decision was made.

"The only person who was listed was a friend, and the attempt to find the friend led to a disconnected telephone number and to an address that was not occupied."

But why pull the plug on Powell just hours after she had been admitted, when another day or so and a little more digging might have revealed the fiduciary's guardianship?

"The attending physician in the emergency room," explained Ryan, "in consultation with the department's doctors, clearly indicated that there was no possibility that life could be sustained, that she was terminal. And the doctor reiterated several times it was inhumane to continue to sustain her life on life support."

During the services for Powell, Donna Hamm restated her call for an independent investigation into Powell's death, and said she was calling on the U.S. Justice Department to look into it. However, Ryan said he retained confidence in ADC's criminal investigations unit to look into the matter, though that unit ultimately reports to him.

"There has been an autopsy completed," said Ryan. "The results of the toxicology report will not be known, I think, for about six weeks...The investigation itself...will be completed before then. It is my intention once that...portion of the investigation is completed, I intend to have it reviewed for completeness and objectivity by another agency, and very likely that would be or start with the Department of Public Safety."

I also asked Ryan why the department switched out photos of Powell on its Web site, to leave a more flattering image of Powell online. He said the reason was to show "another picture of her" while she was incarcerated. That's a no-brainer of course. Why the department felt the need to show another photo of Powell is a question Ryan successfully tiptoed around.

In addition, Ryan conceded that he was the "Interim Director" of ADC, not its confirmed "Director," as he's mentioned as being on the ADC Web site. He ascribed the mislabeling to an "oversight."

I have to give Ryan points for attending the service to begin with and for allowing me to interview him. However, I still find troubling his statement that there was no record of Powell's guardianship in the ADC's files. I was able to obtain a record of Powell's guardianship simply by consulting the clerk of superior court's records.

Also, I think that if Powell had been kept alive a little longer, it would not have taken much digging to find paperwork related to the guardian's appointment. Indeed, at one point in the court record, the court is officially advised by Powell's guardian that she has a new address; i.e., Perryville Prison. Isn't the ADC supposed to have access to all such court records related to an inmate?

Presumably, it is the guardian that had the legal authority to pull Powell's plug (assuming next of kin could not be located), not Ryan. And Ryan's department should have known there was a guardian. How ADC didn't know, when a review of the clerk of court's records reveals the existence of a guardianship for Powell, requires some explanation.

More on the service itself in next week's Bird column. I will say this, as sad as Powell's death was, I find it heartening that many in Phoenix do care about the demise of this woman, one of society's forgotten. And if that concern persists, perhaps a repeat of this incident will be less likely in the future.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/05/charles_ryan_attends_marcia_po.php.

From an anonymous blog post...
AddThis
Inmate killed in punishment cage in 103-107 F No Shade
Perryville Womens Unit; Goodyear, AZ
This inmate Marcia Powell ADC # 109416 who was a having problems with her paranoid schizophrenia on May 19, 2009 was being punished by the Deputy Warden; for not going to work. Was put in a cage with a cement slab, no shade; in 103-107 Degree heat. This prison has had many problems with women dying. They have had media out there and has told the media they do not use the cage that has been seen. But, the local media does not report their news correctly in Phoenix, AZ. And they apparently did not know about the 2nd CAGE. It is out of public view. The families of these women in this prison will not speak out. They are afraid for their family memebers in there. And if they speak out then they are stop for 90 days. And if they appeal the decision then they are punished for another 90 days. And if you keep trying then you can be stopped altogeather. Now our Government and President are hollering about GITMO PRISONERS being treated bad. Would they allow the GITMO PRISONERS to be treated like that. Sitting in the sun for 4 hours to end up DEAD. Because, that is what happened to this woman. And she was a mother of 2 children. But, you don't hear about this in the NATIONAL NEWS OR IN CONGRESS. And the former Governor of Arizona Janet Polatano; she knew how the inmates get treated in Arizona. She did not want to do anything to hurt her politico career. Ms. Polatano is only looking out for herself and her politico ambissions.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=13409481&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Posted by lois at 05:18 PM | Comments (0)

May 29, 2009

Interfaith group seeks second chance for youths sentenced to life The coalition delivers a message of redemption in sermons at some 200 California churches, synagogues and mosques.

Interfaith group seeks second chance for youths sentenced to life
The coalition delivers a message of redemption in sermons at some 200 California churches, synagogues and mosques.
By Dana Parsons
May 25, 2009
The major faith traditions teach that the young are special in the eyes of the Almighty. So what does God do when one of them commits a horrible crime and is consigned to a life in prison?

He cries.

That was the message delivered over Memorial Day weekend at some 200 churches, synagogues and mosques around the state by an interfaith coalition trying to change people's attitudes about long sentences for juveniles -- especially those facing life without the possibility of parole.

"When children commit certain actions, we stop thinking of them as children," Javier Stauring, director of Faith Communities for Families and Children, told a group of about 90 people Sunday at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. "We start fearing them, we start demonizing them."

The Bible virtually sanctifies children. That doesn't change, Stauring suggested, when the legal system tries a young teenager as an adult. While not condoning their crimes, Stauring said a society with redemption in mind would not foreclose a second chance to someone so young.

"It's a lot easier to lock up a problem and throw away the key and not have to think about it, and to think that's going to make us safer," he said. What will make society safer from young criminals, Stauring said, is going after the "layers of woundedness" that often afflict them -- wounds that may stem from violence or abuse.

In an interview before he spoke Sunday, the 47-year-old Stauring said he met his first juvenile inmate 18 years ago while volunteering through his church. Now a lay chaplain, Stauring said he wasn't particularly religious when he volunteered.

"I now consider that a blessing," he said of the experience. "I formed my vision of God. We find him in the fringes. That's where, if we look at Jesus as a model, that's who he hung around with."

Stauring shared the microphone Sunday with Elias Elizondo, who took a plea bargain 16 years ago on a murder charge that got him a sentence of 15 years to life instead of life without parole. Now 32 and living in Sun Valley, Elizondo was paroled four months ago and said he's a different person than he was at 16.

"I don't justify my actions," he said, without explaining the details of the crime. He told the group that he not only deserved prison but that, at the time, he wasn't sure he ever should be released. Only when he matured, he said, did he realize that he could change course. Instead of blaming other people or his education, which stopped at sixth grade, he set out to improve himself.

"I started thinking, 'Is it possible I could turn my life around?' "

The answer, Elizondo said, was yes. "The parole board gave me a chance when it didn't have to," he said. "I was redeemable."

Elizondo is the kind of person Stauring's group wants to reach. The coalition is advocating for state Senate Bill 399, which would permit anyone under 18 sentenced to life without parole to ask for resentencing after serving 10 years. If the inmate met certain conditions, he or she could be eligible for a new sentence of 25 years to life.

Even that seemingly small window, Stauring said, would give hope to the still-young person.

The coalition's efforts are aligned with Human Rights Watch, an international organization that has called on Congress to end life-without-parole sentencing for young offenders. "Sentencing juveniles to die in prison is cruel, costly and unnecessary," the organization's U.S. program director said this month.

The group reported that at least 2,574 inmates in the United States were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 18. California has 250 of them. The United States is the only country that imposes such harsh sentences on juveniles.

Stauring knows the statistics but said the holy books of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are his references on the subject.

"This comes from our faith convictions," he said, "that we should never ever give up on a child -- children are always changing -- and that we should not look at them and declare that the worst thing they did as a child is how we're going to label them for the rest of their lives."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-juvenile-justice25-2009may25,0,7391881.story

Posted by lois at 05:04 PM | Comments (0)

AZ: Opponents Stop Federal Detention Center

SAN XAVIER DISTRICT NO LONGER CONSIDERING NOGALES HWY SITE FOR FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER
May 21, 2009
Tohono O’odham Nation and District Leaders Working Together to Identify Alternative Location

SELLS, AZ --- The San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Nation announced today that it is no longer seeking to construct a federal detention center on Nogales Highway, north of Pima Mine Road. The decision comes after an extensive public review process with both the Tohono O’odham Nation and surrounding communities.

The decision was finalized at a meeting that included San Xavier District representatives, the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council and Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. At the meeting, leaders voiced their support for identifying positive economic development opportunities in cooperation with regional planning efforts.

Chairman Ned Norris Jr. said, “The Nation strongly supports economic development and is committed to diversifying the Nation’s economy with projects that provide jobs and opportunities for Nation’s members and nonmembers alike. We are equally committed to pursuing economic development opportunities that compliment and expand the regional and southern Arizona economies.”

The San Xavier District and Tohono O’odham leaders are working together expeditiously to identify an alternative location for the proposed federal detention center. San Xavier District Chairman Austin Nunez said, “We appreciate the leadership role the Tohono O’odham Nation has taken in this process and its commitment to economic development in the San Xavier District. At a more suitable site, the federal detention center will bring hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars in positive economic impacts to the area.”

The proposed federal detention center is designed for short-term detention of up to 750 individuals apprehended by the US Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other law enforcement agencies. The San Xavier District is one of eleven districts of the Tohono O’odham Nation, a federally-recognized sovereign tribe. Additional background information on the Tohono O’odham Nation can be found at http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/.

Posted by lois at 12:07 AM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 21, 2009

PA: Gary Tucker, a prisoner held in control unit found not-guilty of assault on a guard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HRC-FedUp! Courthouse Update
Tucker Found Innocent!
Prisoner beats false charges with HRC help
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Tucker Found Non-guilty! HRC and Family Support the Deciding Factor

Torture survivor Gary Tucker, a state prisoner currently confined in 23-hour control unit lockdown at SCI Frackville, was found not-guilty of assaulting a prison guard by an all-white jury at the Cumberland County courthouse in Carlisle, PA on Thursday morning.

In an emotional trial which featured gripping testimony by Gary and six other state prisoners-all of whom testified via videoconference-testified that it was in fact Mr. Tucker who was assaulted during the incident in question, and that he only responded to the guards actions to defend himself.

HRC/Fed Up! organized courthouse support and provided witness testimony when Bret Grote took the stand to affirm Mr. Tucker's version of events and speak of the organization's work exposing human rights violations in PA prisons.

In January of 2008 Gary's cell door was opened in the Special Management Unit at SCI Camp Hill after he and a guard had a heated argument. Mr. Tucker exited his cell prepared to defend himself with bars of soap in a sock. After chasing one guard away from his cell he was jumped from behind, subdued, handcuffed, and then dragged into a cell out of camera view and beaten bloody. Mr. Tucker suffered a laceration requiring stitches, lost two teeth, and had a bruised, swollen, and bloody face.

Mr. Tucker filed an excessive force grievance. On June 18, 2008 he was informed that it was denied. The next day guards under the command of Unit Manager Chris Chambers began denying him lunch and dinner. After a week of this he was then denied all three meals for two weeks. He only began receiving food again after several prisoners contacted HRC/Fed Up!, reporting that SMU staff were attempting to starve Gary to death. An action alert was sent out and the prison eventually yielded to the pressure.

Seven months after the January assault the District Attorney's office of Cumberland County brought charges against Gary, claiming he assaulted a guard. The trial began Monday, May 18, 2009.

Mr. Tucker plans on pursuing a lawsuit against Camp Hill and the DOC for the hell they put him through.

A longer article and analysis will be forthcoming.

Posted by lois at 10:15 PM | Comments (0)

Phoenix: Prisoners at Maricopa County Jail on Hunger Strike

"In the past four days, the number of inmates refusing to eat has grown. On Thursday, 1,504 refused the evening meals. On Friday, 1,800 refused to eat. On Saturday 1,219 did not eat and on Sunday night, 1,080 inmates turned down the evening meal, Arpaio said."

Hunger Strike Leads To Lockdown
Omadelle Nelson
Reporter, KPHO.com
UPDATED: 3:11 pm MST May 18, 2009

PHOENIX -- Three out of seven Maricopa County jails were placed on indefinite lockdown at 3 p.m. as a security precaution in the midst of an inmate hunger strike, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said.

The lockdown means inmates are be required to remain in their cells, and no visitors are allowed. Nearly 4,200 medium and maximum security inmates are affected, Arpaio said.

The pro-immigration movement Puente said in a statement, "Sheriff Joe Arpaio announcement to put prisoners on lockdown for exercising their right of free speech is a blatant disregard of human rights of prisoners."
CSI collection of products

Puente leaders said they plan to hold a candlelight vigil at the Fourth Avenue and Madison jail at 7:30 p.m.

In the past four days, the number of inmates refusing to eat has grown. On Thursday, 1,504 refused the evening meals. On Friday, 1,800 refused to eat. On Saturday 1,219 did not eat and on Sunday night, 1,080 inmates turned down the evening meal, Arpaio said.

Arpaio said the strike began two weeks ago the day of a protest against him.

The inmates said they don't like the quality of the food.

Jail officials said they're concerned that it could become a violent situation for those who don't want to participate in the hunger strike.

Arpaio said inmates get 2,500 calories a day, and he does not plan to change the menu.

"They may not like the food. The food is rather bland, but you know what, they're getting it free right now, said Arpaio, "We've got people on the streets lining up; people out of work that have no money, trying to find jobs and feed their families, and these guys are complaining."

Arpaio said six inmates had asked to be put in protective custody because they wanted to eat but were afraid of retaliation from other inmates.
http://www.kpho.com/news/19488085/detail.html

Posted by lois at 01:14 PM | Comments (0)

May 19, 2009

Minnesota Becomes First State to "Ban the Box", Narrows Employer Liability for Criminal Records

Minnesota Becomes First State to "Ban the Box", Narrows Employer
Liability for Criminal Records

On May 11th Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law a public
safety policy omnibus bill (House File 1301) which includes two
provisions that begin to address the growing problem of individuals
with criminal records finding employment.

One provision requires all Minnesota public employers to wait until a
job applicant has been selected for an interview before asking about
criminal records or conducting a criminal record check, except for
positions that already require a background check. Passage of this
legislation makes Minnesota the first state to adopt a statewide "Ban
the Box" law since the initiative was started by a group called All of Us or None in California several years ago.

The other provision limits the admission of evidence of an employee's
criminal record against an employer if: (1) the duties of the position did not expose others to a greater degree of risk than that created by the employee interacting with the public outside of the duties of the position or that might be created by being employed in general; (2) a court order sealed any record of the criminal case; or (3) the record did not result in a criminal conviction.

Development of the legislation and direct lobbying for it has been ledby the Minneapolis-based Council on Crime and Justice. According toCouncil President and former Hennepin County Judge Pamela Alexander:
"Over the last several decades increases in criminalization combined
with easier access to criminal records and heightened fear and
scrutiny have created an entire class of people who are subject to
permanent punishment and find it extremely difficult to become
fully-contributing members of their communities through stable housingand gainful employment. It includes hundreds of thousands of
Minnesotans. Passage of this legislation is an important first step
towards alleviating this situation, making our communities more safe,
economically stable, and just."

According to the Council's Director of Public Policy and Advocacy,
Mark Haase, the "Ban the Box" law reduces discrimination and confusion based only upon initial application, does not limit access to the criminal record, saves public employers time and money and gives them a more diverse applicant pool, Increases employment opportunities for otherwise-qualified applicants, and does not limit private employer discretion but provides them with a best practice model. The civil liability, or "Safe Hiring" law, gives employers some tools in knowing when criminal records are relevant and which types of records need not be considered at all. Employers will need to be trained on how this law can help them increase employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.

The bills' chief authors were Senators Mee Moua and Ron Latz and
Representatives Sheldon Johnson and Bobby Champion.

This legislation was passed with the support of the Second Chance
Coalition, a diverse coalition of 24 community organizations,
including: 180 Degrees, Inc., AMICUS, Goodwill/Easter Seals MN,
Council on Crime and Justice, Rebuild Resources, Jacob Wetterling
Foundation, RS Eden, Minnesota Council of Churches, MN Catholic
Conference, Minnesota Fathers & Families Network, Northside Policy
Action Coalition, People Escaping Poverty Project, Project for Pride
in Living, Children's Defense Fund, Peace Foundation, Minneapolis
Urban League, HIRED, LIFE in Recovery, NAMI MN, the Barbara Schneider
Foundation, Elim Transitional Housing, Emerge Community Development,
Greater Minneapolis Council on Churches, and Juel Fairbanks Chemical
Dependency Services.

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

May 18, 2009

AZ: Community activists, immigrant-rights advocates, tribal critics and local elected officials don't want to see a federal detention center

Tucson Region
Prison plan opposition grows
County's help sought to fight US facility slated for O'odham land near Sahuarita
By Erica Meltzer
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.18.2009

Community activists, immigrant-rights advocates, tribal critics and local elected officials don't want to see a federal detention center built near Pima Mine Road on the San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation.

Opponents, including residents of Rancho Sahuarita and the Rev. Robin Hoover of Humane Borders, asked the Pima County Board of Supervisors last week for the county's help in stopping the prison's construction.

The county's power lies only in raising questions and asking the federal government to require more study of the impact before signing off on the project. The county has no direct jurisdiction over projects built on sovereign Indian territory.

Pima County Supervisors Ramón Valadez and Sharon Bronson joined County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry in sending a letter Friday to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They raised numerous concerns about the project, including impacts on regional flooding, archaeological resources near the Santa Cruz River, traffic and conservation efforts.

The comments are in response to an environmental assessment prepared for the project that critics say ignores effects the prison would have outside the reservation.

The county asked that the federal government require an environmental-impact statement, which is a much more thorough study.
Many residents of neighboring Sahuarita say the assessment treats the project as if its impact stopped at the San Xavier District boundaries. The assessment does not address the schools, homes and parks in Rancho Sahuarita, less than a mile away.
"While they may be a quasi-sovereign nation, they do not exist in a vacuum," Rancho Sahuarita resident Linda Cooper said.
District Chairman Austin Nuñez said anyone who lives near the Tohono O'odham land should have known there was the potential for development there. He said the request for input from other communities is "more a courtesy than anything else."

"We feel the project is being considerate of the neighbors in terms of light pollution, in terms of noise pollution," he said. "We moved it further north of Pima Mine Road. It's a single story and should not be visible. The security will be maximum, even though it's a medium-security facility."

The district is hoping to build a 750-bed, 140,000-square-foot prison on 48 acres just east of the Santa Cruz River and about 4,000 feet north of Pima Mine Road. The prison would create around 300 jobs, and the district would be paid a percentage of the bed fee.

Pima Mine Road is the boundary between Sahuarita and the San Xavier District, one of 11 districts within the Tohono O'odham Nation. It's also the northern boundary of Sahuarita's largest population center, the 4,200-home Rancho Sahuarita master-planned community.
"On a personal level, I just think it's going to change a lot of people's lifestyles," said Julia Whetten, a Rancho Sahuarita resident. "We came here looking for safety and wanting to raise our children with the values we grew up with. To have something that's so close that is a reminder of the evils of the world is just not what I want for my children."
And Rancho Sahuarita residents aren't the only ones opposing the project.

Former Tohono O'odham Tribal Council member David Garcia, who is not a member of the San Xavier District, said the U.S. Border Patrol detention centers that have been built on the reservation should raise questions about the project, including what sort of liability the tribe and the district would face if prisoners were to file lawsuits over their treatment at the planned facility. He said hearings on the proposal are needed.

Hoover told the Board of Supervisors he is concerned that the prison will not meet state and federal standards for treatment of detainees because there is not the same accountability on tribal land.
Nuñez said the facility will meet the highest standards.

Valadez said he believes new prisons should be built in the same area as the existing state and federal prisons on South Wilmot Road, where residents knew what they were getting when they bought houses there.
Bronson said she has serious concerns about possible flooding from the reservation site.

Officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs could not be reached Friday to talk about whether they would require the San Xavier District to do more to address community concerns.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/293306

Posted by lois at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 29, 2009

Obama Administration Calls for End to Crack-Powder Sentencing Disparity

Obama Administration Calls for End to Crack-Powder Sentencing Disparity
by Jasmine Tyler, Anthony Papa
Huffington Post
April 29, 2009

On President Obama's 100th day in office the White House asked Congress to address the issue of disparity in penalties for the use of powder/crack cocaine. This historic request follows a national lobby day held yesterday that was co-sponsored by a dozen advocacy groups.

The day brought together voters from Utah, California, Oklahoma, New Jersey, South Carolina and other states to pressure key members of Congress to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

The groups held a breakfast briefing with members of congress and victims of the federal disparity on Tuesday morning. Chocolate bars weighing fifty grams, the equivalent weight that would trigger a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine, were on hand to demonstrate to members of Congress just how small that quantity is compared to the 5000 grams -- five kilos -- of powered cocaine that garners the same penalty.

The 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Acts created a disparity in sentencing between two forms of cocaine, crack cocaine and powder, at the federal level even though scientific evidence, including a major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven that crack and powder cocaine have similar physiological and psychoactive effects on the human body. It takes only five grams of crack cocaine (the equivalent of the contents of two sugar packets) to receive a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, while it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence.

As a presidential candidate, then-Senator Obama said the "war on drugs is an utter failure" and that he believes in "shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public health approach." He also called for eliminating the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, repealing the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs to reduce HIV/AIDS, and stopping the U.S. Justice Department from undermining state medical marijuana laws. Within 24 hours of taking office, the White House website made clear that Obama's campaign commitments to eliminate both the crack/powder disparity and the ban on syringe exchange funding were now official administration policy.

The Obama Administration has articulated the need to address this issue by completely eliminating the disparity. Current penalties for crack cocaine are excessively harsh and have little to do with an individual's actual culpability and more to do with the color of their skin. It's not fair and it's not working. While two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white or Latino according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 80 percent of those convicted in federal court for crack cocaine offenses in 2006 were African American.

Last year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission moderately reduced sentences for crack cocaine offenses and the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that judges have the right to sentence people below the guidelines in Kimbrough v. the United States. However, judicial discretion is still undermined by the statutory mandatory minimum sentences that Congress enacted over 20 years ago, and those mandatory minimums are the source of the crack/powder disparity.

Thus far, two legislative proposals have been re-introduced in the House -- one by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX, and one by Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA. Both would end the disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences. The Senate Crime and Drugs subcommittee will hold a hearing to discuss crack cocaine sentencing on Wednesday, April 29. The House Crime, Terror and Homeland Security committee also will hold a hearing on this issue on May 21.

The stars are aligning to ensure Americans will no longer be subjected to the same draconian policy set in the late 80s, which flies in the face of scientific and legal research. Congress and the administration have an obligation to fix this and show the country that our criminal justice practices will be fair and sentences proportional to the offense. We can no longer prioritize precious federal resources solely on the incarceration of individuals who are low-level, nonviolent drug users and sellers nor permit any racial group to continue to be unjustly targeted.

Jasmine L. Tyler is the Deputy Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. Anthony Papa is the author 15 to Life.

* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasmine-tyler/obama-administration-call_b_193028.html

And....
Justice Dept. Seeks Equity in Sentences for Cocaine

*
E-Mail
* Send To Phone
* Print
* Reprints
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o MySpace
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink
o

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SOLOMON MOORE
Published: April 29, 2009

A senior Justice Department official urged Congress on Wednesday to lower the mandatory minimum prison sentence for the sale and possession of crack cocaine to match the punishment for powder cocaine, eliminating arbitrary sentencing disparities that have resulted in many more African-Americans’ being jailed for longer terms.

It was the first time such a high-level law enforcement official has endorsed legislation to eliminate inequities in cocaine sentencing. Barack Obama, while campaigning for the White House, had called for an end to the disparity.

“Most in the law enforcement community now recognize the need to re-evaluate current federal cocaine sentencing policy and the disparities the policy creates,” the official, Lanny A. Breuer, the chief of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department, testified before the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Under current federal laws, conviction for the sale and possession of 50 grams of crack cocaine is punishable by a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison; it takes 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same punishment under the guidelines.

Mr. Breuer said that as of 2006, 82 percent of people convicted of federal crack cocaine offenses were African-American, and 9 percent were white. In that same year, 14 percent of federal powder cocaine offenders were white, 27 percent were African-American and 58 percent were Hispanic.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the subcommittee chairman, said he was a proponent of the two-tiered sentencing structure when it was adopted in 1986 during an epidemic of crack cocaine use. But Mr. Durbin said that he and other early supporters, including Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is now vice president, changed their minds as they learned more about the drug.

“Each of the myths upon which we based the disparity has since been dispelled or altered,” Mr. Durbin said. “Crack-related violence has decreased significantly since the 1980s, and today 94 percent of crack cocaine cases don’t involve violence at all.”

Mr. Breuer and other witnesses testified that the sentencing disparities eroded trust in the justice system, overstressed the prison system, and diverted federal law enforcement resources from prosecutions of organized crime and other priorities.

In 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission, a panel that advises federal courts on appropriate prison terms based on legislation, reduced the average sentence for crack cocaine possession to 8 years, 10 months from 10 years, 1 month.

That change was expected to reduce the federal prison population by about 3,800 inmates over 15 years.

So far, 19,239 offenders who were sentenced under the earlier guidelines have applied to have their terms reduced. About 70 percent of those motions have been granted.

Further sentencing reductions would require Congress to pass new legislation. Mr. Breuer said he was leading a working group at the Justice Department that was looking at how to reduce the sentencing disparity while preserving public safety.

Although many law enforcement groups have generally sided with reducing disparities in cocaine sentences, they disagree with the administration about how that might be achieved.

James Pasco, a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police, suggested that prison sentences for powder cocaine should be raised to the level of crack sentences.

“The Obama administration just says they want the disparity addressed,” Mr. Pasco said. “So somewhere between our position for raising sentences for powder, and their position for doing away with disparities there’s room for discussion.”

Jasmine Tyler, of the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group supporting the reduction of drug crime sentences, said increasing penalties for powder cocaine would further burden the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which is 140 percent beyond its capacity.

“I would be shocked if that were ever vetted as a real possibility,” Ms. Tyler said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/us/30cocaine.html?_r=1

Posted by lois at 04:52 PM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2009

ACLU files suit about double-bunking in Mass. prisons

ACLU files suit about double-bunking in Mass. prisons
By Associated Press
Monday, April 27, 2009
Boston Herald

BOSTON — A lawsuit is demanding answers about Massachusetts inmates doubled up in cells originally used for one person in a maximum-security prison.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said Monday a new plan to move as many as 450 additional prisoners to the Souza Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley is causing prisoners to fear being placed in a cell with a known enemy or someone else who might attack them.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services. It asks the Massachusetts Department of Correction to release documentation of the system it uses to decide who is put into double cells and with whom. The lawsuit says prisoners report some of the decisions seem arbitrary.

The Department of Correction says it does not comment on pending litigation.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1168489

Posted by lois at 02:22 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2009

Three book reviews: Abolishing The Prison Industrial Complex and Freeing All Political Prisoners

Abolishing The Prison Industrial Complex and Freeing All Political Prisoners
Sunday, April 19 2009
By Hans Bennett
Prisons Above all, these three highly-recommended books (available online at www.akpress.org) argue that prison-related issues are inseparable from racism, classism, sexism, and all oppression, so the more we know about prisons, the better informed multi-issue activist strategies will be. They conclude that in working to abolish all oppression, we must also work to abolish the PIC and free all political prisoners.
Abolishing The Prison Industrial Complex and Freeing All Political Prisoners
A Book review of:

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix, edited by Lois Ahrens, PM Press, 2008.

Let Freedom Ring: A Collection of Documents from the Movements to Free US Political Prisoners, edited by Matt Meyer, PM Press, 2008.

Abolition Now! Ten Years of Strategy and Struggle Against The Prison Industrial Complex, edited by the CR10 Publications Collective, AK Press, 2008.

2008 marked the ten-year anniversaries of both the prison abolitionist Critical Resistance (CR) conference in Oakland, CA that coined the phrase "prison industrial complex" (PIC) and the National Jericho Movement’s march in Washington DC that demanded the release of all US political prisoners and prisoners of war. To commemorate the 1998 events, the CR10 conference was held in Oakland in September, and Jericho organized a march to the United Nations in October.

These two important events in 1998 successfully re-energized the prison-activist and political prisoner support movements rooted in the 1960s and 1970s. However, while recognizing this accomplishment, three new books document how the prison industrial complex has actually grown bigger and stronger since 1998, while the post-911 climate has further escalated political repression. While recognizing this frustrating reality, these new books look honestly at both the accomplishments and shortcomings of the last ten years.

The Real Cost of Prisons Comix

The new book The Real Cost of Prisons Comix, reprints three comic books published as part of the Real Costs of Prisons Project (RCPP), which began in 2000. So far, 125,000 comic books have been printed, with over 100,000 distributed for free to community groups and college classes alike. Featuring artwork by Kevin Pyle, Sabrina Jones and Susan Willmarth, all three comic books can be freely downloaded at www.realcostofprisons.org.

Prison abolitionists Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore write in the book’s introduction that the RCPP’s value "has been to show us how the system of mass incarceration permeates our lives, who is paying the costs of that system and the many ways the system is vulnerable to people who put their thought and effort into organizing to shrink it." Significantly, the RCPP’s comics "demonstrate that the ideas we need to change the world can be explained simply enough and packaged attractively enough to be used by all kinds of readers." Prisoners and their families can "understand material usually circulated only among academics and those who focus on policy."

Editor Lois Ahrens writes that "a central goal of the comic books is to politicize, not pathologize." She argues that the "deregulation and globalization" of the last 30 years has "resulted in impoverishing urban economies, limiting opportunities for meaningful work and slashing funding for quality education, marginalizing the poor, and creating more inequality. The comic books place individual experience in this context and challenge a central message of neo-liberal ideology: the myth that people can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. In this paradigm, racism, sexism, classism, and economic inequality are not part of the picture. Most people now believe that change happens through personal transformation rather than political struggle and change."

The recent growth of the PIC and mass incarceration is staggering. Ahrens writes that "every year from 1947 through the beginning of the 1970s, approximately 200,000 people were incarcerated in the US. Today, there are more than 2.3 million men and women incarcerated, with more than 5 million more on parole and probation."

The 'Prison Town' comic book debunks the myth that building a new prison actually helps to revitalize a town with an ailing economy, and instead illustrates the many negative costs that a new prison can impose. Importantly, Prison Town also documents how many towns learned by example and cited the prisons’ negative impact in successful campaigns to stop prison construction in their community.

'Prisoners of the War on Drugs' is a heart-wrenching look at the victims of the so-called "war on drugs." At least according to its official purpose, the "war on drugs" has been a total failure, resulting in the mass incarceration of non-violent drug offenders at a huge, inefficient expense to tax-payers. Prisoners emphasizes "harm reduction" and treatment as a better solution, stating that the "war on drugs locks up more users than dealers. Most want to quit, but can’t. A year of treatment costs much less than a year of incarceration, plus: the person can work, pay taxes & take part in family life." While drug laws may seem insane, they appear to have unofficial motives that are highly rational. For example, they have served to accelerate mass imprisonment, the criminalization of poverty, and the erosion of civil-liberties.

'Prisoners of a Hard Life: Women & Their Children' concludes the three-comic book series. The stories presented here are mostly fictional, but are based on the writers’ research and personal experience working with women prisoners. Therefore, Ahrens explains that the stories "represent the lives of hundreds of thousands of people suffering as a result of the war on drugs." Perhaps most outrageous is the true story of Regina McKnight, the first woman in the US to be convicted of murder because of behavior while pregnant. When McKnight’s baby was delivered stillborn and an autopsy found traces of cocaine in the fetus she was arrested and convicted of murder with a 20-year sentence. In 2008, following several appeals and eight years in prison, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously reversed her conviction, after concluding that there is no medical evidence of cocaine causing stillbirths.

Let Freedom Ring

Let Freedom Ring: A Collection of Documents from the Movements to Free US Political Prisoners, is an epic 877-page compilation of both pre-existing documents and original articles. Explaining the context of its release, editor Matt Meyer cites the recent persecution of the San Francisco Eight, who are former Black Panther Party (BPP) members being charged with a 30-year old crime. Beginning with the 2006 grand jury, "the state threw down a gauntlet. When it became clear that the investigations were reopening cases based on evidence obtained primarily through torture, the message was unmistakable: Be afraid, be very afraid, and don’t even think of fighting back. When these same men stood strong, firm on the principle that they would not take part in a new, government sponsored witch-hunt, they sent a counter-message on behalf of us all: we will not allow our communities, our struggles, our communities, our very lives to be criminalized by a corrupt and racist criminal justice system." This spirit of resistance to state repression flows throughout Let Freedom Ring.

The book’s many sections focus on a wide range of US political prisoners, featuring both facts about their case, and actual writing from the prisoners themselves. One particularly interesting section is titled Resisting Repression: Out and Proud, which includes the classic 1991 interview "Dykes and Fags Want to Know: Interview with Lesbian Political Prisoners," featuring Laura Whitehorn (released in 1999), a well as Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, who were both pardoned by President Clinton in 2001. Also notable is a 1991 speech given by former BPP political prisoner Dhoruba Bin-Wahad, who was released after 19 years. Considered a groundbreaking speech from a Black Muslim revolutionary, Bin-Wahad declared that "we can not build a new society if we premise that society on the oppression of other people." Continuing the legacy of BPP co-founder Huey P. Newton, he argued that fighting the oppression of women and GLBTs is inseparable from the fight against capitalism, racism, and all oppression. Also featured is a tribute to the late Kuwasi Balagoon, who died in prison of AIDS-related pneumonia in 1986. In the words of poet Walidah Imarisha, Balagoon "was an anarchist in a Black nationalist movement, he was queer in a straight dominated movement, he was a guerrilla fighter after it was ‘chic,’ and he...demanded to be seen not as a revolutionary icon, but as a person, beautiful and flawed."

Abolition Now!

Abolition Now! was published to coincide with the CR10 conference. The introduction explains that Critical Resistance (CR) is not only "struggling to tear down the cages" of the prison industrial complex (PIC), but "also to abolish the actions of policing, surveillance, and imprisonment that give the PIC its power. We are also reminded that abolition is the creation of possibilities for our dreams and demands for health and happiness—for what we want, not what we think we can get."

The book features reflections and constructive criticism from a variety of CR organizers and activists. For example, Mills College professor Julia Sudbury emphasizes the "need for healing as an abolitionist practice. Many of us come to this work with our own wounds," and while "many of us draw energy and inspiration from these wounds," we are "also drained by these traumas...As a result our movement can be very ‘head’ oriented—talking, planning, thinking, writing—and not body and emotion oriented." Sudbury concludes that a "movement against a violent and violating phenomenon like the PIC cannot hope to be successful if we don’t directly address and heal the effects of that violence."

Former political prisoner Bo Brown argues that the movement should have more "street awareness" and not be limited to "legislative" goals and actions. "You have to do both. I think you can get lost in that and you can stay there and consider yourself a good person and never really get your hands dirty in a human kind of way...I’d like to see us come up with some kind of support group for families with prisoners that’s real. We need to figure out how to support the prisoners when they’re coming home. We need to understand post-traumatic shock on an ongoing, day-to-day basis."

Andrea Smith, co-founder of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence argues that "the criminalization approach proffered in the mainstream anti-violence movement doesn’t work. And, also, this criminalization approach obfuscates the role of the state in perpetrating gender violence. At the same time, we have to deal with the practical concerns for safety for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Thus, we are working on developing community accountability strategies that do not rely on the state, and also do not depend on a romanticized version of ‘community’...This intersects with work in indigenous rights movements, which have concepts of indigenous nationhood that are not based on nation-state forms of governance that rule through violence, domination, and control."

Abolition Now! also spotlights examples of organizations putting abolitionist strategy into practice, like with the LEAD Project’s group of transition homes for women returning from imprisonment in the Watts District of Los Angeles, called "A New Way of Life." Also, the UBUNTU Coalition in Durham, NC, works at responding to violence without reinforcing the PIC.

Prisons Are Everywhere

Above all, these three highly-recommended books (available online at www.akpress.org) argue that prison-related issues are inseparable from racism, classism, sexism, and all oppression, so the more we know about prisons, the better informed multi-issue activist strategies will be. They conclude that in working to abolish all oppression, we must also work to abolish the PIC and free all political prisoners.

--Based out of the SF Bay Area, Hans Bennett is an independent multi-media journalist (www.insubordination.blogspot.com) and co-founder of Journalists for Mumia (www.abu-jamal-news.com).

Posted by lois at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2009

Bryne Grants and another conscequence featured in new film: "American Violet"

Taking Drug Task Forces to Task
By: Lewis Beale
April 17, 2009

In November 2000, a drug task force arrested 28 residents of Hearne, Texas, almost all of them African-American, and charged them with distributing crack cocaine. Pressed to plead guilty to the charges by their public defenders, several of the accused did, but Regina Kelly, a single mother of four, refused. The American Civil Liberty Union's Drug Law Reform Project eventually took up the case and filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 15 of the arrestees, accusing the local district attorney and the

South Central Texas Narcotics Task Force with conducting racially motivated drug sweeps for more than 15 years.
That case, which wound up with the charges against all the ACLU's clients being dropped due to insufficient evidence and the tainted testimony of an unreliable police informant, is now the basis of a movie, "American Violet", opening nationwide on April 17th. Starring newcomer Nicole Beharie as Kelly, as well as Alfre Woodard, Tim Blake Nelson and Charles S. Dutton, the film is practically a primer on drug-task-force abuses under what is known as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Program.

Enacted in 1988, and recently refunded under President Obama's stimulus package, the Byrne grant program is designed to help states and local jurisdictions fight drugs and the violent crime associated with drug trafficking. The program provides federal money in 29 specific "purpose areas," including crime-victim assistance and alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, but most of the grants are intended for police activity. And a good deal of the money disbursed is predicated on the number, not the quality, of drug arrests.

"Throughout America, Byrne grants are consistently used to target very low-level drug dealers for arrest and long-term incarceration," said Graham Boyd, lawyer for the Hearne plaintiffs and director of the ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project. "You have a drug task force whose goal is to arrest as many people as they can, their funding stream is based on that, so they rely on confidential informants, and their racial profiling is staggering."

"The block grant is based on population and crime rate," added Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance Network. "Because it's based on arrests, the incentive is to focus on arrests, and the more the better. They have an incentive to go after low-level drug dealers, and it leads to civil rights offenses because they have quotas to fill, and that might entail cutting corners."

Hearne was not the first case, nor the most notorious, involving drug-task-force abuses. That honor belongs to Tulia, another small Texas town where, on July 23, 1999, and based on the word of a single informant, 46 people, 39 of them African-American, were accused of selling drugs. As recounted in Tulia, Texas, a documentary recently shown as part of PBS' Independent Lens series [available on DVD at www.newsreel.org], the informant, Tom Coleman — at one point named "Texas Lawman of the Year" - had a checkered law enforcement career, did not wear a recording device during any of his alleged drug buys, made numerous evidentiary errors and was accused of being a racist.

In 2003, a Texas court voided 38 of the Tulia arrests (several of the cases had already been dismissed), and in 2005, Coleman was convicted of perjury when a jury found he had lied about his own arrest for theft during a hearing on the drug cases.
As egregious as these cases were, Boyd says incidents like this are "still happening all over America." And they serve to point out several gaping holes in the well-intentioned, but flawed, Byrne grant program:

• The use of confidential informants, many of them criminals themselves, whose uncorroborated testimony is used to obtain drug convictions. The Hearne informant, for example, had a history of drug addiction and mental illness. "The way informants get used reflects a reality that there are few checks and balances on how law enforcement uses them," said Boyd. "It's easier for them to do this than send in an undercover officer."

• The lack of jurisdictional control. "There's a problem that goes with regional drug task forces," said Piper. "Because they are made up of people from different areas, there is a lack of oversight. There is no one entity you can blame, because they're multi-jurisdictional." Case in point: In both Hearn and Tulia, the cases were solved on the county, not town, level.

• The task forces are self-sustaining. "They use asset forfeiture, which only exists for drug crimes," said Piper, "so police tend to focus on that. Because they can keep what they seize [cash, cars, weapons, etc.] and they get the federal money, they are independent from state and local concerns, and they don't have to go to the city council and justify what they're doing."

• The impact on the black community. African-Americans, who make up about 13 percent of the total population, now account for more than 50 percent of all drug arrests. Piper refers to mass drug arrests in Hearne, Tulia and other places as being akin to "Vietnam War-like body count statistics," which are "used to measure success."

At least Texas got the message. The Lone Star State became the first in the country to require corroboration of informant information to make a drug arrest. Texas also stopped taking Byrne money for drug cases and made them the responsibility of the state police, the Texas Rangers.

And the state changed its drug-war measurement criteria. Officers used to be graded on how many arrests they made; now it's how many drug trafficking organizations they have identified, infiltrated and dismantled. "You actually lose points the more end users — drug offenders, people selling to feed their habits — you arrest," said Piper. "What they're trying to do is get people to stay undercover, work their way up, so they can take down a big trafficker, and that's revolutionary." Because of this, says Piper, drug arrests in Texas dropped by 40 percent last year, but drug seizures doubled.

Still, there are more than 600 drug task forces in the country, and at least a dozen Hearne-like scandals reported in the last 10 years. That might not seem like a lot, but it's more than enough for the people sent to jail on tainted evidence, perjured testimony or pressured into plea bargains in order to avoid jury trials and potential sentences of 30 years or more.
Even worse, says Boyd, is that in small, under-financed communities, the desperation for Byrne grant money is so great, "there's evidence of police being taken off Main Street and being put into these drug task forces."

The bottom line is what this all says about how the war on drugs is being waged, and according to Boyd, Hearne and Tulia "are Exhibit A on why the war is a failure. It's ineffective, expensive and generates a level of racial targeting that has no place in America today."

At least, added Piper, there's a little ray of hope emerging from the Obama administration. Naming Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske — known for progressive and community-based approach to drug issues — to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy could mean that law enforcement will not be the drug czar's only emphasis.

"Both Obama and Kerlikowske have talked about dealing with this as a treatment issue, dealing with the demand side," says Piper. "Short of repealing drug prohibition, it's the most effective way of hurting the drug cartels — you're reducing their profits."
http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal_affairs/taking-drug-task-forces-to-task-1074

Posted by lois at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

CT: Raise the Age supporters cheer Democrats' alternative budget

Raise the Age supporters cheer Democrats' alternative budget
Hour Staff Writer

Supporters of the Raise the Age campaign and other youth-focused legislation announced their support of the Democrats alternative proposed budget Monday, saying it preserves Connecticut's "commitments to children and families while being fiscally responsible."

The "Raise the Age" legislation, signed into law in 2007 by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, changes the default mechanism in Connecticut that automatically sends youthful offenders to adult court at the age of 16 and, instead, allow 16- and 17-year-olds to go through the juvenile court system.

Earlier this year as part of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's response to the budget crisis the governor said the state would delay the implementation of Raise the Age to 2012 -- the original implementation was supposed to be 2010.

Connecticut is only one of three states that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to be processed in adult court.

As part of their proposal, the Democrats are proposing allowing the 16-year-olds to system as intended in 2010, delaying only the 17-year-olds.

Abby Anderson, executive director of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, said the Democrats' proposal showed that including 16-year-olds in the juvenile justice system can be done with minimal impact on the state's budget.

"We're thrilled the Democrats understand the importance of continuing these efforts instead of not doing anything and then having to do a more costly intervention down the line," Anderson said. "We'd love to have both the 16- and 17-year- olds out of the adult system because the longer we wait, the more kids we lose to the system, but at least we might get part of what we were promised, so we're thrilled for that."

In addition to Raise the Age, the Dems budget also supports Family Support Centers which deliver preventive services to struggling families. Anderson said the centers are very successful at helping youth before they need more costly interventions or become involved in the juvenile justice system.

Anderson said she thinks the Democrats' proposed legislation has a fair amount of support behind it.

"It does have a good amount of support because I feel that legislators feel it's important to do something to move forward in a positive way and do what was promised," she said.

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, a big supporter of the Raise the Age campaign, and said he continues to support its implementation.

"While I didn't vote for the spending plan, I do support Raise the Age as a long-term investment for our state to cut down on the rate of recidivism among our youth," Duff said.
http://www.thehour.com/story/467880

Posted by lois at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2009

National support sought for Sign-on to support NY's Anti-Shackling Bill

Sign-on to support NY's Anti-Shackling Bill
Letter of Support for A.3373-A
National support is sought for this Bill. You can sign-on individually or as an organization by contacting Tina Reynolds. Contact info at the bottom of this email.

National support is being sought to sign-on please contact Tina Reynolds

Please join the Correctional Association of New York, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Legal Aid Society's Prisoners' Rights Project and Women on the Rise Telling HerStory (WORTH) in calling on New York State lawmakers to end to the degrading, unnecessary and dangerous practice of shackling incarcerated pregnant women.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5765/images/Shackling_Bill_A3373A.pdf (copy of the bill)
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5765/images/Shackling_Bill_FINAL.pdf (sign on letter)

Here is an Anti-Shackling Bill sign-on letter in support of A.3373-A, which forbids the use of restraints on incarcerated women during labor and post-delivery recovery, and restricts the use of restraints during transport to and from the hospital before and after child birth.

Sponsored by Assemblymember N. Nick Perry, Assembly Majority Whip, A.3373-A has been voted out of all necessary Committees and is likely to come to the Assembly floor for a full vote very soon. Senator Velmanette Montgomery, Chair of the Social Services, Children and Families Committee, plans to introduce the same bill in the Senate during this legislative session.

If you would like to add your name or your organization's name, please email Tina Reynolds, Executive Director of WORTH and Co-Chair of the Coalition's Incarcerated Mothers Committee, by FRIDAY, MAY 1: treynolds@womenontherise-worth.org.

Thank you,

Tamar Kraft-Stolar
Women in Prison Project Director
Correctional Association of New York
2090 Adam Clayton Powell Blvd, Ste 200
New York, NY 10027
www.correctionalassociation.org

Posted by lois at 10:33 AM | Comments (0)

April 11, 2009

NV: CCA Proposal for Building 6,000 cages

Board of Prison Commissioners hearing April 14th: Question of for-profit prison plans to build 6,000 beds in Nevada
4-10-09

*I'm with the non-profit Private Corrections Institute and have been a researcher in the field of for-profit prisons for a dozen years. I've read scores of reports, most of the books on the subject and over 10,000 newspaper stories about them. I have obtained thousands of pages of documents under the Freedom of Information Act and through Open Records Act requests in at least ten states and dozens of municipalities. I've testified before numerous state legislative committees and municipalities around the country.

The Corrections Corporation of America has gotten approval for the building of a 1,500-bed prison in Pahrump, in Nye County, from the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee. They have proposed building another 1,500 beds there, plus 3,000 more beds in Storey County, east of Sparks, south of Highway 80 in the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Park.

The corporation has claimed that it wants to hold only federal prisoners, that they will be short-term detainees, that those prisoners will be entirely from within the state of Nevada.
There is no reason to believe that those claims are true. The population of federal prisoners from Nevada is likely less than half the capacity of the proposed Pahrump prison. They have a contract for providing 750 beds only and have made it clear in other venues that it cannot remain in operation without filling their prisons to over 90% capacity. If they don't hold federal prisoners, there will be no requirement to pay prevailing wages, another promise they've made to Nye County. The state of Nevada could conceivably find itself hosting these prisons with no oversight at all.
Citizens in Pahrump were assured that the prison would have federal oversight, but it won't if it doesn't hold them, of course. CCA has simultaneously been marketing itself to take in thousands of California prisoners in various venues. They are holding perhaps a thousand in Eloy, Arizona at their Las Palmas prison. Reports that I'm receiving is that Las Palmas is out of control, with daily fights and green, low-paid staff overwhelmed with the staggering task of controlling this many imported gang bangers.

In a hearing addressing a possible repeal of the long standing Kansas ban on for-profit prisons, the state Secretary of Corrections nailed the problem. He said that he feared if these spec prison builders came back into Kansas "they would begin directing state correctional policy." That is exactly right. The Oklahoma Director was at that meeting. His state has been burdened with riot and escape-plagued prisons for over 15 years. Asked if he could venture in retrospect, whether he would have allowed them in to begin with, his answer was an unequivocal "No!"

CCA has made a mess of contracts with the state of Nevada in the past. Rooftop riots, sexual abuse of female prisoners and the dumping of contracts are but the tip of the iceberg.

The state of Nebraska crafted legislation that restricted the operation of any for-profit operator that proposed to site there. It was very common sense and reflected concerns for the safety of the people of that state. Because of the careful delineation of the conditions under which such a prison could be constructed and operated, no company has ever ventured there. They are simply unwilling to comply with the oversight and regulation legislators required.

Let me suggest that the state of Nevada needs to similarly protect itself before CCA begins construction in two months. I would hope that these issues can be addressed at the Board of Commissioners hearing on April 14th.

Frank Smith
www.privateci.org

Posted by lois at 11:34 PM | Comments (0)

April 05, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 03, 2009

NJ: Guards protest closing of prison. Community wants it gone.

"The residents of this community believe in their hearts...they do not want the prison to be on that location," he said. "They view it as the way that their community can turn things around and they can't get it done with a prison on its most valuable property."
Star Ledger

Plan to close Riverfront State Prison in Camden draws controversy
by MaryAnn Spoto/The Star-Ledger
Sunday March 08, 2009

In their dreams for a city besieged by crime and unemployment, they envision concrete walls and barbed wire replaced by green parks and tidy homes.

"Riverfront State Prison has held Camden down since the day it opened on the waterfront," said Rodney Sadler, president of Save Our Waterfront, a citizens group.

But union leaders and some lawmakers say the decision to close the prison was driven purely by economics, could overburden county jails that house state inmates, and leaves little room if more crime produces more inmates.

"This was a rash decision without thinking it through, without any public input on it," said Assemblyman Scott Rudder (R-Burlington). "Why is this being expedited? What is really going on here?"

State officials say the move gives the state a rare opportunity to consolidate services and get an influx of cash from a property sale amid a $7 billion budget shortfall.

"Certainly because of the dire financial times we're in, we're looking at the efficiencies, looking at everything," said DOC spokeswoman Deirdre Fedkenheuer. "If you can close a prison, you have to do it."

The state plans to empty Riverfront before June by scattering the more than 800 inmates among other state prisons. The 17-acre site is scheduled to be auctioned April 20-24.

Treasury spokesman Tom Vincz said the auction date is not definite and depends on when the inmates are transferred. He said the state has not received an appraisal of the property. The Office of Legislative Services has said its assessed value is nearly $41 million.

However, in justifying the move, state corrections officials publicly overstated how much the prison population has dropped.

When confirming the decision to close Riverfront, officials said the number of inmates in New Jersey's prison system had decreased by 5,000 inmates -- from about 27,500 to about 22,000 --over the past six years. In reviewing the records, The Star-Ledger found the population actually fell by just 387 inmates during that time.

Fedkenheuer acknowledged the incorrect figures, but said the state was not trying to be misleading.

"It was wrong and it was not deliberate," she said.

A medium-security facility, Riverfront opened in 1985 and was designed to hold 408 inmates. In recent years it consistently housed more than 1,000 inmates, despite its new capacity of 631.

For the past decade, the state's prisons have held more prisoners than for which they were designed, prompting officials to double-bunk cells and convert program space into dormitories. A budget report from the Office of Legislative Services noted state prisons are operating at 36 percent above their design capacity.

Corrections officials, however, say prison populations are declining and there is space in the state's 10 other adult correctional facilities to absorb Riverfront inmates.

James Austin, a criminologist who advises state prisons on re-entry and parole, said moves to close prisons are not unusual.

"Many states are trying to cut corrections budgets, and the only way you can cut them is to close facilities," he said. "Very few systems are at their design capacity."

Citing the high number of state inmates still housed at county jails, Rudder and Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego (R-Burlington) called on Gov. Jon Corzine to keep the prison open.

"I am shocked the governor wants to close one of the state's newest facilities when there isn't enough room for the prisoners we have already," Addiego said.

The plan is also getting static from the corrections officers union, whose members would also be scattered to other prisons.

"Public safety should not be compromised because somebody wants that property to look over at Philadelphia and build a condo on it or whatever else they want built," said Gregory Kelley, president of local 105 of the state corrections officers union.

Corrections officers argued poor conditions at Southern State, a Delmont-based medium-security facility in Cumberland County comprised of modular buildings, warrant closing that prison before Riverfront.

Camden County officials, however, say they'll be glad to see the prison go.

At a recent meeting in Lawnside, Camden County Freeholder Jeffrey Nash told an audience filled with angry corrections officers that the prison's closure is key to transforming the city. He said the prison was forced on residents and prevents the expansion of the city's downtown and of Rutgers University's Camden campus.

"The residents of this community believe in their hearts...they do not want the prison to be on that location," he said. "They view it as the way that their community can turn things around and they can't get it done with a prison on its most valuable property."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/plans_to_close_riverfront_stat.html

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

March 31, 2009

"How PersonhoodUSA Will Hurt All Pregnant Women" and Do People Who Support "Traditional Values" Value Pregnant Women? by Lynn Paltrow of Nationa Advocates for Pregnant Women

Please read Lynn's articles on Personhood and watch Dr. Deborah Frank debunk the mythology of "crack babies"

"How PersonhoodUSA Will Hurt All Pregnant Women"
by Lynn Paltrow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-m-paltrow/how-personhoodusa-and-the_b_176530.html
March 24, 2009

PersonhoodUSA apparently sees itself as the new, hipper, more effective incarnation of the anti-abortion movement. PersonhoodUSA hopes that by establishing the "pre-born, as legal persons with protection under the law" it will end the "injustice of abortion." Its attempt to do this last November through a "personhood" ballot measure in Colorado's failed miserably. Nevertheless, PersonhoodUSA, is committed to "working tirelessly to establish personhood in every State."

What supporters of this approach don't mention is that if the unborn have legal personhood rights, pregnant women won't. There is really no way around this. As National Advocates for Pregnant Women's video demonstrates, if successful, this strategy will mean that upon become pregnant, women will lose their civil and human rights.

As Angela Carder learned it is not just life vs. choice - but life vs. life. Angela Carder, 25 weeks pregnant, was critically ill. More than anything, she wanted to live. A court, however, ordered cesarean surgery based on claims of fetal rights. The surgery was performed over her objections as well as those of her physicians and family. Angela Carder died two days later - the cesarean surgery listed as a contributing factor. The fetus was born alive but died within two hours.

PersonhoodUSA doesn't address how personhood laws will affect women like Ms. Carder and others who have no intention of ending a pregnancy. Perhaps this is why legislators in at least five states have introduced bills that carry their message and several more are working on ballot measures like the one in Colorado.

In fact, North Dakota's house recently passed a personhood bill that would require the state to interpret all of the state's laws to apply to "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" including a fertilized egg. In addition to inviting such facetious Onion-like headlines as "North Dakota House Passes 'Homo' Rights Law, this bill creates the basis for policing all pregnant women.

Upon becoming pregnant, women would lose their right to medical privacy, since under North Dakota law doctors are required to report to child welfare authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child (an organism) is abused or neglected. Accordingly, if this bill passes, pregnant women in North Dakota who are obese, have diabetes, or smoke should probably report directly to child welfare authorities - or perhaps some new agency, such as the Department of Organism Protection.

Indeed, a recent horrifying incident in California could become commonplace in North Dakota. A pregnant woman in California experienced a miscarriage at one-month gestation. Her doctor advised her to preserve the embryonic tissue in the freezer until she and her husband decided whether to request genetic testing or to take the remains to a mortuary. When they decided against testing, they called a mortuary. They were asked for a death certificate and were directed to the County Coroner to obtain one. The Coroner instructed them to call the police. When they complied, the police heard the words "human remains" and responded by descending on their home, entering without a warrant, and searching for what they assumed was the evidence of a crime against a person.

While the California case reflects miscommunication, families that experience miscarriages would have to expect such intrusions in states that pass personhood laws. Similarly pregnant women who miss prenatal care appointments, don't take prenatal vitamins, or drink any amount of alcohol could be deemed abusive under criminal child [organism] abuse and endangerment laws. Personhood laws would also provide the basis for prosecuting women for murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide if they suffered miscarriages or stillbirths.

In fact states with these laws would look a lot like South Carolina, the only state that has, by judicial fiat, effectively adopted a personhood law. More than 90 pregnant women and new mothers have been arrested there based on fetal personhood claims. Recently, a pregnant woman in South Carolina fell from a 5th floor window. The press reported this incident as a suicide attempt. She survived but suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fall. Last month she was arrested on charges of homicide by child abuse and is still being held without bail.

PersonhoodUSA asserts that "each and every human being must be respected and protected from fertilization until natural death." Their legislation, however, would have the effect of excluding pregnant women from this protection. People committed to a true culture of life need to oppose their legislative proposals, supporting instead ones that include the interests of the women who give that life.

Lynn M. Paltrow
March 30, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-m-paltrow/do-people-who-support-tra_b_180946.html
Do People Who Support "Traditional Values" Value Pregnant Women?

I have to thank Andrea Lafferty, of the Traditional Values Coalition for her response to a piece I wrote opposing Personhood USA's efforts to give full constitutional rights to the unborn from the moment of fertilization. In her commentary she hopes to discredit my organization, National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) by exposing our commitment to all pregnant women, including those who love their children but are unable to overcome a drug problem in the short term of pregnancy.

Ms. Lafferty argues that NAPW has an "extremist agenda." Specifically she highlights the fact that NAPW "defends drug-addicted women from prosecutions for endangering their unborn babies." Indeed we do, and at least for one reason we would have thought Ms. Lafferty and her Coalition, would approve of: because threatening pregnant women with prosecution creates an incentive for them to have abortions.

Given how hard it is for most people to overcome an addiction problem quickly (just ask Rush Limbaugh) as well as the difficulty of obtaining appropriate treatment (especially for pregnant and parenting women), laws that threaten to punish women who carry their pregnancies to term in spite of a drug problem place substantial pressure on them to get unwanted abortions.

In fact, this kind of prosecution in North Dakota (one of the states where a personhood bill has been introduced) compelled a pregnant woman to have an abortion. In 1992 Martina Greywind, who was approximately twelve weeks pregnant, was arrested. She was charged with reckless endangerment based on the claim that by inhaling paint fumes, she was creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to a "person" -- her "unborn child." After her arrest, a lawyer for the anti-abortion group Lambs of Christ filed a petition seeking to have the woman's brother, Ken Greywind, appointed her legal guardian. Mr. Greywind explained in court papers "I believe she is contemplating an abortion in order to have the charge of reckless endangerment dismissed."

Ms. Greywind did obtain an abortion. And indeed, the prosecutor dropped the charges citing the fact that she had "terminated her pregnancy."

We admit it. NAPW opposes laws that create an incentive for women to terminate otherwise wanted pregnancies. We would hope that such opposition would provide common ground for NAPW, Ms. Lafferty and her organization.

We would also hope that we could work together to spread the good news about these mothers and their children. Ms. Lafferty says in her comments about NAPW that we defend mothers who "are addicting their unborn babies and subjecting them to extreme risks of mental retardation or death." Ms. Lafferty, like many people, believes that a pregnant woman who uses any amount of an illegal drug - and crack cocaine in particular -- will inevitably harm her "unborn child."

For nearly two decades, the popular press was filled with inaccurate information about the effects of in utero cocaine exposure. Media hype, however, is not the same as scientific evidence. In 2004 leading researchers in the field of prenatal exposure to drugs signed an open letter explaining that these women are not "addicting" their "unborn babies." "Addiction" they wrote "is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be 'addicted' to crack or anything else."

Moreover, these experts as well as federal courts and leading federal government agencies now confirm that "the phenomena of "'crack babies' . . . is essentially a myth." As the National Institute for Drug Abuse has reported, "Many recall that 'crack babies,' or babies born to mothers who used crack cocaine while pregnant, were at one time written off by many as a lost generation... It was later found that this was a gross exaggeration." And, as the U.S. Sentencing Commission has concluded, "[t]he negative effects of prenatal cocaine exposure are significantly less severe than previously believed" and those negative effects "do not differ from the effects of prenatal exposure to other drugs, both legal and illegal." Most recently the New York Times, relying on actual experts, including the pediatrician featured in this NAPW video, set the record straight with a story entitled "The Epidemic That Wasn't".

So instead of assuming the worst, we could join forces and together oppose punitive approaches that are known to encourage some women to have abortions, and to discourage many more from seeking prenatal care.

NAPW knows that there are not two kinds of women -- those who have abortions and those who have babies. Sixty-one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, and another 24 percent will go on to become mothers. Over the course of their lives, 85 percent of all women bring life into this world. NAPW advocates for all of them. We don't expect Ms. Lafferty to join us in our work to ensure that women have access to safe legal abortion services, but we do hope she will support our efforts to ensure that women who do want to go to term aren't punished for doing so.

And watch the video.....If you have never had the opportunity to hear Dr. Deborah Frank speak this is it....

This video is based on a lecture that Dr. Deborah A. Frank, Pediatrician gave on February 11th 2009 at a continuing education program entitled Drugs, Pregnancy and Parenting: What the Experts in Medicine, Social Work and Law Have to Say.

Deborah Frank, M.D. is a Professor of Pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine, where she has taught since 1981. She is also the Founder and Director of the Grow Clinic at Boston Medical Center, and Principal Investigator of the Children's Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program ("C-SNAP"). C-SNAP's goal is to monitor the impact of policy changes on nutrition, growth and development of low-income children, ages 0-3 years. She also conducts research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and has given testimony to the United States and Massachusetts House and Senate.

Dr. Frank has written numerous peer-reviewed and published scientific articles and papers including, Deborah A. Frank et al., Maternal Cocaine Use: Impact on Child Health and Development, 40 Advances in Pediatrics 65 (1993). She is also the author of the seminal meta analysis published by The Journal of the American Medical Association (“JAMA”), one of the most distinguished peer-reviewed medical journals in the United States. This comprehensive, systematic, and authoritative analysis of the medical research assessing the relationship between maternal cocaine use during pregnancy and adverse developmental consequences for the fetus and child concluded that:

"[T]here is no convincing evidence that prenatal cocaine exposure is associated with any developmental toxicity difference in severity, scope, or kind from the sequelae of many other risk factors. Many findings once thought to be specific findings of in utero cocaine exposure can be explained in whole or in part by other factors, including prenatal exposure to tobacco, marijuana, or alcohol and the quality of the child’s environment."

Here is the URL for the video http://www.vimeo.com/3916613

Posted by lois at 10:11 AM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maximum Security: The True Meaning of Freedom by Alan Gompers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29, 2009

MA: Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc The real reason law-and-order types love mandatory-minimum sentencing? It's money in their pockets.

News Features, The Boston Phoenix
Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc
The real reason law-and-order types love mandatory-minimum sentencing? It's money in their pockets.
By HARVEY SILVERGLATE AND KYLE SMEALLIE | December 9, 2008

With aromatic puffs of change, Bay State stoners rejoiced on Election Day. But even the haziest of revelers may have missed the full significance of Question 2, a statewide ballot initiative to decriminalize marijuana possession in small amounts. Not only will this bring more humane and responsible marijuana laws, it will also suppress — however slightly — an insidious, contemporary offshoot of what President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to as the "military-industrial complex": the idea that if private industry and government joined in promoting ever-increasing defense spending, war as well as national bankruptcy were more likely.

Almost a half-century later, that mindset has extended to both the local and federal law-and-order sectors, which have argued for, and experienced, virtually unabated growth. Today, law-enforcement groups regularly lobby against criminal-punishment reforms, and for the creation of new criminal statutes and overly harsh prison sentences. While these efforts are cloaked as calls for public safety, they are essentially creating more business for themselves.

The problem has become so widespread that some private correctional corporations — companies that subcontract services, and even privately owned jails and prisons, to all levels of government — have even lobbied the government to enact and maintain ever broader criminal laws and higher sentences. Those private prisons are now rolling in the profit, and taking on more prisoners every day as federal and state prisons run out of room to house their inmates.

But these lobbyists' success — and that of various law-enforcement groups — has given rise to a veritable "prison-industrial complex" that not only uses fear to suppress these groups' true intentions — it leaves taxpayers footing the bill.

Bleak house of detention
It was with these self-aggrandizing interests in mind that the Massachusetts Districts Attorneys' Association (MDAA) and other tough-on-crime groups fiercelyopposedthe marijuana-decriminalization referendum.

After all, if the penalties for minor marijuana possession were to remain on the statute books, more police, prosecutors, prison guards, and parole officers — and their lucrative overtime — would also be retained.

To their dismay, however, Question 2 passed by an overwhelming 65 to 35 percent voter margin, and will be implemented 30 days after election results are certified. As a result, many law-enforcement officials may soon be without an important source of job security and additional revenue — namely, the $30 million a year (as one study by a Harvard economics professor estimated) spent enforcing the soon-to-be-history current marijuana-possession laws.

Never mind that the forthcoming statutory reform is, from even a moderate law-and-order perspective, relatively benign. According to Question 2, anyone caught with less than one ounce will forfeit the substance and pay a $100 fine, while minors will additionally have to complete a drug-awareness program (including group sessions and community service). Current penalties for growing and trafficking in marijuana, as well as the prohibition against driving while high, will remain exactly as they are.

These facts were conveniently left out of the MDAA's efforts to "inform" voters.The group could not legally make direct contributions to ballot campaigns — publicly funded groups are unable to do so, thanks to a 1978 Supreme Judicial Court decision — yet in opposing Question 2, it still managed to fuel a whisper campaign and add misleading info to its Web site (hosted, by the way, on the state's ".gov" domain).

Thus, these law-enforcement officials were able to avoid any technical wrongdoing while lobbying for an increased legislative arsenal — feathering their own nests at the expense of liberty and sensible public policy.

Bear in mind, though, that our First Amendment protects not only speech, but also "the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So state and local law-enforcement personnel, like other citizens, do have the right to lobby voters and even members of the legislature to promote more expansive criminal laws and stricter penalties. But self-serving lobbying and public-relations offensives, disguised as seeking protections for society, should be treated with exceptional scrutiny and skepticism.

Though disheartening, their actions are an age-old fact of life best described by Charles Dickens in his classic 1853 novel Bleak House: "The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself."

Coke vs. crack
A similar battle waged in Massachusetts last summer, when law-enforcement groups sought once again to thwart criminal-justice reform. At the time, a legislative effort to help nonviolent offenders find employment opportunities by changing Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) laws was brought before the State House of Representatives — and, thanks to the efforts of state Attorney General Martha Coakley and other law-enforcement officials, essentially squashed.

The proposed bill would have restricted the type of personal information that some employers receive, thereby assisting the many individuals saddled with CORI records who struggle to find employment and end up back behind bars.

Massachusetts's recidivism rates are nearly 40 percent, according to a study by the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. And the CORI law's branding of even the most innocuous offender is, by all accounts, partly responsible for this dismal situation. So advocates of the bill asserted that changing CORI could ease the massive overcrowding at the state's prison system, which the Department of Corrections recently estimated to be operating at "144 percent of capacity." (Currently, there are 12,000 inmates imprisoned — a disgraceful state record.)

Another aspect of that same failed bill would have reduced mandatory-minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, which advocates said also contribute to overcrowding.

As the law stands, anyone convicted of selling drugs within 1000 feet of a school zone automatically receives a two-year prison term — leaving no room for judicial discretion. That means a first-time offender with no record could receive more prison time than, say, an armed robber. And the mandatory nature of these sentences eliminates the possibility of parole.

Because of the numerous schools in dense urban areas, poor, black, and Hispanic populations are at a greater risk of facing the mandatory-minimum measures, according to a recent Prison Policy Initiative study.

Yet despite the clear inequalities in the current law, as well as the benefits that reform holds out to both taxpayers and public safety — not to mention liberty — the legislative term ended in July with no action taken on the reform legislation.

This problem with drug sentencing is nothing new. For more than two decades, prison-reform supporters have condemned the federal sentencing disparities for the mostly middle and upper-class defendants caught using cocaine, and the mostly lower-class, inner-city habitants caught with cheaper crack cocaine.

Part of the now-infamous war on crime, a 100-to-1 ratio was implemented in sentencing for crack cocaine. So, a person caught selling five grams of crack received the same prison sentence as someone dealing 500 grams of powder cocaine.

The mandatory-minimums were harsh, too. That same person caught selling five grams of crack received a five-year minimum sentence; 50 grams or more and the minimum was 10 years.

Despite clear racial, economic, and cultural disparities, cries from constituents fell on deaf ears while law-enforcement lobbyists successfully cajoled and frightened congressional leaders.

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, for one, strongly opposed reducing the crack-cocaine minimums. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), a 325,000 member national organization that bills itself as "the voice of our nations' law-enforcement officers," also spent $550,000 lobbying Congress over the past three years. Among their interests: stopping the Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act, along with promoting a litany of other Draconian measures.

Prison business
To be fair, government employees weren't the only ones to lobby against crack-cocaine sentence equalization. A little-recognized subset of this vast prison-industrial complex lobbying community is composed of private correctional corporations, which sign lucrative contracts with governments to house inmates for profit, often shipping them to facilities out of state.

It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.

For the past 25 years, the CCA has built itself into a corrections powerhouse — it operates nearly 70 facilities housing more than 75,000 detainees. As it does for, say, contractors in Iraq, though, privatization comes with an inevitable lack of oversight. The CCA has been involved in numerous wrongful-death lawsuits, and it has been a constant target of prison-reform groups who claim the private facilities are understaffed and their detainees abused.

Yet another private prison provider, the GEO Group, which has annual revenue topping $1 billion, has come under intense scrutiny for dozens — if not hundreds — of inmate deaths in the past decade. One such prisoner death led to the recent indictment of Vice-President Dick Cheney on November 18, in which a rather ornery Texas state prosecutor claimed that Cheney's substantial investments in the GEO Group made him partly responsible for prisoner abuse — a dubious prosecutorial theory (in fact, it was dismissed this Monday), but with a grain of practical truth.

Nonetheless, states facing prison overcrowding turn to these corporations to outsource inmates. California, for example, has commissioned the CCA to ship convicts as far away as Tennessee (where financially strapped relatives and friends frequently cannot visit). The CCA has exported nearly 4000 California prisoners to states across the country under a $115 million contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Over the next three years, 8000 more are planned to be shipped out of the Golden State.

The societal costs — both human and financial — of these policies and practices are enormous, and growing. California — which carried a $15.2 billion deficit into this fiscal year — spends $10 billion per year on more than 170,000 inmates. Like the Bay State, California also faces high recidivism rates; state records show that more than two-thirds of released inmates return to prison within three years. In this context, a ballot battle — possibly more contentious than Massachusetts's Question 2 scuffle — raged this past election season. Two separate initiatives, each from vastly different perspectives, concerned the state's approach to criminal justice.

The first, Proposition 5, would have expanded treatment programs for those convicted of drug-related and nonviolent crimes. While the costs for more rehabilitation were estimated at $1 billion a year, analysts said $2.5 billion would have been saved from the reduction in prison costs. But, much like what transpired in Massachusetts, the California District Attorney's Association, along with other law-enforcement agencies, vehemently opposed the initiative. These agencies raised nearly $400,000 and, through the Web site of their umbrella group, People Against Proposition 5, issued "facts" such as "Proposition 5 creates an 'Express Lane' for drug dealers to get back on the streets and peddling dope to our kids."

Conversely, nearly $1 billion would have been added to the cops' coffers under Proposition 6, which proposed new laws for prosecutors to fight gang activity. Many of the same law-enforcement agencies that opposed Prop 5 supported Prop 6, joined by some "tough-on-crime" lawmakers who slashed $3 billion in education from the state's 2008 budget. Included among the Prop 6 supporters was — you guessed it — the CCA.

The CCA's lobbying efforts, as well as those of publicly funded law-enforcement agents, wasn't enough to convince Californians, as nearly 70 percent of voters opposed Prop 6. Yet similarly high numbers opted against Prop 5.

Maybe the cops' Prop 6 push for more crime-fighting money and power were too transparent for voters. Interestingly, though, their appeals to public safety in opposing Prop 5 seemed to work. California voters were quite possibly unaware that, by maintaining strict criminal laws and closing off alternatives to incarceration, law-enforcement agencies maintained their strength.

The 1 percent solution?
From Niccolò Machiavelli to Rudy Giuliani, fear has been the foundation of ever-expanding political power (and, for some, job status and security). And it continues to drive the prison-industrial complex.

Just as the United States Department of Justice was able to pressure Congress to enact the infamous USA-Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, here in the Bay State, an appeal to fear ("protect the children") prevailed in stampeding the legislature. In late July, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law "An Act Further Protecting Children," a bill providing stricter mandatory-minimum sentences for sex offenders who target children.

The way this legislation was presented made opposition appear callous and irresponsible. Who, after all, wouldn't want to keep child predators off the streets?

Yet tucked away in this bill are provisions that do far more than simply protect the young. The proposal enables prosecutors to obtain private records from Internet and telephone providers by issuing an "administrative subpoena." Prosecutors, having only to assert that records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation," were granted ever-expanding access into otherwise personal data. The telecoms, in turn, were granted blanket immunity from claims of privacy violation. There was no mass protest from the customers.

But at least one person did object. Newton's Democratic state senator Cynthia Creem voiced skepticism in a July 29 Newton TAB op-ed. Mindful that the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act have been used to target not just terrorists but journalists, activists, and Muslim charities, she wrote: "I cannot support this attack on privacy rights when less-invasive and equally effective means are available. Our liberties should never be sacrificed in the name of prosecutorial convenience." A few other scattered voices in the State Senate echoed Creem. But perhaps Creem's reference to "convenience" missed the point — prosecutorial power appears to have been the more likely goal.

When the bill was passed by the Massachusetts House and presented to the Senate, Coakley, having learned that other politicians were questioning the bill's scope, lobbied hard so that no language would be changed (which would have required passage again through the House). With robust MDAA support, as well as the backing of key legislative leaders, 11 different role-call votes for amending provisions of the bill were voted down. Less than two weeks after this truncated debate, the bill became law. Experienced observers of the legislative process marveled at the ability of Coakley and her allies to forestall changes to the legislation.

The United States — "land of the free" — has five percent of the world's population, but it also, thanks to the lobbyists and officiants behind the prison-industrial complex, shamefully holds 25 percent of the world's incarcerated. It has a higher rate of imprisonment than the planet's most notorious despotisms. One in 100 Americans is in jail.

These citizens are not only unproductive, they cost the public $45 billion a year, according to a June report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. And yet they also keep a small army of officers and other law-enforcement support personnel on the job. The monumental taxpayer's tab that would be unnecessary with saner criminal-justice laws is virtually incalculable.

It is long past the time to re-think how much credence we should give to those who claim to be experts in law enforcement, but who, in reality, have simply discovered a steady and ever-increasing source of job security.

Their First Amendment right to lobby for endless new criminal laws and ever-tougher prison sentences is indeed constitutionally protected, but this does not mean that these law-enforcement officials' criminal "expertise" should endow them with a free pass from critical scrutiny. Legislators and the public need not sit by idly as their fellow citizens are unjustly arrested, prosecuted, and often incarcerated for increasingly lengthy periods of time as the law-enforcement industry's wallet grows fat. The next time prison-industrial-complex adherents tell us we need tougher laws and sentences for our own good, we should point out precisely whose good is being served.

Harvey Silverglate is a criminal defense and civil-liberties lawyer and writer. Kyle Smeallie, former associate editor of the Boston College Heights, is Silverglate's research assistant and paralegal. Silverglate's next book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, is forthcoming next year from Encounter Books.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/
\

Posted by lois at 11:22 AM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2009

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

(Scroll down for specific reforms.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 27, 2009

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

Sweeping Reform Ends Harsh Sentences for Non-violent Addicts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SF: EVENT TO SHED LIGHT ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS IN CALIFORNIA'S PRISONS

SF: EVENT TO SHED LIGHT ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS IN CALIFORNIA'S PRISONS
March 27, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO (BCN)

A group of formerly incarcerated battered women will gather Saturday in San Francisco to call for more survivors of domestic violence to be freed from California's prisons.

Organizers hope to shed light on some cases where women were convicted of killing their abusers and served decades in prison before being paroled, or are still incarcerated.

"First, our communities failed to protect them and their children from their abusers' violence, and then failed to consider how the abuse they experienced related to the crime," said Emily Harris of the advocacy group Free Battered Women.

"They're not a threat to society, and they're one of many populations the governor could be looking at as a way of alleviating prison overcrowding," said Harris.

She also argued the move would save the state much-needed money.

Recent laws in California have allowed women incarcerated for killing their abusers to challenge their sentences, using evidence about the effects of domestic abuse.

According to Harris, of the approximately 11,000 women in prison in California, 80 percent have said they've experienced some kind of abuse either as children or adults, and 60 percent have reported physical abuse as adults, primarily from their spouses or domestic partners.

Of that 60 percent, hundreds are in prison for killing their spouses or domestic partners, as an act of defense either of themselves or their children, Harris maintained.

Saturday's event will feature 15 women who will speak about their experiences, read poetry, and discuss pending cases. It begins at 4 p.m. at the Women's Building at 3543 18th St.
http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=SF-BATTERED-WOMEN-bagm-#

Posted by lois at 10:04 AM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2009

"Resistance Behind Bars- The Struggles of Incercerated Women" by Vikki Law

I just finished reading "Resistance Behind Bars" written by Vikki Law. In case you don't know about it or haven't had the chance to I recommend you buy a copy and read it.
I will quote a little from the introduction in which Vikki writes about her response to the comment: "Women (in prison) don't organize."
"I began to search for stories---and women--who would disprove this assertion. I found mentions of lawsuits, and using various state department of corrections' websites looked up their address addresses and wrote them letters asking if they would share their experiences with me." And "To ensure that I was representing their struggles accurately and to give them the opportunity to add, update or delete any of the tales they do not want to share with the public, I sent each woman draft after draft of the chapters her voice and experience(s) appeared in. "
The voices of women form form the majority of the book which took 8 years to complete. The chapters reflect the concerns of the women with whom Vikki corresponded and include Barriers to Basic Care, Mothers and Children, Sexual Abuse,Education, Women's Work, Grievances, lawsuits and the Power of the Media. Other chapters focus on Breaking the Silence, Resistance Among Women in Immigrant Detention and an Historical Background.
The book is written in plain English. It frames resistance by women very differently than the kinds of resistance by men prisoners which has come to define "resistance."
The book is published by PM Press and you can order a copy on-line (https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=91) or I am sure your local bookstore can order it for you.

Posted by lois at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2009

MI: Juvenile lifer bills in Senate “The greatest hope I have had in 33 years.”

Juvenile lifer bills in Senate
“The greatest hope I have had in 33 years.”

By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan Citizen

DETROIT — Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy charged a 17-year-old with assault with intent to commit murder, felonious assault, assault with a dangerous weapon on school grounds, carrying a concealed weapon and felony firearm after he wounded another 17-year-old in the stomach inside Central High School Feb. 18.

The two were gambling in the halls, a practice that has being going on since at least the 70s, according to one Central High alumni. The 17-year-old faces up to life in prison. Days later, police raided CHS and carried away teens as young as 14 on police buses to face loitering charges, whether or not they were students.

“Until they improve the conditions in our schools, there will be more trouble,” said Steve Conn, a high school teacher for 22 years with the Detroit Public Schools. “Despair runs so deep among our young people, who are treated like their lives don’t matter.”

A 16-year-old Detroiter was ordered to stand trial on first-degree murder charges Feb. 5 in connection with the shooting death of an Oak Park police officer, under unclear circumstances. Numerous suburbanites wrote in to daily news message boards calling for his execution, or at least life without parole, although he has not yet been tried or convicted.

These children, and numerous others in Detroit and communities across Michigan, have 400 counterparts already in the system, children who were sentenced at the age of 17 or below to life in prison without parole, and at least 1,000 others serving lengthy jail terms. The number of juvenile non-parolable lifers is up substantially from slightly over 300 a year ago, indicating that more juveniles are newly entering the system, condemned to death behind bars.

But there is hope on the horizon.

“The Juvenile Life Without Parole bills that were passed last year in the House of Representatives represent the greatest hope I have had in 33 years,” wrote Edward Sanders. “These bills must be voted on in the Senate now, to give the second chance we pray for.”

Sanders, who is currently incarcerated at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon, was 17 when he was convicted in a drive-by shooting in 1976, although he was not the shooter.

He is awaiting word from the Michigan parole board regarding his request for commutation. Before Michigan prisons ceased providing college courses, he obtained his bachelor’s degree and now helps other prisoners as a “jail-house” lawyer and spiritual advisor.

Sanders was referring to Senate Bills 0171 through 0176, sponsored by State Sens. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor), Martha Scott (D-Highland Park) and Michael Switalski (D-Roseville). Co-sponsors include Glenn Anderson, (D-Westland), Michael Prusi (D-Ishpeming), Samuel “Buzz” Thomas (D-Detroit), Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit), and Gilda Jackson (D-Huntington Woods).

House versions were passed Dec. 4 by an overwhelming margin of 83-22. The current Senate bills, however, will have to go back to the House again for approval before they can be forwarded to Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

“The idea of sending a person whose brain is not fully developed to prison for life has been determined to be inhumane,” said Brater. “The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world, and Michigan is one of few states in the U.S. with this practice. Many of these youth were sentenced along with an adult defendant who got a lesser sentence and many were victims of abuse or neglect or are people with a mental illness or disability.”

The series of bills therefore addresses alternatives to incarceration for mentally ill individuals and diversion from jail under other circumstances as well as the central life without parole question.

S.B. 0173 says, “An individual who was less than 18 years of age when he or she committed a crime for which he or she was sentenced to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, or who was sentenced to imprisonment for life, including imprisonment for life without parole eligibility, who has served 10 years of his or her sentence is subject to the jurisdiction of the parole board and may be released on parole.”

The bill specifies several aspects of the prisoner’s individual situation for the parole board to consider.

All six bills, introduced Jan. 29, are now in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by State Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-Dewitt). Cropsey has expressed reluctance to let the bills out of committee.

Brater said that although the Senate is predominantly Republican, efforts are constantly being made to reach out to that side of the aisle. A particular consideration is the huge cost of such incarcerations. Both the Greater Detroit and Michigan Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions calling for a reduction in Michigan’s prison population, along with numerous other organizations and even major media.

Felicia Tyson, part of a group of family members of juvenile lifers, said that they are continuing to organize and lobby Senators as well as Representatives, in the same fashion that won passage of the House bills last year.

“We are asking people to write, phone and email their legislators, and are planning a mass visit to the House in April,” said Tyson. Over 200 family members and even victims turned out for a lobbying effort last year.

The website for the group can be found at www.secondchanceforyouth.com.

The group’s address is P.O. Box 251941, West Bloomfield, MI 48325-1941 and phone 248-738-2111. An online petition to legislators is available at petition@secondchanceforyouth.com.

http://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=7116&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com

Posted by lois at 05:11 PM | Comments (0)

Court Allows Brooklyn Jail to Reopen But Cannot Double Jail size Without Environmental and Land-Use Reviews

Court Allows Brooklyn Jail to Reopen
By SEWELL CHAN
March 18, 2009
NY Times

A Brooklyn judge has cleared the way for the city to resume sending inmates to the Brooklyn House of Detention, which stopped housing them overnight in 2003, but has ruled that the city’s effort to nearly double the size of the jail required environmental and land-use reviews.

The ruling, released on Wednesday by Justice Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, was a partial victory for the city and a partial victory for opponents of the jail, including community groups and elected officials.

“The court’s decision clears the way for the city to continue to use the Brooklyn Detention Center as a jail for Brooklyn, just as it has since 1957,” Correction Commissioner Martin F. Horn said in a statement. “We will continue to maintain the jail in a condition for occupancy at its capacity.”

Randy M. Mastro, a lawyer for the jail’s opponents, called the ruling “a huge victory for the community and a vindication of its right to meaningful public input before the city commits itself to such massive projects.”

The judge rejected the argument by community groups and the city comptroller that reopening the jail, which has 759 beds, required additional reviews. But she ruled that the city may not proceed on expanding the jail without such reviews. Plans call for a 720-bed expansion.

The jail, at 275 Atlantic Avenue in Boerum Hill, was not used to house inmates overnight from June 2003 until last November, when the department placed 31 inmates there. During those five years, the jail was used during the day to hold hundreds of inmates scheduled to appear at the adjacent courthouse.

Opponents of the jail said that its closing helped revitalize Downtown Brooklyn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19jail.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion

Posted by lois at 10:31 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2009

Real Cost of Prisons Comix (the book)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Buzz:

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

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

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

March 10, 2009

Introduction to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Jailhouse Lawyers By Angela Davis

Introduction to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Jailhouse Lawyers
By Angela Davis
March 02, 2009
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20752

One of the most important public intellectuals of our time, Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent more than twenty-five years behind bars, the majority of that time on death row. He is supported by millions all over the planet, not only because of the egregious repression he has suffered at the hands of the state of Pennsylvania, but because he has used his abundant talents as a thinker and writer to expand our knowledge of the hidden world of jails, prisons, and death houses in which he has spent the last decades of his life. As a transformative thinker, he has always taken care to emphasize the connections between incarcerated lives and lives that unfold in the putative arenas of freedom.

As Mumia has repeatedly pointed out, those of us who live in the "free world" are not unaffected by the system of state violence that relies on imprisonment and capital punishment as pivotal strategies for ordering society. While those behind bars suffer the most direct effects of this system, its raced, gendered, and sexualized modes of violence bolster the institutions and ideologies that inform our lives on the outside. In all of his previous books, Mumia has urged us to reflect on this dialectic of freedom and unfreedom. He has asked us to think deeply about the racial and class disproportions in the application of capital punishment, rarely taking advantage of the opportunity to call upon people to save his own life, but rather using his writing to speak for the more than 3,000 people who inhabit the state and federal death rows. Over the years, I have been especially impressed by the way his ideas have helped to link critiques of the death penalty with broader challenges to the expanding prison-industrial-complex. He has been particularly helpful to those of us—activists and scholars alike—who seek to associate death penalty abolitionism with prison abolitionism.

In this book, Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., Mumia Abu-Jamal introduces us to the valuable but exceedingly underappreciated contributions of prisoners who have learned how to use the law in defense of human rights. Jailhouse lawyers have challenged inhumane prison conditions, and even when they themselves have been unaware of this connection, they have implicitly followed the standards of such human rights instruments as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). Mumia argues that the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) is a violation of the Convention Against Torture, for in ruling out psychological or mental injury as a basis through which to recover damages, such sexual coercion as that represented in the Abu Ghraib photographs, if perpetrated inside a U.S. prison, would not have constituted evidence for a lawsuit. If jailhouse lawyers are concerned with broader human rights issues, they also defend their fellow prisoners who face the wrath of the federal and state governments and the administrative apparatus of the prison. Mumia Abu-Jamal's reach in this remarkable book is broadly historical and analytical on the one hand and intimate and specific on the other.

We are fortunate to be offered this history of jailhouse lawyers and this analysis of their legacies by one who can count himself among their ranks. Mumia's words in the opening section of the book about the general conditions that create trajectories leading prisoners to jailhouse law are compelling. He writes of a "deep, abiding disenchantment with lawyers that forces some people to become their own, and also to assist others. In every penitentiary, in every state of the U.S., there are men and women who have learned, through study and experience, and trial and error, the principles of the law." See note.

Many of the jailhouse lawyers evoked in the pages of this book—including the author himself—were well educated before they entered prison. Studying the law was more a question of focusing their intellectual skills on a different object than of familiarizing themselves and becoming comfortable with the discipline of learning. But there are also those jailhouse lawyers who literally had to teach themselves to read and write before they set about learning the law. Mumia points to what was for me a startling revelation: jailhouse lawyers comprise the group most likely to be punished by the prison administration—more so than political prisoners, black people, gang members, and gay prisoners. Whereas jailhouse lawyers are now punished by what Mumia calls "cover charges," historically they could be charged with internal violations for no other reason than that they used the law to challenge prison guards, prison regimes, and prison conditions.

The passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)—understood by many to have saved the court from frivolous lawsuits by prisoners—was a pointed attack on the jailhouse lawyers Mumia sets out to defend in these pages. He successfully argues that many significant reforms in the prison system resulted directly from the intervention of jailhouse lawyers. Some readers may remember the scandals surrounding conditions in the Texas prison system. But they will not have known that the first decisive challenges to those conditions came from jailhouse lawyers. Mumia refers, for example, to David Ruiz, whose 1971 handwritten civil rights complaint against Texas prison conditions was initially thrown away by the prison administrator charged with having it notarized. As we learn, Ruiz rewrote the complaint and bypassed the prison administration by giving it to a lawyer, who handed it over to a federal judge. This case, Ruiz v. Estelle, was eventually merged with seven other cases originating with prisoners. They challenged double- and triple-celling and work regimes that incorporated the violence of plantation slavery.

Moreover, Texas, along with other southern prison systems, relied on what were known as "building tenders," i.e., armed prisoners acting as assistants to guards, for the governance of the institution. The largely white guards and building tenders poised against the majority Mexican- and African-American prisoners led to "abuse, corruption and officially sanctioned injustice." For those who assume that charitable legal organizations in the "free world" were always responsible for the prison lawsuits that led to significant change, Mumia reminds us that what is now known as "prison law" was pioneered by prisoners themselves. These lawyers behind bars practiced at the risk of punishment and even death. Ruiz himself was placed in the hole after filing this lawsuit against the warden. But, as Mumia points out, the state of Texas was eventually compelled to disestablish the building tender system and to curtail its overcrowding and the overt violence of its regimes. Such contemporary suits as the recent one brought in part by the Prison Law Office against the State of California, which focuses on overcrowded conditions and the lack of health care in California prisons, have been precisely enabled by the work of jailhouse lawyers—those who risked violence and even death in order to make their voices heard.

In light of the major transformations that have historically resulted from the work of jailhouse lawyers, it is not surprising that Mumia argues strenuously against the Prison Litigation Reform Act, whose proponents largely relied on the notion that litigation by prisoners needed to be curtailed because of their proclivity to submit frivolous lawsuits. One of the cases most often evoked as justification for the passage of the PLRA was mischaracterized as claiming cruel and unusual punishment because the prisoners received creamy instead of chunky peanut butter. This was not the entire story, which Mumia offers us as a powerful refutation of the underlying logic of the PLRA. Popular representations of prisoners as intrinsically litigious were linked, he points out, to representations of poor people as more eager to receive welfare payments than they were to work. Thus he connects the 1996 passage of the PRLA under the Clinton administration to the disestablishment of the welfare system, locating both of these developments within the context of rising neoliberalism.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Jailhouse Lawyers is a persuasive refutation of the ideological underpinnings of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The way he situates the PLRA historically—as an inheritance of the Black Codes, which were themselves descended from the slave codes—allows us to recognize the extent to which historical memories of slavery and racism are inscribed in the very structures of the prison system and have helped to produce the prison-industrial-complex. If slavery denied African and African-descended people the right to full legal personality and the practices of racialized second-tier citizenship institutionalized the inheritance of slavery, so in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, prisoners find that the curtailment of their capacity to seek redress through the legal system preserves and reaffirms that inheritance.

Mumia's profiles include both men and women, both people of color and white people, with disparate motivations and often very different ways of identifying or not identifying themselves as jailhouse lawyers. Prisoners have challenged the law on its own terms in ways that recapitulate the grassroots organizing by ordinary people in the South that led eventually to the overturning of laws authorizing racial inferiority.

As Mumia points out, if there is increasing respect for the religious rights and practices of people behind bars, then it is largely due to the work of jailhouse lawyers. In the state of Pennsylvania, where Mumia himself is imprisoned, one extremely active jailhouse lawyer profiled in the book is Richard Mayberry, who initiated many important lawsuits, including the case known as I.C.U. (Imprisoned Citizens' Union) v. Shapp, which broadly addressed health, overcrowding, and other conditions of confinement in Pennsylvania prisons.

The I.C.U. case ended in a settlement, which required an agreement by all parties. Mayberry served as class representative and signed on behalf of thousands of state prisoners, and a court-agreed settlement went into force, creating new rules that covered the entire state system. The I.C.U. provisions became the foundation for every subsequent regulation that governed the entire state, and they lasted for decades, until the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (82)

Mumia not only offers accounts of cases and profiles of prison litigators who have had a lasting impact on the prison system in the United States, he also reveals the extent to which jailhouse lawyers provide legal assistance to their peers, both with respect to their cases and with respect to institution violations. In relation to the latter, outside lawyers are often actually prohibited from representing prisoners, whereas jailhouse lawyers are permitted to assist prisoners in their defense of institutional charges.

Whether the lawsuits generated by jailhouse lawyers are expansive in their reach, potentially affecting the lives of large numbers of prisoners, or whether they are specifically focused on the case of a single individual, they have indeed made an enormous difference. Mumia Abu-Jamal has once more enlightened us, he has once more offered us new ways of thinking about law, democracy, and power. He allows us to reflect upon the fact that transformational possibilities often emerge where we least expect them.

Free Mumia!

ANGELA YVONNE DAVIS is Professor Emerita of History of Consciousness at the University of California and author of eight books. In recent years a persistent theme of her work has been the range of social problems associated with incarceration and the generalized criminalization of those communities that are most affected by poverty and racial discrimination. She draws upon her own experiences in the early 1970s as a person who spent eighteen months in jail and on trial, after being placed on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted List." She has also conducted extensive research on numerous issues related to race, gender and imprisonment. She is a member of the executive board of the Women of Color Resource Center, a San Francisco Bay Area organization that emphasizes popular education of and about women who live in conditions of poverty. Having helped to popularize the notion of a "prison industrial complex," she now urges her audiences to think seriously about the future possibility of a world without prisons and to help forge a twenty-first century abolitionist movement. Her most recent books are Abolition Democracy and Are Prisons Obsolete?, both published in the Open Media Series. Her forthcoming books, The Meaning of Freedom and Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself A New Critical Edition will also be in the Open Media Series, published by City Lights Books.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. The USA by Mumia Abu-Jamal
Foreword by Angela Y. Davis
288 pages | $16.95
ISBN: 9780872864696
Published by City Lights Books

Posted by lois at 07:34 PM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2009

New book: Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women

Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women
By Vikki Law
PM Press
Now available

In 1974, women imprisoned at New York’s maximum-security prison at
Bedford Hills staged what is known as the August Rebellion. Protesting the brutal beating of a fellow prisoner, the women fought off guards, holding seven of them hostage, and took over sections of the prison.

Why do activists know about Attica but not the August Rebellion?
Resistance Behind Bars documents collective organizing and individual
resistance among women incarcerated in the U.S. and challenges the reader to question why these instances and efforts have been ignored and why many assume that women do not organize to demand change. It fills the gap in the existing literature, which has focused mostly on the causes, conditions and effects of female imprisonment.

Women have significantly disrupted the daily operations of their prison to protest injustices and demand change. More often, however, they have employed less visible means such as forming peer education groups, clandestinely organizing ways for children to visit mothers in distant prisons and raising public awareness about their conditions.

By emphasizing women's agency in resisting individually as well as organizing collectively against their conditions of confinement, Resistance will spark further discussion and research on
incarcerated women's actions and also galvanize much-needed outside support for their struggle.

About the Author:
Victoria Law is a writer, mother, and photographer. She is also the co-founder of Books Through Bars—NYC and publisher of the zine Tenacious: Art and Writings from Women in Prison. Her new book, Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women (PM Press, 2009), is the culmination of 8 years of research, writing and listening to the stories of incarcerated women.

Product Details:
Published by PM Press
ISBN: 978-1-60486-018-4
Pub Date: February 2009
Format: Paperback
Page count: 260
Size: 6 by 9
Subjects: Women’s Studies, Penology, Prisons, Prison Abolition
Ordering information: https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=91/

For more about the book and upcoming events: http://resistancebehindbars.org

"Written in regular English, rather than academese, yet full of fire, this is an impressive work of research and reportage. I hope you're able to get this to a greater audience, and that it sparks
awareness and resistance. Well done!" –Mumia Abu-Jamal

"There are too few books written about womyn in prison. Many focus on these womyn as victims only. But this book is different. Its focus is on the herstorical resistance of womyn prisoners! This is necessary information for all of us to have in our consciousness, especially our abolitionist consciousness." --Bo (r.d.brown), former political prisoner, founding mother of Out of Control: Lesbian Committee to Support Women Political Prisoners and volunteer with the
Prison Activist Resource Center

“Excellently researched and well documented, Resistance Behind Bars is a long needed and much awaited look at the struggles, protests and resistance waged by women prisoners. Highly
recommended for anyone interested in the modern American gulag.” --Paul Wright, former
prisoner, founder/publisher of Prison Legal News and editor of Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration

“Victoria Law's eight years of research and writing, inspired by her unflinching commitment to listen to and support women prisoners, have resulted in an illuminating effort to document the
dynamic resistance of incarcerated women in the United States.” --Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz,
historian, feminist, indigenous rights activist, author, most recently of Roots of Resistance: History of Land Tenure in New Mexico

Posted by lois at 08:47 PM | Comments (0)

March 05, 2009

Video and 2 articles on today's (3-5-09) developments on the Rockefeller Drugs Laws

Tony Papa interview in today's video section of the NY Times......
http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/ny-region/1194811622241/index.html#1194838345272

http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/03/04/assembly-to-pass-drug-reform/

Gotham Gazette
The Wonkster Blog
Assembly to Pass Drug Reform
March 4th, 2009

Today the Assembly is expected to pass drug law reform.

The bill would eliminate most mandatory minimum sentencing while giving judges more sentencing options.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, the bill represents a new fervor shown by Assembly Majority Leader Sheldon Silver for drug law reform.

Earlier this year, Silver released a position paper calling for an overhaul of the drug laws and for New York to address drug addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal matter.

Law makers say the reforms will restore justice to the legal system and save the state money by committing fewer offenders to prison.

“More than 35 years after the Rockefeller Drug Laws were enacted, it is clear that these laws mandating imprisonment for even lower-level offenders have failed to effectively combat drug abuse or reduce the incidence of violent crime,” said Silver in a prepared statement.

“This legislation restores humanity to drug policy here in New York. It expands the sentencing options available to judges, without endangering the public. Judges are in the best position to know who is deserving of prison and who is not. State prison and mandatory prison sentences are not the magic bullets to address drug abuse and its attendant problems; restoring judicial discretion is the solution.”

The Assembly has passed similar legislation in the past only to see it die in the Republican controlled Senate. Now that the Democrats are in control of the Senate it is not clear if they have a large enough majority to get the legislation passed.

However, the sponsor of drug law reform in the Senate, Sen. Eric Schneiderman, is reportedly trying to access whether he has enough votes to move the bill. The Senate will at least discuss their version of the bill today.

Advocates fear that if action is not taken in both houses in the next few weeks their issue will be put aside during heated budget discussions.

Here is an overview of the Assembly bill provided by Silver’s office:

Amends the Penal Law to make all non-violent first and second felony drug offenders (other than class A felony offenders) eligible for probation (5 years), a local jail sentence (up to one year) or a split sentence (jail plus probation) upon a plea of guilty or upon conviction —- the judge could always sentence the offender to the existing terms of state imprisonment.

Excepts from the benefits of this sentencing reform the following exclusion crimes, some of which are newly created, as well as other crimes arising out of the sale of drugs on school grounds and day care facilities:

Drug sale while in physical possession of a loaded gun;

Adult (age 21 or older) sale to a minor (under age 18);

Kingpin (multiple class B felony and above transactions).

Judges continue to have discretion to sentence offenders to the maximum terms available under current law, i.e., judges will still be able to sentence first time class B felony offenders to up to 9 years in prison and second time class B felony offenders without a violent predicate felony offense to up to 12 years in prison.

CREATES new sentencing options for judges without disrupting those options available under current law.

Judges can continue to divert offenders away from prison with district attorney consent (e.g., DTAP, STEPS); current law requires the same judicial consent which this reform continues.

Judges can order, upon application of defendant or district attorney alcohol or substance abuse assessment of defendant.

Subject to appropriation, requires that one court in each county be designated as a drug court with appropriate training provided for all participants.

Judges may specify candidates to be enrolled in DOCS shock incarceration programs (subject to DOCS safety considerations), including second-time, class B felony offenders (subject to exclusions).

Judges may order early entry to ASAT and CASAT (substance abuse treatment programs designed for offenders in DOCS custody).

Judges can directly sentence offenders to “parole supervision” (90 days incarcerated at the DOCS Willard drug treatment program followed by supervision and treatment in the community: CPL 410.91) by:

eliminating DA veto on class D felony crimes; and restoring to judges the discretion to order such a “parole supervision” sentence for specified class C and B drug felony crimes.

REFORMS technical aspects of the drug laws to make them more responsive and fairer.

Eliminates a plea restriction so that certain drug offenders may plead guilty to a reduced charge with DA consent (class A felony to a class B felony). Clarifies procedure for making motions to dismiss “in the furtherance of justice” by adding a new subdivision to CPL 170.40 and 210.40 to authorize dismissal, where a defendant charged with a non-exclusionary, drug crime has successfully complied with the terms of a judicial diversion order.

Increases the weight thresholds for certain class A felony level offenses following up the reforms made in 2004.

Revises the so-called “automobile/room” presumptions by converting the “presumption” into a “permissible inference” and ensures that the inference does not apply when the defendant was neither the owner nor the operator of the vehicle and the controlled substance was outside the area in which the defendant could readily grab it.

EXTENDS the benefits of drug law reform to those under sentence.

Permits class B felony drug offenders in prison (previously excluded from taking advantage of the 2004 drug law reforms) to seek courtresentencing to a determinate term under the new sentences;

Allows defendant appeals from denial of re-sentence and re-sentence orders.

INCREASES chances for drug offenders under sentence and after completing sentence to successfully reintegrate into society.

Mandates that DOCS assess drug treatment need for every inmate admitted to custody.

Requires that youths placed in or committed to OCFS facilities be assessed for alcohol and substance abuse.

Mandates substance abuse treatment as part of probation where appropriate.

Allows DOCS to enroll class B drug felons (on entry to DOCS or thereafter) into the Shock Incarceration Program, consistent with the Governor’s Article VII bill.

Requires OASAS certification for all persons performing drug abuse assessment and treatment and all programs providing such services for the Department of Correctional Services.

Enacts a sealing law authorizing judges, on motion so that the district attorney can respond, to conditionally seal a limited category of first-time, drug felony and misdemeanor convictions, upon application, if the defendant has remained crime-free for a specified period or has completed a court-ordered treatment program; existing statutory requirements barring individuals convicted of such crimes from being licensed for certain purposes would not be amended.

Provides transitional services to offenders leaving DOCS custody to better help them find housing, employment and apply for government benefits so that they do not relapse and continue moving through the revolving door.

QUANTIFIES the savings of reforming the drug laws.

Requires the State Comptroller to certify each year the number of days and number of persons diverted from state prison as a result of the bill and, to the greatest extent possible, quantify the savings generated as a result.

Requires that such amount certified by the Comptroller be segregated annually in a dedicated fund to be used exclusively for drug and alcohol treatment and related alternative to incarceration programs.

PLACES a premium on knowledge and information to effectuate reform.

Requires use of a community justice crime information mapping system to target efforts to further provide drug abuse treatment and reduce drug-related crime in different communities around the state.

Syracuse Post-Standard
No Rockefeller drug law reform in New York would be a real crime

By Anthony Papa and Gabriel Sayegh
March 05, 2009

New York's draconian Rockefeller drug laws represent a misguided and ineffective regime for addressing drug use and addiction -- health issues, not criminal issues. With legislation passing this week by the state Assembly, New York may be ready to shift toward a more reasonable -- and affordable -- approach guided by public health and safety.

Enacted in 1973, the Rockefeller laws mandate extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Supposedly intended to target major dealers, most of the people incarcerated under these laws are convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses; many have no prior criminal record.

Approximately 12,000 people are locked up for drug offenses in New York state prisons -- nearly 21 percent of the prison population. Over 4,000 are serving long terms for simple possession. Nearly 90 percent of the people incarcerated are black or Latino, though whites use and sell illegal drugs at equal or higher rates.

As New York reels from the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, Gov. David Paterson and the Legislature are scrambling to close ever-expanding deficits. It costs New Yorkers $45,000 a year to keep someone locked up, while treatment costs a fraction of that.

Does it make sense to spend over $500 million every year on laws we know don't work? These laws did not stop the crack epidemic of the 1980s. They are completely incapable of stemming the accidental drug overdose epidemic hitting New York City and Long Island today. And they have turned the Department of Corrections into the state's largest, most costly and ineffective treatment provider.

The Assembly's bill would finally reform the failed Rockefeller laws. Sponsored by Corrections Committee Chairman -- and drug treatment counselor -- Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, Speaker Sheldon Silver and a host of others, the bill contains the four key elements: restoration of judicial discretion in drug cases, so judges can place appropriate people in treatment; expansion of alternative-to-incarceration programs and community-based drug treatment; fair sentencing reform; and retroactive sentencing relief for eligible people serving unjust sentences under the Rockefeller laws.

The Assembly's proposal would not allow people who commit violence to be resentenced.

The Assembly could have done even more, such as including full repeal of the second felony offender law. Even so, the bill represents a significant step forward. Modest reforms of 2004 and 2005 continue to deny people the right to apply for shorter terms, and do not increase judicial discretion. After 2004, more people went to prison under Rockefeller drug laws than before.

The need for reform is no longer in debate. The question is, what kind of reform will we see in New York? The Assembly has proposed real reform, advancing a public health and safety approach to drug use and addiction. This is the direction we need to go. Drug addiction shouldn't be a crime -- the real crime would be if reform was stymied yet again.

Anthony Papa, author of "15 to Life," served 12 years in prison under the Rockefeller drug laws.
Gabriel Sayegh is project director for the New York City-based Drug Policy Alliance.

Proposed drug law reforms

Assembly Bill A6085, introduced last week and expected to pass this week, includes the following provisions which balance safety and justice:

Ö Return discretion to sentencing judges to tailor the penalty to the facts and circumstances of each drug offense.

Ö Allow a sentence of probation and treatment where appropriate.

Ö Strengthen in-prison treatment and re-entry services.

Ö Expand the use of alternatives to incarceration, including community-based treatment, where appropriate.

Ö Allow certain eligible individuals incarcerated for low-level drug offenses to apply for resentencing; individuals convicted of violent crimes are not eligible.

Ö Expand use of drug courts throughout New York.

Ö Increase penalties for sale of a controlled substance to a child.

Ö Establish a new "kingpin" crime for organized drug-trafficking.

Posted by lois at 05:39 PM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2009

PA: Suit Names 2 Judges Accused in a Kickback Case

Suit Names 2 Judges Accused in a Kickback Case
By IAN URBINA
Published: February 13, 2009
NY Times

Several hundred families filed a class-action suit Friday against two Pennsylvania judges who pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting $2.6 million in kickbacks for sending juveniles to private detention facilities.

“At the hands of two grossly corrupt judges and several conspirators, hundreds of Pennsylvania children, their families and loved ones, were victimized and their civil rights were violated,” said Michael J. Cefalo, one of the lawyers representing the families. “It’s our intent to make sure that the system rights this terrible injustice and holds those responsible accountable.”

Pennsylvania lawmakers called on Friday for hearings into the state’s juvenile justice system. And the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, which blew the whistle on the judges, said it had sworn affidavits from families who said they had sought court-appointed counsel but were told that their children would have to wait weeks, sometimes months, for a lawyer. During that time, the children would have to remain in detention, the families said.

The two judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, pleaded guilty in Federal District Court in Scranton, Pa., to wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years in prison.

As many as 5,000 juveniles are believed to have appeared before Judge Ciavarella while the kickback scheme was going on. The judges are currently free on an unsecured $1 million bond, and they have surrendered their passports and a condominium in Florida. Neither is allowed out of the state without permission.

State Senator Stewart J. Greenleaf, a Republican from Montgomery County who is the chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intended to hold a hearing to find ways to help the children and their families once the federal investigation was done. A spokesman in Mr. Greenleaf’s office said one option was to provide money from the crime victims compensation fund.

“Money is important, but my son’s life has already been completely destroyed,” said Ruby Cherise Uca, whose son, Chad, 18, was sentenced to three months of detention by Judge Ciavarella in 2005, when Chad was in eighth grade.

Chad, who had no prior offenses, was charged with simple assault after shoving a boy at school and causing him to cut his head on a locker. Chad returned to school his freshman year, but he was so far behind in classes and so stigmatized by his teachers and peers, his mother said, that he soon dropped out.

Federal investigators remained silent Friday about whether they would file charges against the operators of the detention centers or who else they were considering as possible conspirators.

But a law enforcement official confirmed Friday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation visited a transitional housing program in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., where Judge Ciavarella furloughed inmates who had been sentenced by other judges, as federal authorities continue to scrutinize actions by Judge Ciavarella and Judge Conahan.

Lawyers for Robert J. Powell, the owner of one of the detention centers, released a letter saying Mr. Powell was not complicit in the kickback scheme but was a victim of demands from the judges for payment.

Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, said that juveniles should not be allowed to waive their right to counsel, as is permitted in Pennsylvania, and that if families wanted a lawyer but could not afford one, they should get representation.

Mr. Schwartz added that Luzerne County, where the judges handled cases, had only one public defender on staff for juveniles. The juvenile court processes about 1,200 juvenile defendants a year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14judge.html?scp=2&sq=PA&st=cse
A version of this article appeared in print on February 14, 2009, on page A13 of the New York edition.

Posted by lois at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2009

Torture at Angola Prison: President Obama promises to close Guantanamo, but a court proceeding in Louisiana exposes brutality closer to home

Torture at Angola Prison

President Obama promises to close Guantanamo, but a court proceeding in Louisiana exposes brutality closer to home

by Jordan Flaherty / January 27th, 2009

The torture of prisoners in US custody is not only found in military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. If President Obama is serious about ending US support for torture, he can start here in Louisiana.

The Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola is already notorious for a range of offenses, including keeping former Black Panthers Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, in solitary for over 36 years. Now a death penalty trial in St. Francisville, Louisiana has exposed widespread and systemic abuse at the prison. Even in the context of eight years of the Bush administration, the behavior documented at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola stands out both for its brutality and for the significant evidence that it was condoned and encouraged from the very top of the chain of command.

In a remarkable hearing that explored torture practices at Angola, twenty-five inmates testified last summer to facing overwhelming violence in the aftermath of an escape attempt at the prison nearly a decade ago. These twenty-five inmates — who were not involved in the escape attempt — testified to being kicked, punched, beaten with batons and with fists, stepped on, left naked in a freezing cell, and threatened that they would be killed. They were threatened by guards that they would be sexually assaulted with batons. They were forced to urinate and defecate on themselves. They were bloodied, had teeth knocked out, were beaten until they lost control of bodily functions, and beaten until they signed statements or confessions presented to them by prison officials. One inmate had a broken jaw, and another was placed in solitary confinement for eight years.

While prison officials deny the policy of abuse, the range of prisoners who gave statements, in addition to medical records and other evidence introduced at the trial, present a powerful argument that abuse is a standard policy at the prison. Several of the prisoners received $7,000 when the state agreed to settle, without admitting liability, two civil rights lawsuits filed by 13 inmates. The inmates will have to spend that money behind bars — more than 90% of Angola’s prisoners are expected to die behind its walls.

Systemic Violence

During the attempted escape at Angola, in which one guard was killed and two were taken hostage, a team of officers — including Angola warden Burl Cain — rushed in and began shooting, killing one inmate, Joel Durham, and wounding another, David Mathis.

The prison has no official guidelines for what should happen during escape attempts or other crises, a policy that seems designed to encourage the violent treatment documented in this case. Richard Stalder, at that time the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, was also at the prison at the time. Yet despite — or because of — the presence of the prison warden and head of corrections for the state, guards were given free hand to engage in violent retribution. Cain later told a reporter after the shooting that Angola’s policy was not to negotiate, saying, ”That’s a message all the inmates know. They just forgot it. And now they know it again.”

Five prisoners — including Mathis — were charged with murder, and currently are on trial, facing the death penalty — partially based on testimony from other inmates that was obtained through beatings and torture. Mathis is represented by civil rights attorneys Jim Boren (who also represented one of the Jena Six youths) and Rachel Connor, with assistance from Nola Investigates, an investigative firm in New Orleans that specializes in defense for capital cases.

The St. Francisville hearing was requested by Mathis’ defense counsel to demonstrate that, in the climate of violence and abuse, inmates were forced to sign statements through torture, and therefore those statements should be inadmissible. 20th Judicial District Judge George H. Ware Jr. ruled that the documented torture and abuse was not relevant. However, the behavior documented in the hearing not only raises strong doubts about the cases against the Angola Five, but it also shows that violence against inmates has become standard procedure at the prison.

The hearing shows a pattern of systemic abuse so open and regular, it defies the traditional excuse of bad apples. Inmate Doyle Billiot testified to being threatened with death by the guards, “What’s not to be afraid of? Got all these security guards coming around you everyday looking at you sideways, crazy and stuff. Don’t know what’s on their mind, especially when they threaten to kill you.” Another inmate, Robert Carley testified that a false confession was beaten out of him. “I was afraid,” he said. “I felt that if I didn’t go in there and tell them something, I would die.”

Inmate Kenneth “Geronimo” Edwards testified that the guards “beat us half to death.” He also testified that guards threatened to sexually assault him with a baton, saying, “that’s a big black . . . say you want it.” Later, Edwards says, the guards, “put me in my cell. They took all my clothes. Took my jumpsuit. Took all the sheets, everything out the cell, and put me in the cell buck-naked . . . It was cold in the cell. They opened the windows and turned the blowers on.” At least a dozen other inmates also testified to receiving the same beatings, assault, threats of sexual violence, and “freezing treatment.”

Some guards at the prison treated the abuse as a game. Inmate Brian Johns testified at the hearing that, “one of the guards was hitting us all in the head. Said he liked the sound of the drums — the drumming sound that — from hitting us in the head with the stick.”

Solitary Confinement

Two of Angola’s most famous residents, political prisoners Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, have become the primary example of another form of abuse common at Angola — the use of solitary confinement as punishment for political views. The two have now each spent more than 36 years in solitary, despite the fact that a judge recently overturned Woodfox’s conviction (prison authorities continue to hold Woodfox and have announced plans to retry him). Woodfox and Wallace — who together with former prisoner King Wilkerson are known as the Angola Three — have filed a civil suit against Angola, arguing that their confinement has violated both their 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment and 4th amendment right to due process.

Recent statements by Angola warden Burl Cain makes clear that Woodfox and Wallace are being punished for their political views. At a recent deposition, attorneys for Woodfox asked Cain, “Lets just for the sake of argument assume, if you can, that he is not guilty of the murder of Brent Miller.” Cain responded, “Okay. I would still keep him in (solitary) . . . I still know that he is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates. I would have me all kind of problems, more than I could stand, and I would have the blacks chasing after them . . . He has to stay in a cell while he’s at Angola.”

In addition to Cain’s comments, Louisiana Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell has said the case against the Angola Three is personal to him. Statements like this indicate that this vigilante attitude not only pervades New Orleans’ criminal justice system, but that the problem comes from the very top.

The problem is not limited to Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola — similar stories can be found in prisons across the US. But from the abandonment of prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison during Katrina to the case of the Jena Six, Louisiana’s criminal justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world, often seems to be functioning under plantation-style justice. Most recently, journalist A.C. Thompson, in an investigation of post-Katrina killings, found evidence that the New Orleans police department supported vigilante attacks against Black residents of New Orleans after Katrina.

Torture and abuse is illegal under both US law — including the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment — and international treaties that the US is signatory to, from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1992). Despite the laws and treaties, US prison guards have rarely been held accountable to these standards.

Once we say that abuse or torture is ok against prisoners, the next step is for it to be used in the wider population. A recent petition for administrative remedies filed by Herman Wallace states, “If Guantanamo Bay has been a national embarrassment and symbol of the U.S. government’s relation to charges, trials and torture, then what is being done to the Angola 3 . . . is what we are to expect if we fail to act quickly . . . The government tries out it’s torture techniques on prisoners in the U.S. — just far enough to see how society will react. It doesn’t take long before they unleash their techniques on society as a whole.” If we don’t stand up against this abuse now, it will only spread.

Despite the hearings, civil suits, and other documentation, the guards who performed the acts documented in the hearing on torture at Angola remain unpunished, and the system that designed it remains in place. In fact, many of the guards have been promoted, and remain in supervisory capacity over the same inmates they were documented to have beaten mercilessly. Warden Burl Cain still oversees Angola. Meanwhile, the trial of the Angola Five is moving forward, and those with the power to change the pattern of abuse at Angola remain silent.

* Research assistance for this article by Emily Ratner.

Jordan Flaherty is a journalist based in New Orleans, and an editor of Left Turn Magazine. He was the first writer to bring the story of the Jena Six to a national audience and his reporting on post-Katrina New Orleans has been published and broadcast in outlets including Die Zeit (in Germany), Clarin (in Argentina), Al-Jazeera, TeleSur, and Democracy Now!. He can be reached at neworleans@leftturn.org.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/torture-at-angola-prison/

Posted by lois at 09:43 AM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2009

CA: Panel of Judges Rule State must release up to 57,000 prisoners---3 articles

From the Los Angeles Times
Judges back a one-third reduction in state prison population
Jurists issue tentative ruling in lawsuit brought by inmates, who say overcrowding in state prisons violates their right to adequate healthcare.
By Michael Rothfeld

February 10, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento — A panel of three federal judges, saying overcrowding in state prisons has deprived inmates of their right to adequate healthcare, tentatively ruled Monday that the state must reduce the population in those lockups by as many as 57,000 people.

The judges issued the decisionafter a trial in two long-running cases brought by inmates to protest the state of medical and mental healthcare in the prisons.

Although their order is not final, U.S. District Court Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt effectively told the state that it had lost the trial and would have to make dramatic changes in its prisons unless it could reach a settlement with inmates' lawyers.

State officials immediately said they would appeal.

If the state is ordered to reduce the prison population, it would likely be able to do so over two or three years, so it would not have to release large numbers of inmates at once. Some methods of cutting the population include limiting new admissions, changing policies so parole violators return to prison less frequently, and giving prisoners more time off of their sentences for good behavior and rehabilitation efforts.

The judges said these types of measures could save the state more than $900 million a year in prison costs, money that could be used by cities and counties to put those who otherwise would have gone to prison into local jails or treatment programs.

The state's 33 prisons were designed for 84,000 inmates, and they now hold 158,000, nearly double their designed capacity. The rest of the 170,000 in the correctional system are in out-of-state prisons and other facilities. The judges found that with inmates crammed into institutions, they could not receive the care to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution.

"There is . . . uncontroverted evidence that, because of overcrowding, there are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at the level of care they require," the judges wrote in a 10-page decision.

They said that triple-bunking of inmates in prison gymnasiums has increased the risk of infectious disease and that a shortage of doctors, nurses and correctional officers has denied inmates access to treatment and a decent system to keep their medical records in order.

In the ruling, the judges said they believe the state's prisons can safely operate at 120% to 145% of their designed capacity. Based on the current prison population, that would mean a potential reduction of 36,000 to 57,000 inmates. They reserved the right to change their numbers and did not say when their final order might come.

"It's a pretty comprehensive victory for us," said Michael Bien, a lawyer in San Francisco who has fought for mentally ill prisoners. "It was a message -- a very loud, clear message -- that it's time that the public officials in California took responsibility for their own criminal justice system."

Under federal law, judges cannot order the state to lock up fewer prisoners if such a move would endanger the public, and the panel said that would not be the case if reductions were done gradually.

But Matt Cate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's corrections secretary, said the ruling "poses a significant threat to public safety" because it could prevent the state from incarcerating as many criminals as it now keeps in seven to 10 prisons.

"If this panel issues a final decision, we will appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court," Cate said tersely during a news conference in Sacramento.

State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown called the ruling "the latest intrusion" on California's prison system by the federal courts. In a statement, he labeled the order "a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed."

The judges oversaw the trial starting in November and completed it last week. In their decision, they referred to the testimony of Jeanne Woodford, a former corrections secretary under Schwarzenegger, who told them overcrowding made it impossible for prisoners to get mental health treatment and medical exams. They also cited experts from Texas, Pennsylvania, Maine and Washington.

And the judges used Schwarzenegger's words and actions against him, citing the state of emergency the governor declared for the prisons in 2006 -- still in effect -- and quoting him as saying overcrowding had caused "substantial risk to the health and safety" of prison inmates and staff. They noted that Schwarzenegger has made budget-related proposals to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates, and that lawmakers have backed similar ideas.

"We cannot believe that such support would exist if the adoption of such measures would adversely affect public safety," the judges wrote, although the proposals they referred to have not garnered enough support to go into effect.

The state nearly reached a settlement with the inmates last year that would have reduced the prison population by tens of thousands, largely by shifting low-level offenders to local jails and rehabilitation programs. But that deal fell apart when Republican state lawmakers and county prosecutors objected.

Since then, the state has hardened its stance. Schwarzenegger and Brown are now demanding that Henderson terminate court oversight of prison medical care, which he seized from the state in 2006. They say the situation has improved with the hiring of new medical and correctional personnel.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la me-prisons10-2009feb10,0,4380330.story?track=ntothtml

Judges tell state to free thousands of inmates

Bob Egelko,Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

(02-09) 18:48 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- California needs to release tens of thousands of California inmates over the next two to three years to relieve overcrowding that has ravaged prison medical and mental health care, a panel of federal judges said Monday.

In what it labeled a tentative ruling, the three-judge panel said prison populations must be reduced so health care for inmates can be brought up to constitutional standards.

Crowding at prisons can be eased by measures that will not flood the streets with dangerous inmates, such as changing parole policies and sending some low-risk inmates to county custody, the panel said.

"The evidence is compelling that there is no relief other than a prisoner release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions," said the judges, who held a trial on prison overcrowding in San Francisco last fall.

California's 33 prisons hold nearly 160,000 inmates, about twice their designed capacity. The judges said they were prepared to impose a limit of between 120 and 145 percent of capacity, which would require 37,000 to 58,000 prisoners to be released.

The Schwarzenegger administration immediately announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court once the ruling becomes final.

Matthew Cate, secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said at a Sacramento news conference that the judges' order would put thousands of inmates back on the streets, posing "a significant threat to public safety."

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represented the state, said the court "does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed."

But Donald Specter of the nonprofit Prison Law Office, a lawyer for inmates who sued the state, said the ruling validates the group's position that overcrowding is creating dangerous conditions that can be eased only by reducing the prison population.

"Much of the evidence showed that it's been done in other states without having any impact on public safety," Specter said. "It's safe, it's reasonable, it's necessary. It's too bad that it's taken a court to recognize this."

The case arose from past rulings by two of the panel members, U.S. District Judges Thelton Henderson of San Francisco and Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento, that concluded the quality of medical care and mental health treatment in California prisons violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Karlton first ordered improvements in mental health treatment in 1995, and Henderson found that prison health care had been substandard since at least 2002.
Unnecessary deaths

In a 2006 ruling, Henderson said the $1.1 billion medical care system was causing the unnecessary death of one inmate per week. He said the state was incapable of repairing the system and appointed a manager to run it under his supervision.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a return to state control last month. He also has appealed Henderson's order that the state pay the first $250 million of the manager's $8 billion plan to rebuild prison hospitals.

In Monday's decision, the panel, which also includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, agreed with lawyers for the inmates that "crowding is the primary cause" of the constitutional violations.

Because prisons are jammed beyond capacity, there aren't enough doctors and nurses to help all the inmates who need care, or enough staff to make sure they're taking medications, the panel said. Crowding at some prisons is so severe, with inmates being triple-bunked in gyms, that it has increased the risk of diseases spreading among prisoners and staff, the judges said.

They noted that Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for the prisons in 2006, citing overcrowding that endangered inmates and staff. That order remains in effect.

Prison crowding could be eased through a combination of increasing sentence reductions for good behavior, turning over low-risk prisoners to counties for incarceration or treatment, and changing parole policies that now return large numbers of inmates to prison for minor violations, the judges said.

They said the state would save nearly $1 billion a year, money that could be used for local prisoner housing and rehabilitation.
No help in sight

Although prison health conditions are improving under the direction of court appointees, the panel said, inmates are still suffering, with no immediate help in sight. Construction plans will take years to implement, even if the deficit-plagued state can find a way to pay for them, the panel said.

The judges ordered state officials to consult with the prisoners' lawyers and other parties in the case, including prison guards and county prosecutors, on any steps that might be taken to lower the prison population.

Specter, the inmates' lawyer, said he was prepared to resume negotiations, but added that "there's no point in talking" if Schwarzenegger maintains his refusal to consider any such measures.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/10/MNGS15QM8V.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.

==================

Judges tentatively approve prison inmate reduction
dwalsh@sacbee.com
Published Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2009

A panel of three federal judges tentatively ruled Monday that California must reduce its prison population by up to 58,000 inmates in two to three years, saying that "the present state of overcrowding" makes it impossible for the state to deliver health care at a constitutional level.

The judges clearly said there are many avenues available to the state and counties other than an early-release program - like parole reform, increased good time credits and programs to reduce recidivism. They all fall under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act's definition of a "prisoner release order."

They will review the evidence presented at a 14-day non-jury trial and issue a final opinion, but the tentative ruling is meant "to give the parties notice of the likely nature of that opinion, and to allow them to plan accordingly," the judges said.

Inmates' attorneys expressed hope that, in the wake of the ruling, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his administration, legislative leaders, county representatives and all other affected parties will work out a settlement.

Reaction by Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matthew Cate made that seem unlikely. Cate correctly said the 10-page tentative ruling calls for 37,000 to 58,000 fewer inmates within two to three years.

Speaking for himself and Schwarzenegger, the secretary said they "disagree with the panel's ruling," and with the release of that many convicts "onto California streets," which he called "a significant threat to public safety."

Attorney General Jerry Brown labeled the tentative ruling "a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals."

If the ruling becomes permanent, Cate declared, it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. An appeal from the specially-convened panel bypasses the federal appellate level and goes directly to the high court, which could accept the matter for review, or let the ruling stand without review.

"This is not about overcrowding," Cate said. "We are providing a constitutional level of care now; so we have the right to keep these inmates in prison."

By contrast, the three judges said inmates' attorneys "have presented overwhelming evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the underlying constitutional violations."

They said conditions have "substantially increased the risk of the transmission of infectious illnesses among inmates and prison staff."

"It is our present intention," the panel said, "to adopt an order requiring the state to develop a plan to reduce the prison population to 120 percent or 145 percent of the prison's design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a period of two or three years." The judges noted the 33 adult prisons, with nearly 160,000 inmates, are operating at close to 200 percent design capacity.

The judges are Lawrence K. Karlton of Sacramento, who has presided for 19 years over an ongoing class-action lawsuit on behalf of mentally ill inmates; Thelton E. Henderson of San Francisco, who has presided for eight years over an ongoing class-action lawsuit on behalf of physically ill inmates and who put prison health care into receivership in 2006; and Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles, a judge of the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They are considered three of the most liberal judges in the nine-state appellate circuit.

"The state has a number of options Š that would serve to reduce the population of the prison Š without adversely affecting public safety," the judges said. "It could also use the savings that will result from the implementation of a population cap to provide for any increased burdens on the counties."

The judges acknowledged the state's $42 billion budget deficit and the fiscal implications of their final decision "are of the most serious order. There are simply no additional funds Š being made available by the state to deal with the critical problem created by prison overcrowding."

California legislators expressed mixed views Monday about releasing inmates, but declined to specifically address the tentative ruling because they had not read it.

"I don't think we should be releasing prisoners early," said Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville. "I think they're in prison because they created a threat to society. And I think we should do everything we can to keep them behind bars."

But Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, who sits on the Assembly Public Safety Committee, said that some prison inmates can be rehabilitated and released, thus relieving prison overcrowding without impairing public safety.

"I know there is a percentage of inmates who are in for less serious offenses who would not endanger the public directly, but there are always exceptions, and that's where we get in trouble," Ma said, adding that early release deserves scrutiny.

Inmate lawyer Michael Bien said the ruling "sends a message to the state to Š work out a solution that is win, win, win - that is good for public safety, good for sick prisoners and helps solve the budget deficit.

Steven Fama, an inmate attorney, pointed to proposals by Schwarzenegger in the past two years - "parole reform," "release of about 20,000 inmates over about 20 months."

He said of the 140,000 inmates released each year, most served only a few months.

"It's just a matter of finding the ones that would create the least risk if released a couple of months early," Fama added.
ShareThis
Call The Bee's Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189. The Bee's Jim Sanders also contributed to this report.
==================

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

February 08, 2009

Five Big Ideas We Should Be Talking About (including closing some prisons)

Published on OurFuture.org (http://www.ourfuture.org)
Five Big Ideas We Should Be Talking About
By Sara Robinson
Created 02/04/2009 - 1:19am
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020604/five-big-ideas-we-should-be-talking-about
Summary:

This is a moment for a big vision, painted in bold strokes. We need our own shelf full of challenging new ideas that will shake up people's assumptions, change the terms of the discussion, and expand the country's ideas about what's possible in this unique moment. Here are five Big Ideas we can use to get started.

Most progressives understand by now that the battle over the stimulus is, at heart, a philosophical debate over whether we're going to continue with 30 years of failed conservative economic policies, or chart a new direction for the country's future, built on an economics that's grounded in investment in the common good.

Given the stakes, it's frustrating to watch the discussion in Washington and on the news shows wander away from obvious solutions ("Buy American" policies, mortgage renegotiation, and increased oversight of bailout beneficiaries are such no-brainers it's hard to believe anybody serious would actually waste precious time debating them) and end up mired in ridiculous distractions and nit-picky details. This is a moment for a big vision, painted in bold strokes. We need our own shelf full of challenging new ideas that will shake up people's assumptions, change the terms of the discussion, and expand the country's ideas about what's possible in this unique moment.

Here are five Big Ideas that deserve to have a much wider hearing if we're really serious about getting America back up and running.
I am skipping to the one on prisons...for the full list, go to the URL above...
4
Close some prisons.

As I noted in a recent article , state governments are having a rough time right now in no small part because so many of them are bound by balanced budget amendments that prevent them from resorting to deficit spending as an option in bad times. Many of them are running deficits anyway, in direct violation of their own constitutions.

Given that state prison spending grows faster than education every year—and that prison costs are devouring state budgets from coast to coast, even as crime hits record lows—the first, best step toward balancing unstable state budgets may be to take a good hard look at how much we spend on prisons, and whether we're actually getting our money's worth.

And it may be an idea whose time has come. A recent poll in California found that voters of both parties ranked the public schools and health care as number one and two, respectively, on their list of public goods that must be protected during the state's financial crisis. Prisons, on the other hand, were at the very bottom of their list. They're more than ready to let this go.

Still finding the political will to do this is incredibly hard. Like defense contractors, the prison industry has a tremendous constituency, especially in the growing number of small towns where the prison is now the only major employer. Closing prisons throws thousands of people out of work. But it's also not the kind of public infrastructure investment that pays off in the long run.

As CAF research director Eric Lotke pointed out in a recent post:

Even as states spend nearly $50 billion on prisons every year and counties spend over $20 billion on jails, we build additional locked capacity. Even with U.S. incarceration rates at seven times historical and international norms, we build. Even as crime continues on its 15-year descent to levels not seen in 40 years, we find money to build even more.

The sacrifices we make to build these prisons are astonishing. Between 1987 and 2007, state spending on prisons increased by 40 percent (as a percent of the general fund). State spending on higher education decreased by 30 percent. We are financing our prisons by cutting our colleges.

We continue to build even though prisons are often disappointing for economic development. The best jobs go to people from out of town, and dollars spent on prisons have little “multiplier” effect. They don’t generate future additional dollars of economic activity, as do dollars spent on transportation, schools and so forth. Every dollar invested in highway construction generates $2.50 of gross domestic product in the short term. Raising teacher wages by 10 percent is associated with a 5 percent decrease in drop-out rates. But still we shortchange our schools and other rural enterprise, and build new prisons....

That’s where federal assistance can come in. Part of the infrastructure/investment/stimulus money can be directed to cover transitional costs out of the prison economy. A few billion dollars of federal money in the short term can help states break the prison hammerlock, and free them to redirect tens of billions of state dollars to other purposes—from schools to roads to hospitals.

Cutting money for schools, colleges, and hospitals pretty much guarantees that we're going to need more prisons down the road. The current crisis may be the moment we've been looking for to tell the private prison companies and corrections unions that enough is enough. We don't need what they're selling us anymore. And we can't afford it, either.

========================
These are just a few examples. The point is that in the middle of these tough times, things are becoming possible that have never been possible before. Small risks, small actions, or small ideas are unworthy of the moment, and of us. It's time for us to get beyond the old assumptions, and start to think big enough to stir the soul of the country.

Bernie Horn, Eric Lotke, Susan Ozawa, and David Sirota all participated in the development of this article.
Campaign For America's Future

Posted by lois at 08:38 PM | Comments (0)

January 28, 2009

MA: FAMM instroduces reform bills on mandatory minimum sentencing and school zones

Families Against Mandatory Minimums has just introduced two sentencing reform bills. They are comprehensive sentencing reform bills that go beyond similar bills that were filed in previous sessions. One would repeal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses while the other would reform the school zone drug sentencing law. As of this moment they do not have Bill numbers. FAMM is seeking sponsors of these Bills from our legislators in the Senate and the House.

Please call or please email your Senator and Rep. If you do not have their email address or phone # you can go to this site.....
http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenu.htm
Please remember to ask them to get back to you on their actions. All of this will take not more than 5 minutes.
Thank you!
Lois
After you have contacted your senator and rep....please forward to others!!

This message is from FAMM...
Please ask your legislators to sign on as co-sponsors! The deadline is February 4. Use FAMM's action center to help you make your calls to your representative and senator (you'll make two calls total). After each call, be sure to give us feedback on the response and click the "submit" button at the end of both calls. Call by going to this URL: http://capwiz.com/famm/callalert/index.tt?alertid=12519506

Mandatory minimum repeal bill. The repeal bill is called, "An Act to Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws for Drug Offenses." It would do away with one-size-fits-all sentencing for drug offenses. Instead, courts would be allowed to once again base sentences on the facts of the case and the offender's circumstances. It would also allow drug offenders to apply for parole, work release and earned "good conduct" credits. Identical versions of the bill were filed in the House of Representatives by Rep. Benjamin Swan and in the Senate by Sen. Thomas McGee. For more information, see our summary of the bill (
http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Mass_repeal_summary_for_members___1-23-09_%5B1%5D.pdf )
and fact sheet. (http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Mass_general_repeal_fact_sheet__1-21-09_%5B1%5D.pdf)

School zone drug sentencing bill. The school zone bill is called, "An Act to Reform the School Zone Law for Drug Offenses." It was filed in the House by Rep. Benjamin Swan (there is no Senate sponsor). This bill would reduce the size of drug-free school zones to 100 feet and get rid of the mandatory prison sentence for school zone violations. In addition, school zone penalties would no longer apply to drug sales that take place in private residences. (The drug offense would still be illegal, but there would no longer be an additional penalty due to the location of the home.) Finally, school zone sentences could be served at the same time as the sentence for the drug offense itself. For more information, see our summary of the bill (http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Mass_repeal_summary_for_members___1-23-09_%5B1%5D.pdf)
and fact sheet. (http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Mass_school_zone_fact_sheet__1-21-09_%5B1%5D.pdf)

Posted by lois at 01:59 PM | Comments (0)

January 27, 2009

From National Advocates for Pregnant Women: a victory in the Texas v. Lovill case!

From National Advocates for Pregnant Women: a victory in the Texas v. Lovill case! (January 27, 2009) www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org

In this case, Amber Lovill's probation was revoked because the State thought that sending her to jail would protect her fetus. Ms. Lovill had been on probation for forgery. A condition of probation was not using any illegal drugs. Ms. Lovill was in fact working hard to achieve abstinence, but experienced a relapse on the road to recovery. This relapse constituted a probation violation. Typically probation officers do not recommend putting a person in jail for this kind of probation violation. Rather, they typically seek to increase the number of drug screens that the probationer must submit to, or increase the amount of drug treatment that a person is required to attend. However, in Ms. Lovill's case, because she was pregnant, they recommended terminating her probation and locking her up. She was sent to Nueces County Jail, where she spent the duration of her pregnancy without appropriate prenatal care, drug treatment, or even sanitary facilities.

On appeal, Amber Lovill argued that the probation revocation constituted a form of selective prosecution based on the fact that she was pregnant, in violation of the 14th Amendment's prohibition against sex discrimination. NAPW and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Lovill on behalf of numerous national and grassroots public health and advocacy organizations The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas agreed. For the first time in any case or written order that we are aware of, a court has squarely held that probation revocation and imprisonment because of pregnancy violates the 14th Amendment's prohibition on sex discrimination. The Court of Appeals carefully read the record and found extensive evidence of the fact that the probation officers were unwilling to consider any alternative to incarceration – because Ms. Lovill was pregnant. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's findings of fact, holding that:

In this case, the trial court was not free to disregard the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing showing a discriminatory effect and purpose which allowed only a single conclusion. We hold that the fact finding is not supported by the record. The evidence shows (1) that Lovill was treated differently than others who violated the terms of their probation but were not pregnant, and (2) that her pregnancy was a motivating factor in the decision to prosecute.

The State argued that even if pregnancy was a factor in their decision, that would not constitute discrimination, explaining that "pregnancy causes added stress, anxiety and physical sickness to the expectant mother, which makes it difficult to comply with conditions of probation and to maintain the willpower necessary to overcome a drug addiction." The Court of Appeals squarely rejected this extraordinary claim, finding that it was based on "archaic and outdated views of pregnancy and of women." The court held that "even if the State acts with the intent of protecting a pregnant woman's health, it still may overstep the boundaries of the constitution when its actions result in discriminatory treatment based on pregnancy."

Ms. Lovill's counsel had hoped that the Court of Appeals would issue an order dismissing the entire prosecution. The Court of Appeals decision, however, only addresses whether Ms. Lovill established sex discrimination claim. This means that the case is not over. Nevertheless, Ms. Lovill's attorney is confident that he will be able to obtain a speedy and favorable resolution of her case.

NAPW and the ACLU congratulate Ms. Lovill for her persistence in her defense. We also congratulate Brian Miller, Ms. Lovill's counsel for his zealous representation and excellent defense work in this case.

Posted by lois at 03:27 PM | Comments (0)

January 24, 2009

Pahrump NV: Opponents raise their voices

"The PUC "isn't four or five stiffs that live in Pahrump or Tonopah," he said. Smith said each inmate needs 150 gallons of water per day. He appealed to fears over the sinking water table adding, "CCA is going to be sucking that with the biggest straw you've ever seen ... They've come here and sold this proposal to a county commission that doesn't know any better, that should know better."

Jan. 23, 2009
Opponents raise their voices

By MARK WAITE
PVT (Pahrump Valley Times)

Whether the controversy over the proposed federal detention center will bring national publicity to Pahrump remains to be seen.

A film crew from Dan Rather Reports, a program aired on HD Net, a subscriber network available on high-definition TV, was on hand to tape about 80 opponents of the Corrections Corporation of America project crammed into a strategy meeting in a back room at the Pahrump Community Library last Thursday night.

Cameraman Derek Reich is from Park City, Utah. Reporter Kim Balin is based in New York.

Balin said she didn't want to be quoted but said for publication they were researching how prisons affect towns on a national level.

There is no guarantee the excerpt will be aired on Dan Rather's show, she said.

Opponents of the proposed 1,500-bed facility for inmates awaiting trial in federal court or deportation, however, made their presence visible during a hearing in federal court Wednesday and plan to bring the fight to state district court and hearings before the Public Utilities Commission on water and sewer service.

"We're going to continue to fight this thing. We're going to fight it in state court. We're going to fight it in the Public Utilities Commission. It isn't a done deal. Don't get discouraged," Jeff Wiest told the crowd at the library.

Field organizer Frank Smith, from the Private Corrections Institute, which opposes the privatization of prisons, said Utilities Inc. of Central Nevada has yet to receive permission to annex the site into their service area.

Smith urged the crowd to "raise holy heck" at PUC meetings. He suggested they find out the addresses of PUC members and write letters to newspapers in their home towns.

The PUC "isn't four or five stiffs that live in Pahrump or Tonopah," he said. Smith said each inmate needs 150 gallons of water per day. He appealed to fears over the sinking water table adding, "CCA is going to be sucking that with the biggest straw you've ever seen ... They've come here and sold this proposal to a county commission that doesn't know any better, that should know better.

"They came to a little town like Pahrump and they said, 'We're going to bring development to you, we're going to bring jobs to you, money will rain from the sky.'"

Smith said the plans were originally for a facility with 350 beds, then 500 beds, then 1,072 beds, now 1,500 beds. He claimed CCA actually wants to house 3,000 prisoners here.

Smith also claimed there aren't enough federal prisoners from Nevada to fill the detention center. He added, the purpose of the facility will change from just housing federal inmates.

Smith exhorted the crowd with an impassioned speech. "They are going to fill this up with gangbangers from California because California has three people to a cell. They have them sleeping in gymnasiums. They don't know what to do with them all and CCA is looking at that market. This federal detention center is just BS. It's a pretense. It's a charade, and if the county commissioners didn't know that, they deserve to be recalled for stupidity if nothing else."

Smith repeated accusations CCA will buy their products nationally, not from local vendors.

When CCA Marketing Manager Louise Grant told Storey County Commissioners in Virginia City last week there were only a few residents in Pahrump opposed to their project, Smith jokingly remarked she was using "new math." Smith said 1,500 people signed a petition against the project in Pahrump.

Smith charged Pahrump residents were kept in the dark about the project until CCA "had all their ducks in a row" with county commissioners, the planning department and others in approval.

In fact, discussions with CCA were outlined in some detail in the PVT.

Hector Velarde, one of four residents who showed up to protest the rezoning of the East Mesquite Avenue property in front of the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission in July 2007, said he was one of only two people who received notice of the proposed zone change.

Attorney Nancy Lord said she needs donations to pay her legal aide and other expenses.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2009/Jan-23-Fri-2009/news/26457741.html

Posted by lois at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2009

NAACP to hold voter registration drives at Maine prisons

January 16, 2009 -
NAACP to hold voter registration drives at Maine prisons
Starting this year, the civil rights group will bring more education about voting to prisoners.

By ELBERT AULL
Portland Press Herald

PORTLAND, Maine — The NAACP will hold annual voter registration drives at every prison in Maine under a recently negotiated agreement with the state Department of Corrections.

The agreement sets Aug. 6 - the anniversary of a landmark law that expanded voting rights - as the annual kickoff for a week of registration events at state-run correctional facilities. A little more than a month ago, national NAACP President Benjamin Jealous visited the state to lobby for changes at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

The agreement will expand the civil rights group's efforts to bring more voter education to prisons in Maine, where state law allows every inmate to vote. The organization held drives at three of the six state correctional facilities last year.

''Clearly, it was not enough. This is the kind of piece that needs to have a repetitive, educational component,'' Rachel Talbot Ross, president of the Portland NAACP chapter, said Thursday.

Associate Corrections Commissioner Denise Lord said the agreement will take effect this year.

Lord said the civil rights group will hold an annual drive on Aug. 6 at the state prison and bring the event to the other five state-run facilities over the next week or so.

The events will be held at no cost to the state, she said.

The date is the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed tactics designed to prevent blacks from registering to vote in many southern states.

The NAACP held a voter-education workshop at the state prison in May and registered 200 inmates. Prisoners also met representatives from the state's Democratic, Republican and Green Independent parties during the event.

Organizers considered the workshop a success, but were frustrated that it took so long to arrange.

The Portland NAACP said it spent more than two years trying to persuade prison officials to allow the chapter to hold a voter-education and registration drive there.

Ross said the back-and-forth over the registration drive was one of the reasons she requested a visit from Jealous, who met with prison officials last month. NAACP leaders hope to finalize a broader cooperation agreement with state prison officials next month, Ross said.

Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow felons to vote while incarcerated.

Inmates in Maine cast absentee ballots in the towns where they lived before prison. The state does not track the number of prisoners who vote, said Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn.

Those who are working to expand inmates' voting rights in other parts of the country say registration events like those sponsored by the NAACP are too often taken for granted by prison officials.

Allowing inmates to vote is only one step to keep them connected with society, said Charles Sullivan, co-founder of Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, a Washington, D.C.-based reform organization.

''The second step - the actual voting - is very, very challenging,'' Sullivan said.

Prisoners in Washington, D.C., may vote as long as they are not serving felony sentences, but turnout figures for eligible inmates have historically been low, he said.

''It's hard to get voter education'' in correctional facilities, Sullivan said. ''I think we've got to make this a priority.''

Copyright 2009 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
http://www.correctionsone.com/news/1775898-NAACP-to-hold-voter-registration-drives-at-Maine-prisons

Posted by lois at 02:34 PM | Comments (0)

January 21, 2009

WI: Artists Against the Prison Industrial Complex

Wisconsin Books to Prisoners/Rainbow Books
426 W. Gilman St.
Madison, WI 53703
www.rainbowbookstore.org/b2p

Wisconsin Books to Prisoners a project of Rainbow Bookstore, is sponsoring an exhibit ARTISTS AGAINST THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. The show will run from Jan 30 – Feb 5th at Project Lodge, 817 E. Johnson in Madison. Opening reception is at 7 pm, Friday Jan 30th.

Over 70 drawings by prisoners that address the use of prisons, policing and punishment as a “solution” to social, political and economic problems will be on display.

The show was inspired by printmakers from the Justseeds Radical Artists’ Cooperative (www.justseeds.org) who created more than 20 posters in 2008 in honor of the 10th anniversary of Critical Resistance, a prison abolitionist movement. Twenty-five posters from Justseeds, which include Wisconsin artists Nicolas Lampert and Colin Matthes will be on display. Other political artists in Wisconsin have also contributed prints to the show.

Spoken word artists from the First Wave Spoken Word and Urban Arts Learning Community, including Sophia Snow, Alida Carlos Whaley and others will perform pieces topical to the show. Again, please join us for the opening reception on Friday, January 30th, from 7 pm -10 pm.

Contributions to support the costs of shipping books to prisoners are appreciated. Those unable to attend the show are welcome to send donations to Wisconsin Books to Prisoners/Rainbow Books, 426 W. Gilman St.. Madison, WI 53703. Tax-deductible donations can be made out to our fiscal sponsor "PC Foundation” with "WI Books to Prisoners" in the memo line.

Since the inception of Wisconsin Books to Prisoners in the fall of 2006, WBTP has sent over 12,000 books to prisoners nationwide. Although Wisconsin Books to Prisoners is still banned by the WI Department of Corrections from sending used books to prisoners in WI, it continues to send books to federal and state prisoners nationwide, including an outreach program for LGTB prisoners.

Wisconsin prisoners deserve the right to read and access to books from book to prisoner projects. Those concerned about the ban should phone the Governor’s office at 608-266-1212; the WI DOC Administrator at 608-240-5104; and the WI DOC secretary at 608-240-5055 to voice their objections.

Posted by lois at 02:30 PM | Comments (0)

January 14, 2009

THE PEOPLE’S AGENDA: VIRGINIA PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY

THE PEOPLE’S AGENDA

Adopted unanimously Jan. 10, 2009, by the VIRGINIA PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY

In this time of deepening economic crisis, the working people of Virginia are looking to the government to protect our interests. Instead, it is the Big Banks and Corporations that are receiving bail-outs, while we are faced with more layoffs, more cutbacks and more attacks on our standard of living. Obviously, the rich and powerful have their representatives. The working people need ours.

On Jan. 10, 2009, nearly 100 representatives from dozens of organizations and communities throughout Virginia met in Richmond to found a People’s Assembly to protect and promote the interests of working-class people and communities of color. After much discussion and listening to each other’s concerns, the delegates unanimously adopted this People’s Agenda which we are presenting to the Virginia General Assembly. Our first demands are the following:

Don’t Balance the Budget on the Backs of Virginia’s Workers!

We demand a Moratorium on Cutbacks, Layoffs, Evictions & Foreclosures!

We know there are alternatives to cutting the state budget. Virginia’s 6% corporate tax rate is the 7th lowest in the country and hasn’t been raised in more than 30 years. Raise it! Reinstate parole for Virginia prisoners so the state’s prison population can be reduced. Close the barbaric and unnecessary Red Onion SuperMax prison. No more state money to promote slavery-defending Confederate traitors. Bring home Virginia members of the National Guard and Reserves now stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we demand the following:

LABOR

No layoffs of public employees — Remove all legal restrictions to the right to collective bargaining and the right to organize (HJ-60) — Pass a living wage bill — Create permanent, sustainable employment for all Virginians willing and able to work; promote “green” jobs — Equal pay and pay equity for women and people of color — Provide economic protection for retirees — Promote equal opportunity in all facets of state government — Support passage of the federal Employee Free Choice Act — Support repeal of the federal Taft-Hartley Act — Support the repeal of the federal NAFTA and CAFTA trade treaties

BLACK COMMUNITY

Remove barriers to effective support of the development and sustenance of neighborhood, community-based initiatives that will effect youth development, continuing education and/or job skills — Promote training and apprenticeships and small business and nonprofit organizational development to meet the needs of the community — ake Juneteenth an “Emancipation Day” state holiday; form a state-level Juneteenth Commission to coordinate cultural and educational programs — Increase procurement contracts to minority-owned businesses — For every dollar spent on Confederate culture commemoration, a matching dollar should be spent to fund Black culture and achievement commemoration, especially in regards to science, math and history

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

Declare a moratorium on anti-immigrant raids, deportations and foreclosures — Respect the right of residents to remain with their families — Prohibit local enforcement of the Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act — Prohibit public funding for the implementation of UNJUST migratory laws — Prohibit the use of abstract and nonspecific legal terminology like “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” that allow racial profiling and indiscriminate arrests — Prohibit police from using individual interpretation of laws for their own implementation — Stop linking illegal immigration and terrorism — Respect the human rights of immigrant detainees and prevent inhumane treatment — Prohibit detention centers like the planned Farmville Detention Center — Enforce and expand labor & wage protection laws — Allow in-state tuition for undocumented Virginia residents — Allow people to obtain a driver’s license or identification without presenting a Social Security number, to prevent arrests, criminal records and deportations — Allow all Virginia residents to benefit from social programs -- health, education and other social services; no denial because of lack of a Social Security number — Prohibit public service workers from denouncing people because of their migratory status — Prohibit the use of the term “illegal alien” and any official use of discriminatory terms or concepts against people of color or immigrants

EDUCATION

Restructure public education to focus on critical thinking and practical life skills along with promotion of both higher education and vocational training, rather than test-taking skills to the exclusion of all others — Include worker and labor history in public education — Include partnerships with local initiatives in the standard curriculum for skills building and self-sufficiency — Build in vocational learning connected to local employment industries starting in middle school — Improve accuracy of the history and social studies curricula — Improve relevancy of civics in public schools curriculum by providing hands-on engagement with local government and school board processes from kindergarten through 12th grades

HEALTH CARE

Support universal health care — Promote real access to health care — Protect access to safe abortions and birth-control — Stop the privatization of health care services — No cutbacks in Medicare — No cutbacks in the WIC program — Provide for realistic explanation of patients’ legal medical rights — Stop stigmas based on morals related to health care — Stop the closing of the Commonwealth Center for Children and Adolescents — Legalize needle exchange — Provide condoms in prisons — Make “queer bashing” a hate crime — While paying proper attention to child welfare, allow people to freely parent and give birth in any method they prefer, including those in prison and on welfare

PRISONER ADVOCACY

Pass the Prisoner Literacy and Rehabilitation with “EARNED” Sentence Credit Allowance for Virginia state prisoners under the non-parole sentencing law who seek an “earned” second chance in society — Parole Board Oversight Committee to ensure fair and responsible parole for 9,000 prisoners remain incarcerated 13 years after parole abolishment. Remove barriers to medical care in prisons and jails — Recognize the right of prisoners to education — Revamp state law to allow for the speedy restoration of civil rights of convicted felons — Close the Red Onion SuperMax prison — Reform drug crime laws — Raise the pay for public defenders assigned to indigent defendants.
VPA Real Prison Reform Representatives:
Janet (Queen Nzinga) Taylor: OneRastaQueen@hotmail.com
Cassandra (Imani) Shaw: Shawthesavvy1@aol.com
Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy: RIHD23075@aol.com

STUDENTS

Make academic programs and faculty/staff wages the first financial priorities — Protect and expand tuition financial aid programs — Ensure academic diversity through equal support for academic programs — Ensure job security and fair pay for faculty and staff — Create a more democratic system of oversight at the state level and in universities — Promote college and university expansion that takes into account the needs of the host communities

ANTI-WAR

Bring Virginia GIs and National Guard members home now — Support veterans when they get home — End the “poverty draft” and fund alternatives to military service; fund “green” civilian corps with same benefits as military service — Divest state funds from Israel until it complies with UN resolutions — Mandate truth and full disclosure in recruiting — Forbid military recruiters from entering public schools — Make higher education affordable

OTHER

Raise the state corporate tax rate — Repeal the Dillon Law — Redraw Virginia’s voting districts so they are equitable and not based on race — Promote ecology and environmental conservation and protection; increase spending on state parks — Cancel the Wise County power plant — Stop coal extraction while meeting the economic needs of the people of Appalachia — Ensure available, affordable housing — Make Virginia friendlier to small businesses.

VIRGINIA PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY
PO Box 38441, Richmond, VA 23231
Web: www.RichmondJwJ.org

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

January 13, 2009

Sex Workers Outreach Project: articles in the Washington Post and Newsweek on Protests in DC

Sex Workers Criticize Law Enforcement

By Theola Labbé-DeBose
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 18, 2008; B03

Dozens of sex workers marched through the streets of downtown Washington yesterday, demanding better treatment from law enforcement officials of prostitutes who become crime victims.

Clutching red umbrellas and carrying signs that read, "Sex Work Is Real Work" and "Stop Shaming Us to Death," the men and women came from San Francisco, New York and other cities across the country to publicize a rarely discussed issue that they say is not taken seriously.

The rally and march was organized by the Sex Workers Outreach Project, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, and coincided with today's fifth anniversary of the sentencing of Gary Leon Ridgway, a Seattle man known as the "Green River Killer" who was convicted of murdering 48 prostitutes in 21 years. The lowly status of prostitutes in society, rally participants said yesterday, explains why the crimes went unsolved for so long.

"I'm just so tired of hearing, 'If I choose to do X, then I put myself on the line,' " said Charmus, 34, a transgender woman who gave only her first name. She lives in Maryland and said she has worked as a prostitute. "Transgender women, prostitutes, you have a right to fight for due process," she said to the crowd assembled at a downtown park.

As professional workers filed out of buildings in suits and ties on their way to business lunches, the rally crowd marched from Franklin Square at 14th and I streets NW to the Justice Department in the 900 block of Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Along the way, the marchers encountered some bemused looks at signs reading, "Be Nice to Sex Workers."

A 33-year-old man from New York City who gave his name as Wally said he works as an escort in Manhattan. He has been fortunate not to be a crime victim, he said, but he made the trip to show solidarity.

"I do this to survive," he said.

Once the protesters reached the Justice Department, they stood on the sidewalk and told their stories under the watchful eyes of federal police officers. Leila, a 24-year-old woman from San Francisco, shared an experience that she said showed the importance of sex workers banding together.

Leila said a client wanted to pay her at the end of their date and even provided his passport as collateral. She was skeptical, but agreed. Then the client said he needed to take money out of the bank, and she went with him. But at the teller, the client asked for his passport back for identification. When Leila handed it back, the man ran.

Leila told the protesters that she chased the man and even caught up with him. He punched her in the face. But when she complained to police, she said, they threatened to arrest her for working as a prostitute.

Since the date was arranged online, Leila said, she went to her computer and noticed warnings about the client posted by other women. The women shared information about him, and eventually they found his workplace and told his boss that the man had been meeting prostitutes during the workday and assaulting them. He was fired, Leila said.

"Alone, we're just prostitutes on the corner and no one respects us," she said. "Together we are a political movement, and we can change things."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/17/AR2008121703357_pf.html

What Sex Workers Want

Will decriminalizing prostitution make it any safer?
Dina Fine Maron
Newsweek Web Exclusive

Sharmus, a tall transgendered woman, bundled up in a hooded-coat and scarf, looked out at the crowd gathered earlier this week in Washington. The crowd, mostly young and middle-aged women, were clutching red umbrellas and signs proclaiming, "STOP SHAMING US TO DEATH" and "STOP THE WAR ON WHORES." Sharmus, who uses that name for her work in the sex industry, was speaking at the sixth annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.

Ignoring the stares of a few passers-by, Sharmus took a deep breath and began to talk about an incident in early December when a customer shot at and tried to rob her. It wasn't the first time she'd been threatened with a weapon or assaulted. During her seven years in the sex industry she says she has contacted the police on four separate occasions to report an attack. And each time, she felt blamed by the police or the prosecutor for what happened. Twice, she says, police officers have reprimanded her for putting herself in a risky situation.

According to the rally's organizers, and other similar organizations, the only way to really protect sex workers like Sharmus, is to make what they do both legal and legitimate. That, they say, would make it easier for them to go to the police for protection without fear of prosecution or callous treatment. But would legalizing the sex industry make its workers any safer? The question is far from settled.

Carol Leigh, a San Francisco-based advocate for the decriminalization of prostitution who attended the D.C. event, says she was raped at age 28 while working as a prostitute. "I couldn't call the police because I certainly felt that they wouldn't take the crime seriously," she says. She feared they would just close down the place where she worked.

In Sweden, authorities have made it legal to sell sex but not to buy it. In 1999 they passed a law that encourages law enforcement to aggressively prosecute johns. Their theory is that sex workers will be more likely to come forward and get help or report a violent customer if they don't fear prosecution. The Swedish national police board reports that since it began levying charges against johns, the number of prostitutes has decreased by as much as 40 percent, and there's been a significant reduction in the number of women trafficked into the country for use in the sex trade.

However, some sex-work advocacy organizations suggest sex workers in Sweden have just become further marginalized and conduct their affairs more privately. Stacey Swimme, a national board member for the Sex Worker Outreach Project-USA, a group that helped organize the D.C. march, does not think the model would be a good fit in America. She says that sex workers will protect their source of income, the johns, and thus will be hesitant to report them. "Anything that pushes sex workers and their clients further into the underground economy is still compromising the safety and the health of sex workers," she explains.

Prostitution is legal in only a few parts of Nevada, but legalization initiatives elsewhere in the United States have failed. On Nov. 4, San Franciscans voted down a proposal that would have prevented city government from using city funds to prosecute either johns or prostitutes. Sex worker activists and the San Francisco Democratic Party supported the legalization efforts. But whether legalization would help reduce violence against sex workers is unclear. A 2007 study by San Francisco psychologist and prostitution expert Melissa Farley found that in places where commercial sex is legal—such as some Nevada counties, Germany, Australia and the Netherlands—both illegal prostitution, as well as the number of rapes and assaults against prostitutes, has increased.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Mayor Gavin Newsom strongly opposed the proposition's passage, saying it could compromise their ability to prosecute human traffickers and would not do much to help protect sex workers from violence. Maxine Doogan, the founder of the Erotic Services Providers Union and the proponent of the proposition, said that by repeatedly linking prostitution and human trafficking, the D.A. and the mayor were simply using "fear tactics" to defeat the ballot initiative.

Swimme and other legalization advocates say blurring that definition of human trafficking and sex trafficking is a mistake. They note that human trafficking numbers also include forced labor, a kind of modern-day slavery. The U.S. government estimates that the human trafficking industry involves 600,000 to 800,000 people worldwide—about 80 percent of those trafficked are women and up to 50 percent are children. It is difficult to identify how many of those women and men engage in non-consensual sex work in the United States because the practice often occurs in isolated settings like massage parlors or is organized via the Internet or phones. But it's clear that individuals trafficked across country borders or within the United States are prone to sexual coercion. And the U.S. Department of Justice reports that among those trafficked worldwide "there are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as 5, who fall victim to the sex trade."

Despite these numbers, some anti-trafficking advocates suggest that U.S. policy on human trafficking is too focused on prostitution. Ann Jordan, director of the Anti-Trafficking Initiative of the International Human Rights Law Group, said in her congressional testimony last year: "The broad scope of the U.S. anti-trafficking policy has been gradually narrowed to fit an anti-prostitution agenda that is based on the unproven belief that all prostitution (even legal prostitution in Nevada) is trafficking; and so criminalizing prostitution, as well as clients, is promoted as a purported means to stop prostitution and to stop trafficking for prostitution." But this policy is unlikely to change in an Obama administration. When questioned by pastor Rick Warren during the campaign, the president-elect drew a connection between prostitution and modern day enslavement, so it seems doubtful that he would consider a platform that would legalize the sex trade.

Short of legislative change, sex workers in the D.C. march are hoping for a seat at the table, says Swimme. Her organization and others want to be included in discussions by the secretary of state and the Department of Human Services on human trafficking, sex work and HIV-AIDs-prevention efforts. "Right now, while everybody is a criminal, nobody is talking about safety," she says. "And that is really what our message is: by criminalizing us we are being silent and our health and our safety are at risk. We are vulnerable."
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/176267

Video from demonstration................

http://blip.tv/file/1619080

This and other news about organizing can be found at www.realcostofprisons.org/b

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

January 01, 2009

NY State Law requires employers to provide jobseekers with criminal records with anti-discrimination info

In 2008, the first bill drafted by the David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy (DRCPP) at the Fortune Society, The Employer Education Act, was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Paterson. The law:

(1) Requires employers to provide a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law—which makes it illegal to automatically deny employment to qualified job seekers with criminal records and provides guidance on how criminal history information can be appropriately and legally considered amidst the hiring process—to job seekers when relying on a criminal background check during the hiring process; and

(2) Requires the conspicuous posting of Article 23-A in the workplace.

After months of working on implementation, including sending letters about the new law to employment law practices, business that produce workplace signage and other businesses in NYS, DRCPP is pleased to report that the Labor Law Compliance Center (LLCC), one of the largest suppliers of Labor Law Posters in the United States, is now contacting all of its NYS customers to advise them to purchase the updated 2009 poster with the requirements specified in the Employer Education Act. According to LLCC's corporate office, they have "thousands of employers in NYS that rely on LLCC to be in compliance."
DRCPP is currently working on a larger education and communications campaign, which will further educate New York State employers, jobseekers and other stakeholders about the Employer Education Act. We look forward to touching base with you when the campaign rolls out in 2009.

The Fortune Society
David Rothenberg center for Public policy

Posted by lois at 11:18 PM | Comments (0)

December 26, 2008

Christmas Day in a Louisiana Dungeon: Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace Sent Back to Solitary

Ira Glasser
Former Executive Director, ACLU
Posted December 25, 2008

Christmas Day in a Louisiana Dungeon

This is a story about a double crucifixion happening on the very day that hundreds of millions of Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. It happened yesterday, too, and it will happen tomorrow, unless people of good will and moral decency rise up and stand against it.

The story begins nearly 40 years ago. At that time, it was unthinkable, literally, to imagine a day when a black man might be elected president. Indeed, in some parts of the country, it was still dangerous for a black man to vote, or organize against the oppressive system of racial subjugation that still prevailed despite the recent legal victories of the civil rights movement. And in 1968, both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.

In the states of the Deep South, it was not uncommon for invented criminal charges to be brought against civil rights advocates during the civil rights movement as a way of suppressing their political activities. And in the North, the emergence of the Black Panthers, an organization of aggressive tactics and militant language, frightened many whites. Brandishing guns and the rhetoric of violence, they provided an easy excuse for law enforcement to go after them.

No civil rights advocates defended actual crimes that may have been committed. But in many cases, evidence was manufactured and guns planted by law enforcement officials anxious to break the back of this increasingly militant movement. In Chicago, the FBI broke into a Black Panther apartment and slaughtered its occupants. And in New York, Black Panthers were brought to trial upon evidence that ultimately could not survive scrutiny. In one case, a black man was shot down by cops and then, as he lay dying, charged with attempted murder of the police who shot him, on the basis of a gun in his coat pocket that later was proved to have been planted by the police officer.

In this context, Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox were arrested in Louisiana, convicted of separate crimes and sent to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, an 18,000 acre former slave plantation known as Angola. In those days, most Southern prisons were racially segregated, and many were unspeakably brutal. During the early 1970s, when Wallace and Woodfox first were sentenced to Angola, it was known-- even according to the Louisiana State Department of Corrections official history--as the "bloodiest prison in the south."

It is hard to imagine today what Angola was like then, but it is important to understand the circumstances that led to what happened to Wallace and Woodfox, and to what I have called their crucifixion unto this day.

Angola was awash in violence and over-run by inmate gangs, encouraged and enabled by prison officials as a way of maintaining control. A gruesome system of sexual slavery prevailed, where new prisoners were openly bought and sold into submission; this system was sanctioned and facilitated by guards, as Warden C. Murray Henderson admitted in his book. Favored inmates were given state-issued weapons, and ordered to enforce this system of sexual slavery. Between 1972-75 alone, this armed inmate guard system claimed the lives of 40 prisoners and seriously maimed 350 more. For those who survived, there was a 96 hour work week, harvesting crops of soybeans, cotton, corn and wheat at a minimum wage of 2 cents an hour. This was the prison Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox came to in the early seventies.

Inspired by the civil rights movement, Wallace and Woodfox began a Black Panther chapter in the prison. They couldn't do much except talk, but talk they did, to as many of the inmates as they could, about human dignity and self-respect, and the need to work to protect vulnerable inmates from being pressed into sexual servitude. This did not endear them to the administration-- free speech had not yet come to prisons--nor to the guards and the inmates who functioned as enforcers. But they persisted, and their talk became a thorn in the side of the men who ran the prison.

Then, on April 17, 1972, a young prison guard, Brent Miller, was found stabbed to death in a prison dormitory. He was 23, and his widow was 17.

Wallace and Woodfox were immediately put into solitary confinement, little more than a 6 x 9 cage, despite no evidence connecting them to the crime. They would remain there for the next 36 years, and they are there now, as this is written-- in an even smaller cell, 23 hours a day, no yard time, no telephone calls (except to their lawyers) and no contact visits.

No physical evidence ever connected them to the crime. A bloody fingerprint found at the murder scene did not match either man, and both men had multiple alibi witnesses, who were ignored. Moreover, prison officials refused to check those fingerprints against the fingerprint database, and they have continued to refuse to this day. Somebody made that bloody fingerprint, but it wasn't Woodfox or Wallace. Yet they were charged with the crime.

Other prisoners who testified against them later recanted, and said they were coerced by prison officials to lie under oath.

The only evidence left against them is the unreliable testimony of a convicted serial rapist named Hezekiah Brown, who had previously been on death row, and who was subsequent to his testimony given a variety of special privileges, and later pardoned by the Governor, after the Warden had personally lobbied for his release. Although this was not revealed at the time, Warden Henderson years later testified, at Woodfox's re-trial, that he had made an agreement with Brown: he would help obtain a pardon if Brown would help "crack the case."

Before the pardon, Brown was granted special privileges: as Warden Frank Blackburn wrote in a letter to the Secretary of Corrections, "...This, I feel, would partially fulfill commitments made to [Brown] in the past with respect to his testimony in the state's behalf in the Brent Miller murder case." The Secretary of Corrections replied: "I concur. Warden Henderson made the original agreement with Brown... I think we should honor the agreement."

It is pretty clear that, as often happened in those days to vulnerable black activists, Wallace and Woodfox were pilloried and punished for their political activities in behalf of prison reform, and railroaded into a cage for the next 36 years.

About ten years ago, a small group came together to try to overturn this injustice. Their numbers have grown, and progress has been made, as the facts have slowly but systematically been brought before independent courts.

In 2006, a state magistrate, after an extensive review of Herman Wallace's case, recommended that his conviction be overturned. But by a 2-1 vote, the state appeals court decided to keep the conviction in place. That decision is now pending appeal in the Louisiana State Supreme Court.

In Albert Woodfox's case, a federal magistrate reviewed the evidence thoroughly and recommended his release. A federal district court judge, James Brady, upheld her recommendation, overturned the conviction and granted bail pending the state's decision about whether to appeal or re-try him. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the grant of bail pending appeal.

So the court cases grind slowly, as court cases do.

But the brutality that long ago ignited this injustice continues in Louisiana, to a nearly unimaginable degree. When Woodfox was initially granted bail, a niece of his and her family agreed to take him in. The Louisiana Attorney General, Buddy Caldwell, then embarked upon a public scare campaign reminiscent of the kind of inflammatory hysteria that once was used to provoke lynch mobs. He called Woodfox a dangerous rapist, even though he had never been charged, let alone convicted, of rape; he sent emails to neighbors calling Woodfox a convicted murderer and violent rapist; and neighbors were urged to sign petitions opposing his release. In the end, his niece and family were sufficiently frightened and threatened that Woodfox rejected the plan to live with them while on bail. All of this took place while the appeals court was considering the state's appeal of the grant of bail.

Angola Warden Burl Cain was even more revealing. During the bail hearing, he testified as to why Woodfox should not be granted bail, and why he needed to be kept in a cage, and away from other inmates. Here are a few excerpts:

"The thing about him is he wants to demonstrate. He wants to organize.... A hunger strike is really, really bad, because you could see he admitted that he was organizing a peaceful demonstration.... He is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates...."

For Attorney General Caldwell and Warden Cain, it is still forty years ago, and they can only respond to aspirations for justice by putting its advocates in the hole. Evidence is irrelevant, or to be manufactured to achieve the ends of repression.

Perhaps more surprising, and for that reason even more reprehensible, is the immorality of Governor Bobby Jindal. Elected on a platform of reform, and widely touted as the kind of fresh face for the Republicans nationally that Obama has been for the Democrats, Jindal could stop these crude injustices. But he continues to back them, staining himself and his state with his defense of the indefensible.

By now, anyone who has looked fairly and independently at the evidence in this case has concluded that the convictions were unsupportable. Even Brent Miller's widow now believes Wallace and Woodfox were wrongly convicted, and she would like the state to find out who killed her husband that April day in 1972.

But the habits of the old South die hard, and the courts move slowly. A black man will be inaugurated on January 20. But Albert Woodfox is 61 and Herman Wallace 67. They will not see that inauguration, nor benefit from it. It is Christmas Day, and they are about to begin their 37th year in the dungeon of the old slave plantation. A crucifixion.

Where is the public outrage that will resurrect them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glasser/christmas-day-in-a-louisi_b_153350.html?view=print

Posted by lois at 11:16 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2008

MA: Marijuana Law Comes With Challenges

December 18, 2008
Marijuana Law Comes With Challenges
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
NY Times
BOSTON — Last month, voters approved a statewide measure decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Now, wary authorities say, comes the hard part. They are scrambling to set up a new system of civil penalties before Jan. 2, when the change becomes law. From then on, anyone caught with an ounce or less of marijuana will owe a $100 civil fine instead of ending up with an arrest record and possibly facing jail time.

It sounds simple, but David Capeless, president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said the new policy presented a thicket of questions and complications.

One of the most basic, Mr. Capeless said, is who will collect the fines and enforce other provisions of the law. For example, violators under 18 will be required to attend a drug awareness class within a year, but it is unclear who will make sure that they do so. The fine increases to $1,000 for those who skip the class.

A complicating factor, said Mr. Capeless, the district attorney in Berkshire County, is that state law bans the police from demanding identification for civil infractions.

“Not only do you not have to identify yourself,” he said, “but it would appear from a strict reading that people can get a citation, walk away, never pay a fine and have no repercussion.”

Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, says he anticipates that many violators will lie about their identities.

“You can tell us that you’re Mickey Mouse of One Disneyland Way,” Mr. Sampson said, “and we have to assume that’s true.”

The authorities, he said, will also have to be sure that the substance they hand out citations for is marijuana, which will involve sending it to the State Police crime laboratory.

“You’re going to appeal it and go to the clerk’s hearing,” Mr. Sampson said, “and if we don’t have an analysis from the drug lab, the clerk is going to throw the case out.”

Mr. Sampson predicted that the law would result in de facto legalization of marijuana because it would prove too difficult to enforce.

“I would argue that the proponents knew these complications right from the beginning,” he said.

About 65 percent of state voters supported the decriminalization measure, which was promoted by a group that spent more than $1.5 million on the effort.

The group, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, said that in addition to ensuring that people caught with marijuana no longer have a criminal record, the change would save about $29.5 million a year that it estimates law enforcement currently spends to enforce existing drug laws.

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, which supports the drug’s legalization and created the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy to get the ballot question passed here, said that judging from the experience of other states with civil penalties for marijuana possession, Massachusetts officials were exaggerating the challenges.

“I can’t help but think that the real difficulty in implementing it,” said the spokesman, Dan Bernath, “is they don’t want to do it.”

Eleven states have decriminalized first-time possession of marijuana, though in most it is technically a misdemeanor instead of a civil offense.

In Nebraska, where possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is punishable by a $300 civil fine, the process has worked smoothly for three decades, said Michael Behm, executive director of the Nebraska Crime Commission.

In New York, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is a noncriminal violation but is still processed through the criminal system, said Robert M. Carney, the district attorney in Schenectady County.

“They are brought down to the police station so their identity is established,” Mr. Carney said of violators, “but they are not fingerprinted because it’s not an arrest.”

In Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Public Safety is working with state and local law enforcement and court officials to determine how to apply the changes. Mr. Capeless said education officials were also in on the discussions because it was unclear whether public schools and universities could forbid marijuana possession under the new law.

A spokesman for the public safety office said its legal counsel was considering “a lot of questions” as the deadline drew near. But the spokesman, Terrel Harris, would not elaborate.

“We are just trying to make sure we have all the answers,” Mr. Harris said.

Mr. Capeless said that in particular the department needed to address a clause in the new law that said neither the state nor its “political subdivisions or their respective agencies” could impose “any form of penalty, sanction or disqualification” on anyone found with an ounce or less of marijuana.

“It appears to say that you get a $100 fine and they can’t do anything else to you,” he said. “Can a police officer caught with marijuana several times get to keep his job and not be disciplined in any fashion? Can public high schools punish kids for smoking cigarettes but not for having pot?”

Mr. Bernath agreed that the law was “not completely clear” on how to handle such situations, but predicted that they would be rare.

“I think the resistance has to do with dealing with something new,” he said. “We’re pretty confident that once this gets going and the newness of it wears off, a lot of the apprehension will go away.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/18marijuana.html?scp=2&sq=marijuana&st=cse

Posted by lois at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)

December 14, 2008

LA: Artist Jackie Sumell designs a house based on the wishes of Angola prisoner Herman Wallace

Artist Jackie Sumell designs a house based on the wishes of Angola inmate Herman Wallace
Posted by Doug MacCash, Art critic, The Times-Picayune December 13, 2008 5:00AM

PRISONER DREAMS UP A HOME
THE HOME: The House that Herman Built

THE OWNERS: Jackie Sumell and Herman Wallace

THE SPACE: A Prospect.1 New Orleans exhibition featuring renderings of an imaginary house described by an Angola inmate and designed by a conceptual artist

ON VIEW: At the Contemporary Arts Center, 900 Camp St., Wednesdays through Sundays, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., through Jan. 18.

WHY THEY LOVE IT: 'It gets people who would never talk about these issues to talk about them, ' Sumell says.

Brooklyn-born Jackie Sumell has lived in New Orleans on and off since Hurricane Katrina. Now, the 35-year-old conceptual artist plans to build a one-of-a-kind dream house here -- as soon as she raises the $400,000 she needs to do it. The house will have some ordinary south Louisiana features: a steeply sloped roof to shed rain, extensive gardens, a wrap-around porch and a huge kitchen for entertaining.

But it will have some rarely heard-of features as well. The picture windows will be bullet-proof. The raised bedroom will offer views of the yard in all directions, like a prison guard tower. A secret escape hatch will allow the resident to flee from the bedroom, down the chimney like Santa Claus in reverse. It will lead to a tunnel that ends in a survivalist bunker beneath the pool. The house will be made almost entirely of wood, in part so it can be burned to the ground if it comes under attack.

Sumell's dream house seems to blend a craving for spaciousness and comfort with an unnatural fear of persecution. That's no wonder, since it isn't based on her own wishes, but the imaginings of Herman Wallace, 67, a prisoner serving a life sentence at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, where he's spent 36 years in "closed-cell restriction, " also known as solitary confinement.
Kathy Anderson / The Times-PicayuneSumell's wooden replica of Wallace's cell

Wallace dreams of a private bathroom equipped with a hot tub as large as his 6-by-9-foot cell; a greenhouse and gardens so he's never far from growing things; and a bank of six microwave ovens to accommodate streams of party guests.

Wallace described his dream house in a series of letters to Sumell, who's done her best to weave his wishes into a buildable design. An exhibit of the letters, blueprints, a model of the home, a computerized virtual tour and a hand-built, full-sized wooden version of Wallace's cell comprise one of the most penetrating of the Prospect.1 New Orleans exhibits on display at the Contemporary Arts Center.

Sumell describes "The House that Herman Built" exhibit as a sort of "Trojan Horse, " designed to expose a prison system that she considers akin to slavery.

RADICAL DESIGNS: With bouncy brown hair, Lucille Ball-era eye glasses, a broad smile and -- on the day we spoke -- green hoop earrings and polka-dot pink blouse, Sumell doesn't seem the angry activist type.

But when asked if she sees herself as a radical, she said, "Absolutely, yeah, without a doubt."

Her collaboration with Wallace, originally convicted of armed robbery in 1972, began with a lecture she attended in San Francisco in 2001. The speaker was Robert King Wilkerson, a former inmate who'd just been released after serving 31 years at Angola.

Wilkerson and two other New Orleans men, Albert Woodfox and Wallace, are widely known as "the Angola 3." Early in their incarceration, they helped organized a chapter of the Black Panthers at the prison in an effort, they said, to end violence and improve living conditions.

When a guard was stabbed to death in 1972, Wallace and Woodfox were convicted of the murder, and all three men were placed in solitary confinement, where they stayed for more than three decades. Supporters contend that this constitutes "inhumane and unconstitutional" treatment.

Sumell was swept up in their story. After Wilkerson's lecture, she asked what she could do to help the two men still behind bars. Wilkerson, Sumell said, advised her to write to them.

CONCEPTUAL APPROACH: Unsure of how to break the ice, Sumell took the conceptual art route. She taped a disposable camera to her wrist, set her alarm watch to ring on the hour, then snapped pictures of her surroundings as the day evolved. She sent copies of the photos to each man, with a letter that said, "Here's 24 hours of my simple life. I can't imagine what yours is like."

A correspondence started between the artist and Wallace.

About a year later, Sumell received a class assignment to ask someone of importance to describe his or her home. With the professor's permission, she tweaked the requirements. To help Wallace mentally reach beyond his prison cell, she asked him what has become the signature question of her art career: "What kind of house does a man who has lived in a 6-foot-by-9-foot cell for over 30 years dream of?"

For the next six years, Wallace outlined his ideas in letters, phone conversations and during Sumell's occasional visits. Sumell says she has come to consider Wallace her best friend. For his part, in one letter Wallace writes that Sumell is "a daughter I never had."

"My life is completely committed to freeing Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, " Sumell said, "and to unmasking a history of absolute oppression and injustice, particularly in Louisiana, but in the United States in general. It's a huge dragon to slay, but it's my work and right now I'm doing it by building this man's house."

COLLABORATIONS: The house is, among other things, a symbol of their bond. Yet, like any pair of collaborators, Sumell and Wallace have apparently had their differences.

In one letter, Wallace sounds much like the aggrieved client of an architect when he writes: "You recall you spoke of lots of windows, right? Then why are your drawings so closed in? A house within a house within a house is not really a house at all, it becomes a shelter."

At the CAC exhibit, a computer-animated tour of Wallace's dream house draws upon his written descriptions of it, read aloud by Wilkerson. Every detail is articulated in a spare architectural style, from the roses, gloxinias and delphiniums in the garden to the antique typewriters he plans to repair in his hobby shop, from the photos of abolitionists such as John Brown and Harriet Tubman displayed on the living room walls to the soft blue tone of the bedroom lighting.

Wallace's very first design request was a swimming pool with a Black Panther symbol painted on the bottom.

Sumell has displayed the plans and models for Herman's House, as well as a life-size wooden model of his Angola cell, 13 times. She hopes it spreads awareness of Wallace, Woodfox and other Louisiana prisoners' plights. When she presented the "The House the Herman Built" in Ireland in 2006, so many people wrote Wallace that he asked Sumell to get them to stop and find another way to show support.

Woodfox's conviction was overturned by a federal judge in September, though he has yet to leave Angola. Sumell visited Wallace last week. She said he is being held in a maximum-security section of the prison known as The Dungeon.

For pictures go to:
http://blog.nola.com/dougmaccash/2008//artist_jackie_sumell_designs_a.html

Posted by lois at 04:10 PM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2008

THREE TIMELY ACTIONS THAT COULD HELP END PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING

THREE TIMELY ACTIONS THAT COULD HELP END PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING
by Peter Wagner, December 12, 2008

The next Census will be taken 14 months after our next President is
sworn in. Counting the entire population, just once and in the right
place, is an incredibly complex undertaking with profound
implications for American democracy. It must be done right. The
Census is so important, the framers of the Constitution required it
in the opening paragraphs. The data collected in April 2010 will form
the basis of federal, state and local legislative districts for the
next decade.

But a long standing flaw in the Census undermines the basic
democratic principle of one person one vote. The Census Bureau counts
people in prison as residents of the prison's town, not their home
addresses. The Bureau intends to count these 2.5 million people -- a
population larger than our 4 smallest states combined -- in the
wrong place. The result will be a systematic inflation of the
political power of districts with prisons while diminishing the vote
of everyone else.

Since the importance of the Census Bureau's prison miscount was
discovered shortly before the 2000 Census, advocates, lawmakers and
social scientists have been urging the Census Bureau to update its
methodology and change how it counts people in prison.

The Census Bureau could have spent the middle part of this decade
investigating the optimal way to collect and process the home
addresses of incarcerated people. That planning time was instead
spent stonewalling critics and ignoring proposals focused on
incremental improvements.

The Bureau's failure to take concrete steps towards counting people
in prison correctly makes it difficult for the new administration to
insist that people in prison be counted where they actually live, not
where they are temporarily confined. But the Census Bureau doesn't
have an excuse for not implementing the interim proposals that would
greatly reduce the harm caused by the prison miscount in this Census
and make a more complete fix in the future possible.

There are three things that an Obama administration should do to help
end prison-based gerrymandering:

1. INSTRUCT THE CENSUS BUREAU TO USE DIRECT ENUMERATION NOT
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO COUNT PEOPLE IN PRISON.

Ultimately, the Census Bureau should be counting people in prison as
residents of their home communities, but the current administration
is taking small steps in the wrong direction. Some states keep home
address information in their official prison records, but in many
cases collecting home address information is best done by using
individual Census forms to collect this information directly from
incarcerated people.

After the 2000 Census, the National Research Council deemed the
quality of the data collected from correctional facilities to be
"poor" and blamed the Bureau's higher than expected reliance on
administrative records. However, rather than expand the use of direct
enumeration on special forms in prisons, the Census Bureau is
planning to eliminate them. Relying solely on administrative records
to count people in prison will further reduce data quality and make
several important advances impossible.

Three recent National Research Council reports have urged direct
counts of people in prison. All three reports believed that direct
enumeration would be more accurate than administrative records, and
all three reports encouraged the use of a special form that asked for
an alternative address. The first two reports made this
recommendation to facilitate de-duplication where data is
accidentally processed twice; and the third did so as part of a
multi-step proposal to modernize how all populations are counted.

Collecting this alternative address information -- if only for
internal testing, tracking and quality purposes -- would be an
important step towards counting people in prison at alternative
addresses in the next Census.

2. USE THE 2010 CENSUS TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY THAT PEOPLE IN
PRISON SHOULD BE COUNTED IN THE FUTURE.

The Census regularly conducts research during one Census in order to
improve the next. Currently, the Census Bureau is ignoring its own
experts at the National Research Council who recommended that the
Bureau conduct a major research and testing program during the 2010
Census to determine the best way to assign the correct address to
people who are incarcerated on April 1. The Bureau should be testing
how to phrase the question, what kinds of administrative data it
should accept, and how to best digitize the results. Instead, the
Bureau is planning to let this opportunity slide, which could push a
major test to 2020 and ending the prison miscount to 2030.

3. CHANGE HOW THE DATA IS PUBLISHED SO THAT PRISON POPULATIONS NEED
NOT DISTORT DEMOCRACY.

While it may be too late to change where people in prison are
counted, if action is taken quickly, an Obama administration can
change how the data is published and used. Publishing block-level
counts of prison populations at the prison addresses would make it
easier for legislatures to remove the prison populations at
districting time.

Currently, the "PL94-171" data published by the Bureau for
redistricting purposes does not identify which populations are
confined in a correctional facility, often mixing custodial and
civilian populations in a single census block. When states and
counties want to draw fair districts that do not include the prison
population, they have three choices: try and match up Department of
Corrections data; wait for publication of the Census Bureau's
"Summary File 1" data which contains a correctional count; or
just guess.

Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have it
even worse, because they can't wait for the publication of the
prison counts in Summary File 1. Further, because they must publish
race and ethnicity data for each district, they find it difficult to
reconcile the partially incompatible racial and ethnic
classifications in the two data sets.

Interest in drawing districts without prison populations is clear.
Dozens of counties around the country already do these adjustments.
They parse the data themselves, but it's labor intensive and
invites error. Nevertheless, as knowledge of the problem grows, more
counties and even states are expressing interest. The Census Bureau
is uniquely suited to provide this information, and doing so would
have only the smallest of burdens on Census Bureau operations.

Publishing an alternative version of the redistricting data that
contained just the prison population at prison addresses would only
require the publication of existing data in a different format
several months earlier than the Bureau would have done otherwise. Of
the 8 million Census blocks in Census 2000, less than 6,000 contained
a correctional facility. Producing the four race/age/ethnicity
redistricting tables for the population in correctional facilities in
these blocks would be a minimal burden with wide-ranging and
long-lasting benefits.

Conclusion

The Census Bureau has been on notice for a decade that its outdated
method of counting people in prison needs to be changed. Prison-based
gerrymandering should already be history, but instead the Bureau is
seeking to repeat and amplify the errors of the past. But if
President-elect Obama acts fast, he can lessen the harm caused by the
prison miscount and ensure that the 2010 Census is the last one to
credit 2.5 million people to the wrong place.
[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2008/12/12/threeactions/ ]

Posted by lois at 01:19 PM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2008

Calif.'s Prop 5 Battle Exposes Fault Lines Between Treatment Groups, Drug Courts

Calif.'s Prop 5 Battle Exposes Fault Lines Between Treatment Groups, Drug Courts
December 5, 2008
News Feature
By Bob Curley

The battle over California's recently defeated Proposition 5 has led to a schism between drug courts and addiction treatment providers -- putative allies in the drive to shunt drug offenders into treatment rather than prisons -- with advocates on both sides lamenting a lost opportunity to reform a justice system that most agree places too much emphasis on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation.

When the Nonviolent Offenders Rehabilitation Act (NORA) was shot down by about a 60-40 margin in November, it was partly due to the advocacy efforts of drug-court judges, who allied themselves with law enforcement, prison guards, and some prevention groups in opposing the measure. NORA backers, who undertook a low-key campaign to build on and improve the Proposition 36 reforms approved by state voters in 2000, instead suffered a unexpected and crushing defeat.

NORA opponents cast Prop 5 as the work of drug-legalization groups like the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), saying it diluted drug-court judges' power to hold offenders accountable if they failed in treatment. In announcing its opposition to NORA, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) cited concern that the measure would "extend DPA's influence at the expense of public safety, proven judicial interventions, and DPA's political and philosophical adversaries; [and] endorse treatments and practices associated with the harm-reduction and legalization movements that are unproven and objectionable."

The pro-NORA forces were indeed led by the DPA (which does not officially endorse drug legalization but has championed medical marijuana and marijuana decriminalization laws nationally). Supporters and opponents of the measure described the drafting of the measure as a closed process, with those outside DPA learning details of the plan only when it was certified for the state ballot.

"We did discuss the contents with experts in academia, judges, some in law enforcement," said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, DPA's deputy Prop 5 campaign manager and deputy state director in California, "but it's absolutely correct that we did not seek the consensus of the addiction field or law enforcement."

Regardless, the ranks of Proposition 5 supporters included the bulk of the "mainstream" addiction groups in California, including the California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, the Coalition of Alcohol and Drug Associations, the California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators, and prominent individual groups like Phoenix House and a pair of NCADD chapters.

A review of the No on Proposition 5 website shows that NADCP was joined by law enforcement groups, some state lawmakers and civic groups, and prevention organizations such as D.A.R.E. America, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Californians for Drug Free Schools, and a variety of conservative antidrug groups, including the Drug Free America Foundation.

'Locking Horns'

Doug Marlowe, chief of science, policy and law at NADCP, was dismissive of the state treatment community's support for NORA. "There were some California providers in favor of NORA because they would have benefitted [financially] from it," said Marlowe.

Marlowe expressed concern, however, that the battle over NORA had driven a wedge between drug courts and treatment providers. "There is no drug court without treatment," Marlowe said. "To say that we are locking horns may be true, unfortunately, but it's not what we want."

"We are very clear that we are in favor of treatment and that drug courts are an alternative to incarceration," he added. "We're not a law-enforcement group, we're not a punishment group -- we are a treatment-support group."

NORA supporter John DeMiranda, executive director of the National Association on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability and Pacific Southwest regional representative for Faces and Voices of Recovery, said that the treatment community in California "jumped on the bandwagon and talked about NORA as a treatment initiative," even though DPA mainly cast Prop 5 as a drug-policy reform effort. Some California treatment providers were reluctant to back NORA, but DeMiranda contended that this had less to do with DPA's involvement than fear of bucking the criminal-justice programs that control their funding.

"If we were to do our own initiative it would be very different, and the politics would be very different," said DeMiranda. However, he scorned the state's drug courts for failing to embrace the reforms embodied in NORA. "We need wholesale decriminalization, not retail decriminalization," said DeMiranda, noting the relatively small number of clients currently served by drug courts.

For DPA, Tried-and-True Meant Go-it-Alone

Both DeMiranda and Marlowe said that DPA erred in not allowing the addiction field and drug courts greater involvement in drafting NORA, although DeMiranda said that the compromises that likely would have resulted -- such as allowing for more sanctions or removing language related to marijuana decriminalization -- probably would have cost DPA the financial backing needed to forward the measure.

"George Soros doesn't want to expand treatment -- he wants progressive reform," DeMiranda said.

Marlowe said that the "all or nothing" approach taken by DPA forced drug courts and others to choose sides rather than compromising. "As a result, groups that have shared interests couldn't come together," he said.

NADCP has a long list of concerns with NORA, but Marlowe said there were a number of areas of agreement, including the initiative's general philosophy of providing treatment rather than incarceration, greater emphasis on needs assessment, and added accountability for offenders compared to California's earlier attempt at shunting more offenders to treatment, Prop 36.

"Drug courts could have had common ground with [DPA], but it was too late," said Marlowe.

Building a broader coalition might have helped neutralize opposition to NORA, but Dooley-Sammuli pinned blame for NORA's overwhelming defeat largely on ballot language that emphasized the cost of Prop 5, combined with the economic collapse in October.

She said DPA based its go-alone strategy on a string of previous successes with ballot initiatives in other states, and added that while "we're not afraid to try to talk to folks," the group had felt burned by the experience of working with drug-court judges on a bill that modified Prop 36 -- and ultimately included jail sanctions opposed by DPA. "We made a good-faith effort, but in the end it was a case where consensus meant wanting us to agree with them," she said.

Post-NORA: Confronting California's Looming Budget Crisis

The defeat of NORA may have been seen as a victory by some in the prevention and drug court community, but few are celebrating the loss of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in new state spending on treatment that would have been mandated by Prop 5.

Moreover, the treatment community is facing potentially catastrophic budget cuts as California grapples with a $28-billion budget shortfall, with continued treatment funding possibly hanging on legislative approval of an alcohol tax increase proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

DPA officials, members of the California treatment communities, and other NORA backers met on Dec. 3 to discuss the future of drug-policy reform efforts in the state.

"We are definitely open to compromise going forward," said NADCP's Marlowe, who said he was unaware of the meeting. "NORA did take some steps forward in terms of accountability and sanctions, but in our opinion erected too many barriers to applying them ... We are absolutely open to a conversation about shared interests and values with DPA."

"We'd love to have an amazing coming together of NORA opponents and supporters, but time is running out," responded Dooley-Sammuli. "I don't know how it's going to play out when we're looking at dramatic budget cuts in the next few months."

DeMiranda expressed a similar hope for cooperation around the state budget issue but also said that California's treatment and recovery movement needs to find it own voice on drug-policy reform issues, such as by pushing forward its own "people-powered" treatment-funding ballot initiative in 2010.

In the wake of the NORA defeat, "It's no longer possible for [the treatment and recovery community] to piggyback on public sentiment," said DeMiranda. "We have to get our people to the ballot box so it's not so easy ... to demonize this kind of initiative."
http://www.jointogether.org/news/features/2008/califs-prop-5-battle.html?print=t

Posted by lois at 01:54 PM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2008

Call Governor Paterson to ask that Jalil Muntaqim & Herman Bell Be Returned to NY

New York State letter denies request

The transfer of SF8 defendants Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim from the San Francisco County Jail back to New York State for their rightful parole hearings has been blocked by both state governors for weeks and New York State now wants to deny this right for good. This comes despite previous agreements in the courtroom between the California State prosecutors, the presiding judge and, of course, the brothers and their attorneys.

In a new – but not surprising – development, a letter from Steve Krantz, Assistant Counsel to the Governor of New York to Peter Smith, Deputy Attorney General of California dated October 10, 2008 states:

Procedures in this area are designed to balance a variety of considerations, including the needs of the judicial system and executive concerns such as security and administration. Even assuming that the amendments sought would be consistent with California law, in the absence of a demonstrated need to depart from usual procedures as reflected in the Executive Agreements, the Governor of New York does not plan to seek amendments to those agreements.
Judge Philip Moscone signed an order in May allowing Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim to return to New York State for their parole hearings. All parties agreed at that time that the move would be temporary; Herman and Jalil waived their rights to fight extradition back to California.

This vindictive and mean-spirited procedural obstacle was immediately challenged by defense attorneys. Strong arguments were made to guarantee Herman and Jalil's right to "pursue their liberty interests" and have parole hearings. Both have served over 35 years in prison as model prisoners. Both were targeted originally by COINTELPRO as members of the Black Panther Party.

New York Attorney Bob Boyle argued in a declaration to the San Francisco Court that if the men remain in California, "they would be denied their parole hearing for years." In a subsequent interview, he also said:

The state waited 35 years to bring these spurious criminal charges. Now these charges are being used to deny these men parole hearings to which they are entitled. Whatever concerns the government has can be overcome by a simple modification of the extradition order. All Herman and Jalil are asking for is an opportunity to attend their hearings.

Please contact the Governor of New York by phone, letter, fax, or email:

David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
518-474-8390
Email: 161.11.121.121/govemail

Urge them to sign the amended Executive Agreements which will allow Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim (Anthony Bottom) to return to New York State to attend their rightful parole hearings.

Posted by lois at 11:18 AM | Comments (0)

December 02, 2008

NY: A new tack on drug policy could save the state billions

A new tack on drug policy could save the state billions
Posted by The Readers' Page
November 30, 2008 5:00AM

By Gabriel Sayegh

While New York reels from the most severe budget crisis since the Great Depression, Gov. David Paterson and the Legislature are scrambling to close ever-expanding deficits. So let's stop spending over $500 million every year on ineffective, wasteful policies like the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

These laws represent a misguided and ineffective regime for addressing drug use and addiction -- health issues, not criminal issues. Imagine if we incarcerated people for being addicted to cigarettes, or for having diabetes.

Passed in 1973, the laws mandate harsh, mandatory-minimum prison terms for even low-level drug offenses; people convicted of first- and second-time drug offenses often receive eight to 20 years. There are shocking, inexcusable racial disparities -- more than 90 percent of the people incarcerated are black or Latino, though whites use and sell illegal drugs at equal or higher rates.

These laws did not stop the crack epidemic of the 1980s. They are completely incapable of stemming the accidental drug overdose epidemic hitting New York City and Long Island today. And they have turned the Department of Corrections into the state's largest, most costly and ineffective treatment provider.

The state spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year on policies that both criminal justice and public health experts -- as well as the majority of New Yorkers, according to the polls -- say don't work. It costs over $35,000 a year to keep someone in prison. Factor in policing and court costs, and that number rises to nearly $50,000.

Lawmakers, do the math: There are nearly 14,000 people incarcerated under these laws. Meanwhile, spending on community-based drug treatment is pitifully low, and is facing cuts in this economic crisis.

Recent DOC figures show the slight reforms made to the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 2004 and 2005 saved the state at least $90 million. That doesn't include additional savings from related parole reforms. Meanwhile, crime in the state has gone down.

Conservative estimates of savings from Rockefeller Drug Law repeal are around half-a-billion dollars -- much higher once court and policing costs are factored in.

With crisis comes opportunity. A governor who as Senate minority leader engaged in civil disobedience to protest the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws could promote a smarter, more effective, cost-efficient approach: Re-invest a portion of the savings from repeal in prevention, community treatment, harm reduction, alternative-to-incarceration programs and related services. The state would still save hundreds of millions in the short term, billions over the long term, and we could finally stop trying to incarcerate our way out of this problem.

This process is already under way. Earlier this year, the six Assembly committees held historic joint hearings to begin outlining a public health approach to drug policy. Experts explained New York had the required programs and services largely in place -- only appropriate funding is needed.

The governor should follow President-elect Barack Obama's fiscal advice: Cut what doesn't work, keep what does. Given the abysmal failure of the "war on drugs," a public-health approach is both long overdue and fiscally prudent.

Gabriel Sayegh is a policy director at the Drug Policy Alliance, based in Washington, D.C.
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2008/11/a_new_tack_on_drug_policy_coul.
html

Posted by lois at 04:29 PM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2008

Nick Montos Oldest Prisoner in MA dies without receiving a commutation

Dear Boston Globe Editor:

Nick Montos, purportedly the oldest prisoner in Massachusetts, died yesterday (11/30/08) at the age of 92. He was incarcerated at MCI Norfolk. Since the summer of '08 fellow prisoners at Norfolk had been waging a "free Nick Montos campaign" to assist him in his petition for commutation of sentence so that he could live out his final days with his sister in Florida. Several hundred people from throughout Massachusetts signed petitions in support of Mr. Montos' bid for mercy in light of his failing health. The State failed to act soon enough to the formal request he filed in October 2008.
Although Mr. Montos did not achieve his goal of freedom to live and die with his family, he engendered lots of care and support from people on both sides of the wall. Further, his campaign may pave the way for much needed policy to enable frail and elderly prisoners who are not a danger to society to live out their final days in peace.

Nancy W. Ahmadifar, Ph.D.
Boston, MA 02114

Posted by lois at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)

November 30, 2008

Black World Conference in New Orleans Discusses How to Advance Policies Critical to the Black Community

BMORENEWS.com : News, video and live radio for the black community in the Washington D.C. and Baltimore area

BLACK LEADERS GATHER IN NEW ORLEANS TO DISCUSS POLICY AGENDA

Fresh off the historic victory of Senator Barack Obama as the first African American to win the White House, Black leaders will gather in New Orleans November 19-23 for the State of the Black World Conference (SOBWC) to explore ways to seize the opportunity to advance policies critical to the Black community, labor, the middle class and poor people.

(New York, NY - BlackNews.com - November 14, 2008) - Fresh off the historic victory of Senator Barack Obama as the first African American to win the White House, Black leaders will gather in New Orleans November 19-23 for the State of the Black World Conference (SOBWC) to explore ways to seize the opportunity to advance policies critical to the Black community, labor, the middle class and poor people. Convened by the New York-based Institute of the Black World 21st Century under the leadership of veteran scholar-activist Dr. Ron Daniels, SOBWC will be the first major gathering of African Americans after the election. As such, organizers view the conference as a veritable post-election political convention where an agenda of priority public policy proposals will be developed to present to participants who will be asked to return to their home districts to mobilize/organize for change.

"We're excited to be able to utter the words President-Elect Barack Obama," Dr. Ron Daniels commented, "but we must work to create and advance a progressive agenda to fulfill the aspirations of millions of people, including an unparalleled number of African Americans who marched on ballot boxes to achieve this milestone victory." A number of Black leaders have observed that the crises afflicting New Orleans, before and after Katrina, is a metaphor for the conditions facing Black communities across America. Concurring with this view, Dr. Daniels said, "We must not make the mistake of believing that the new President will be able to resolve these crises without a powerful grassroots movement to promote our agenda. This is very much in keeping with Barack Obama's position that change comes from the bottom up."

Building on a process began by Rev. Jesse Jackson at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's Convention this summer, Dr. Daniels has tapped Dr. Ronald Walters, Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, and a team of scholars to develop a succinct series of priority proposals to comprise the agenda. The need for a holistic urban policy to rebuild New Orleans, rebuild America's cities and generate jobs; improving the quality of public education; combating the epidemic of gun violence devastating inner-cities communities; ending the explosive growth of the prison-jail industrial complex; and, expanding labor rights to improve the quality of life for workers and the middle class will be key focal points of the agenda. Instead of developing new initiatives, Dr. Walters is expected to recommend that bills which address these issues which are already in the Congressional legislative pipeline be highlighted, e.g., the Employee Choice Act. Proposals on policy toward Africa and the Caribbean will also be recommended. The policy agenda will initially be discussed at the National Town Hall Meeting, November 20, 7:00 PM at the Ernest Morial Convention Center, the first public function of the Conference.

Commenting on the potential impact of the agenda, Dr. Daniels observed, "While the agenda developed at SOBWC will emanate from Black concerns, ultimately its enactment will be beneficial to American society as a whole. In the spirit of Obama's campaign, moving forward, it's about building a new progressive movement to create a more just and humane society for every excluded, marginalized and disadvantaged constituency in this country."

Moderated by Bev Smith, Host of the Bev Smith Show/American Urban Radio Networks and Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, the National Town Hall Meeting will include: Marc Morial, President/CEO National Urban League; Rev. Al Sharpton, President, National Action Network (NAN); Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, President, National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; Dr. Julianne Malveaux, President, Bennett College for Women; Dr. Elsie Scott, President/CEO, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation: Dr. Iva E. Carruthers, General Secretary, Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, Inc.; Attorney Faya Rose Sanders, Founder, Voting Rights Museum, Selma, Alabama; Dr. E. Faye Williams, President, National Congress of Black Women. Dr. Ronald Walters, will also be part of the Panel. Benjamin Jealous, the new President/CEO, NAACP, has been invited to be a Panelist as well.

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Leader of the Nation of Islam is also confirmed to be the Keynote Speaker for the concluding session of the conference, Sunday, November 23, 9:30 AM at the Convention Center.

With enthusiasm at a fever pitch because of the election of Barack Obama to the office of President, SOBWC is expected to attract the who's who of Black America as speakers, workshop presenters as well as hundreds of grassroots/community based activists and leaders. Congressman John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus; Detroit Councilwoman JoAnn Watson; New York Councilman Charles Barron; Susan Taylor, former Editorial Director, Essence Magazine; Jim Clingman, author of Blackonomics and Convener of the Back to Black Movement; Makani Themba-Nixon, Executive Director, Praxis Project; Dr. Maulana Karenga, Creator of Kwanzaa, Professor of Africana Studies, California State University at Long Beach; Haki Madhubuti, author, poet and Distinguished Professor, Chicago State University; Sonia Sanchez, internationally acclaimed author and poet; Danny Glover, actor and humanitarian; George Fraser, President/CEO, FraserNet; Hip Hop pioneers Grand Master Mele Mel and Kool Moe Dee; Hip Hop Journalist Davey D; Fox News Commentator Marc Lamont Hill, Fox News Correspondent; Malika Sanders, Twenty-First Century Leadership Foundation; Bakari Kitwana, author/cultural critic; Monifa Akinwole Bandele, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; Melanie Campbell, Executive Director, National Coalition of Black Civic Participation; and, Dr. Kimberly Ellis, scholar/activist/artist are among the broad cross-section of leaders who will participate in the conference.

About Dr. Ron Daniels, President, IBW
Dr. Ron Daniels is a Distinguished Lecturer at York College, City University of New York. He is a former Executive Director of the National Rainbow Coalition and served as Southern Regional Coordinator and Deputy Campaign Manager for Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign. Dr. Daniels was an independent candidate for President in 1992. From 1993 - 2005, he served as Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. A frequent guest on local and national media outlets, Dr. Daniels hosts An Hour with Professor Ron Daniels on WWRL 1600 AM and Night Talk of WBAI, 99.5 FM in New York.

SOBWC Planning Committee
Rick Adams, Co-Convener, West PA Black Political Assembly, is Chairman of the National Planning Committee; Kimberley Richards, People's Institute for Survival and Beyond, is Co-Chairperson. Larry Hayes, National Association of Black Social Workers and Walter Umrani, Millions More Movement, are the Liaisons in New Orleans.

http://www.bmorenews.com/politics/black-leaders-gather-in-new-orleans-to-discuss-pol.shtml

Posted by lois at 06:36 PM | Comments (0)

November 27, 2008

MA: DOC Commissioner Clarke gets an earful at a local hearing

"If there was a magic button that, if pressed, would instantly rehabilitate all prisoners and reduce recidivism to zero, with a show of hands, those who believe that the Department of Corrections would not press that button." Most hands shot up." "

Boston Prison Blues
Commissioner Clarke gets an earful at a local hearing
By Cara Bayles

Last Tuesday, approximately 100 people filed into St. Paul's Cathedral for a public hearing with Department of Corrections (DOC) Commissioner Harold Clarke. The event was organized by the End the Odds Coalition, a group of activists (among them, former state Rep. Mel King) promoting a humane culture within the Massachusetts prison system.

The testimony spanned a range of voices, some emanating from behind prison walls. A letter penned by Joseph Wood, who's currently incarcerated in Walpole, cited several passages of state laws the DOC had broken, particularly those mandating re-entry arrangements one year prior to release. The DOC's plans for Wood's December 12th release began a month ago, and don't involve housing or health care (though he suffers from Hepatitis C and rheumatoid arthritis). "I'm being released back into society mentally unstable and more dangerous than I was when I was admitted in 2004," wrote the Seattle native. "I'll be homeless because they refuse to comply with release preparation regulations."

Many advocates discussed the challenges of release. Kevin Wayne Thomas, of STRIVE, an organization that trains for workplace re-entry, said prisoners need to begin preparing for release the moment they're incarcerated. Lyndia Downie, president of the Pine Street Inn, said that between 2006 and 2008, she'd noticed a 46-percent increase in ex-offenders coming to the shelter, adding that criminal records are an obstacle to employment and housing. Leslie Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, said the DOC must avoid over-classification (unnecessarily placing prisoners in maximum security) and institute a step-down system (to medium or minimum security) prior to release. "Prisoners have said to me the rules inside are the exact opposite of the rules outside," Walker said of the assimilation process. "Somebody bumps you in line in prison, you'd better react. Somebody bumps you in line at the CVS, you better not react."

Robert Dellelo, a former prisoner and member of the American Friends Criminal Justice Program, passed out a 19-page packet chronicling how rehabilitative programs were dropped with former Gov. William Weld's promise to "re-introduce inmates to the joys of busting rocks."

"If there was a magic button that, if pressed, would instantly rehabilitate all prisoners and reduce recidivism to zero, with a show of hands, those who believe that the Department of Corrections would not press that button." Most hands shot up.

Commissioner Clarke took the microphone to defend the DOC, encouraging the attendees to focus on institutions that fail people before they get to prison. "We want to make a change. That's why we are here today," he added. "We started this morning at 6:45 and here we are here tonight without having supper yet." Someone shouted back, "Me neither!" Susan Mortimer held up a photograph of her brother Glenn after he'd been beaten by prison guards in MCI-Shirley.

Clarke also mentioned a cost-benefit plan he's preparing for the governor this December. "In a sense, [it's] an argument for re-entry," he said, adding that the DOC didn't have enough resources or authority to implement changes. "That's why I encourage you all to not just spend your time talking to DOC ... but to get with your representatives, get with your senators, and make sure that they too understand what it is you think ought to be done."

Sonia Chang-Díaz, who just won the senatorial seat for the 2nd Suffolk district, was the only elected official knowo to have attended the hearing, according to Joanna Marinova, an End the Odds organizer. "These are important issues," Chang-Díaz said after the hearing. "We need to address them from all angles." She linked criminal justice to problems with youth violence and education.

According to Marinova, End the Odds invited 16 legislators. Only Sen. Gale Candaras, D-Wilbraham, and Sen. Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville, sent staffers. Marinova was peeved at the absence of Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea. "I think it's a great oversight on his part, as head of the Judiciary Committee," she said. "His constituents suffer the highest rate of violence in Massachusetts. If this system isn't working for anyone, it's them." Rep. O'Flaherty's office declined to comment.

King wrapped up the hearing. "It's easy to be on the commissioner's case. He's here. How do we get on our legislators' case?" King asked. "I don't talk about hope. I talk about expectations ... We need to make sure these recommendations come true."
http://www.weeklydig.com/news-opinions/news-us/200811/boston-prison-blues

Posted by lois at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)

November 26, 2008

Great News: Albert Woodfox of the Angola 3 to be released on bail after 37 years.

Woodfox and Wallace were each held in solitary confinement from the time of the murder until last March, after a federal court concluded that their suit alleging that such confinement for three decades constitutes cruel and unusual punishment could go forward. A third man, Robert King Wilkerson, was held in solitary at Angola at the same time for a different crime; he was released in 2001 after showing that he had been wrongfully convicted. The three are known as the "Angola 3." All black men, they had been organizing nonviolently for an end to gang-enforced sex slavery and for better conditions inside the prison. Angola at the time was known as the "bloodiest prison in the US."

Angola 3 Member to Be
Released On Bail After 37 Years
Conviction Overturned, Judge Rules Albert Woodfox Must be Free During Appeals or Re-trial

Albert Woodfox, who has spent 37 years in prison at Angola Penitentiary, must be released on bail, according to a ruling issued today by United States District Judge James Brady. On September 25th, Judge Brady overturned Woodfox's conviction for the 1972 murder of prison guard Brent Miller. Though the State has announced its intention to appeal that decision, until such an appeal is successful, according to today's ruling, there is no conviction on which to hold Woodfox.

In his decision, Judge Brady wrote:
"[Woodfox] is a frail, sickly, middle aged man who has had an exemplary conduct record for over the last twenty years. At the hearing before this Court on October 14, 2008, testimony was adduced that if released Mr. Woodfox would live with his niece and her family in a gated subdivision in Slidell, Louisiana. Mr. Woodfox has withdrawn that request because of fear of harm to his niece and her family by members... This change was brought about by counsel representing the State of Louisiana contacting the subdivision home owners association and providing them with information regarding Mr. Woodfox. The Court is not totally privy to what information was given to the association but from the documents filed it is apparent that the association was not told Mr. Woodfox is frail, sickly, and has had a clean conduct record for more than twenty years...this Court GRANTS Mr. Woodfox's motion for release pending the State's appeal."

Herman Wallace, who was also convicted in the murder, remains in prison at Angola. He has an appeal pending with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which is similar in content to Woodfox's successful appeal. The two men were wrongly convicted based largely on the testimony of a fellow prisoner, Hezekiah Brown, a serial rapist who was promised and received a pardon in exchange for his testimony against them. Brown was the sole professed eyewitness to the murder, and none of the physical evidence put Herman or Albert at the crime scene.

Woodfox's legal team is now working with the court to reach an agreement on a suitable release location and plan for Woodfox; once they agree to a plan, Woodfox will be able to leave Angola. The lawyers anticipate the process to take several more days.

Woodfox and Wallace were each held in solitary confinement from the time of the murder until last March, after a federal court concluded that their suit alleging that such confinement for three decades constitutes cruel and unusual punishment could go forward. A third man, Robert King Wilkerson, was held in solitary at Angola at the same time for a different crime; he was released in 2001 after showing that he had been wrongfully convicted. The three are known as the "Angola 3." All black men, they had been organizing nonviolently for an end to gang-enforced sex slavery and for better conditions inside the prison. Angola at the time was known as the "bloodiest prison in the US."

"This is a major victory in a case where justice is long overdue. Albert went into Angola in his twenties, and he's walking out in his 60s. There is no conviction against him now, and the state should not take another day of his life," said Chris Aberle, Woodfox's lawyer.

"In 37 years, Albert never gave up hope that someday he would walk out the gates of Angola. We continue to hope that Herman will join him soon. Neither of these men should have spent a day in Angola for this crime," said Nick Trenticosta, also a lawyer in the case.

The case has attracted attention on the state and national level. Last spring, US House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) visited the men, along with Louisiana House Judiciary Committee Chair Cedric Richmond (D-101). Richmond has announced his intention to hold hearings on the case, and Conyers continues to monitor developments.

The state had sought a stay of Judge Brady's ruling ordering a new trial until the appeal process plays out. Judge Brady granted that request. The State must now either win its appeals, or will need to either release or retry Woodfox within 120 days of the end of its appeals.

Judge Brady held an initial bail hearing on October 14th; he postponed issuing a decision at that time to allow for additional depositions to be taken from Angola Warden Burl Cain and from a doctor who had examined Woodfox and his medical records. The State has now conducted both of those depositions.

Posted by lois at 06:30 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)

OK: Good News Theresa Lee Hernandez

Empowering Oklahoma women & girls
Monday, November 24, 2008
Theresa Lee Hernandez- Follow-up
Dear Amici, Activists, and Allies:

We are so pleased to let you know that on November 19, 2008, after serving only one year from the date of sentencing, Theresa Lee Hernandez was released from prison.

As you know, Ms. Hernandez was arrested in 2004 and charged with first-degree murder (a crime with a potential penalty of 25 years-to-life imprisonment) and second-degree murder for having suffered a stillbirth. The state claimed -- without any scientific basis -- that the stillbirth was caused by her methamphetamine use.

In 2007, as her case approached trial, national and state-based organizations, advocates and experts organized, educated and spoke out against the prosecution. These efforts were instrumental in helping Ms. Hernandez avoid a life sentence and in enabling her counsel, Robin Shellow and Jim Rowan, to negotiate a plea bargain. That plea, entered last November, resulted in a sentence of 15 years, to be revisited after Ms. Hernandez served one year in prison.

As the Tulsa World reported: "Theresa Lee Hernandez, 31, appeared before Judge Virgil Black for a sentencing modification hearing. At the request of prosecutors, Black agreed to "suspend the remainder of her sentence and ordered her released from custody." Ms. Hernandez will go to a private treatment program for 90 days and will be on probation for 10 years.

Just a week before Ms. Hernandez's November 19 release, the second of two public forums regarding pregnancy, parenting and drug use was held. This forum, held at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, was co-sponsored by the local chapters of the National Association of Social Workers and of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the YWCA Oklahoma City, and Oklahoma State University's Gender and Women's Studies program. The panel discussion included local experts, doctors Eli Reshef and Dana Stone, and continued a conversation that drew upon evidence-based research concerning pregnancy, parenting and drug use. This conversation had begun at an Oklahoma forum one year earlier, in anticipation of Ms. Hernandez's sentencing.

The extent to which the organizing and public education effort made a difference is not only evident in Ms. Hernandez' early release, but also in what happened on the day of her release, how the media reported the decision, and what the prosecutor, District Attorney David Prater is now saying and doing.

Ms. Hernandez' release was not typical. Even in cases where a conviction is completely overturned, prisoners are almost always returned to prison for processing – something that can take weeks or even months - before they are finally released. In Ms. Hernandez' case, the judge ordered that her handcuffs be removed right in the courtroom and that she be allowed to leave straight from the courthouse to her awaiting family and friends. Ms. Hernandez was thus able, that day, to have her first taste of freedom in four years.

The media reporting was also an amazing example of what can be accomplished through meaningful education, outreach and activism.

The Channel 9 news story: "Freed from Prison" began by noting that "The case created a firestorm with doctors and women's advocates who rallied to the woman's side." Both print and television coverage noted that her release was met by the applause and cheers of family, onlookers, and supporters.

The entire Channel 9 news story was framed in a positive light. The correspondent on the Channel 9 story was asked to report about, "how authorities are now working to prevent another case like this from occurring." The correspondent began his report again referencing the experts: "Medical experts questioned whether the drug use actually caused the death of the baby, and the District Attorney heard those pleas and today asked that the prison sentence be suspended."

Kathleen Wallace, an Oklahoma City University law student, NAPW legal intern, and Oklahoma activist, appeared in the broadcast news report explaining, "It is bad precedent to charge pregnant women with a crime when what they did was try and take their pregnancy to term in spite of a drug addiction." According to Channel 9 news, "the district attorney agreed. . ."

District Attorney David Prater's actions and statements also indicated the extent to which education, outreach and activism made a difference. On the one hand, Mr. Prater stuck to the junk science story that pregnant women who use illegal drugs kill their babies, and the fable that imprisonment serves a social good by giving bad people like Ms. Hernandez a chance to prove themselves and to taking advantage of prison-based treatment programs.

(Surely, though Mr. Prater is aware of a recent case in which Oklahoma county had to pay $385,000 in damages to a woman who suffered a stillbirth as the result of horribly inadequate health care and treatment while imprisoned in the very same County Jail that Theresa Hernandez was held in for three years. )

On the other hand, Mr. Prater emerged as a meaningful spokesperson regarding the value of drug treatment and the need to increase access that treatment. On Channel 9 news, he said, "Drug and alcohol addiction is something that most people don't understand and that people need help in dealing with their drug and alcohol addiction." According to the Channel 9 news report, "Because of this case, Prater is now working to put a pilot program in place to divert pregnant women on drugs into treatment instead of locking them up. And state lawmakers will be asked to fund the program once it is developed."

Significantly, there has not been a single new OK County arrest of a pregnant woman or of a woman who suffered a stillbirth since the state-based organizing and education efforts began.

Nevertheless, while there is real cause to celebrate, there is no cause to stop working to ensure justice for pregnant and parenting women who struggle with drug problems. Although Ms. Hernandez was released to a treatment program, this was only made possible by a private benefactor willing to pick up the costs of her private treatment program – a program that may or may not facilitate her recovery and ensure that she will remain free.

The state needs to address the appalling lack of access to drug treatment and other services that will help pregnant women and families address drug and other health problems and stay together. On June 30, 2004 the Oklahoma Legislature established the Joint Task Force on Prenatal Addiction and Treatment. At their first meeting on Dec. 20, 2004, Sally Carter, an employee with the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services reported, "More than 80 percent of pregnant women in OK who need substance abuse treatment do not have access to it." Nearly three years later, on May 23, 2007, the Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Terri White, stated:

"Although we are making progress in providing better perinatal services to pregnant women addicted to drugs or alcohol, a large gap in access to services still remains. . . . Not enough resources are going toward this group of women, among the most vulnerable in our society. . . Greater access to services is key[.]"

For Ms. Hernandez's sake and the sake of so many other women and families, we need to keep the pressure on to ensure that health problems are addressed through the public health system, not the criminal justice system, and that supportive, accessible and appropriate services are fully funded and made available to the people who need them. In other words – treatment must become available not as a matter of diversion from the criminal justice system but rather provided as a matter of human rights.

We know that many of you are committed to developing new interventions, programs and policies to support pregnant and parenting women, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on these efforts.

Sincerely,

Lynn Paltrow, JD
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
This and other news about women and organizing can be found at www.realcostofprisons.orgmpowering Oklahoma women & girls
Monday, November 24, 2008
Theresa Lee Hernandez- Followup
Dear Amici, Activists, and Allies:

We are so pleased to let you know that on November 19, 2008, after serving only one year from the date of sentencing, Theresa Lee Hernandez was released from prison.

As you know, Ms. Hernandez was arrested in 2004 and charged with first-degree murder (a crime with a potential penalty of 25 years-to-life imprisonment) and second-degree murder for having suffered a stillbirth. The state claimed -- without any scientific basis -- that the stillbirth was caused by her methamphetamine use.

In 2007, as her case approached trial, national and state-based organizations, advocates and experts organized, educated and spoke out against the prosecution. These efforts were instrumental in helping Ms. Hernandez avoid a life sentence and in enabling her counsel, Robin Shellow and Jim Rowan, to negotiate a plea bargain. That plea, entered last November, resulted in a sentence of 15 years, to be revisited after Ms. Hernandez served one year in prison.

As the Tulsa World reported: "Theresa Lee Hernandez, 31, appeared before Judge Virgil Black for a sentencing modification hearing. At the request of prosecutors, Black agreed to "suspend the remainder of her sentence and ordered her released from custody." Ms. Hernandez will go to a private treatment program for 90 days and will be on probation for 10 years.

Just a week before Ms. Hernandez's November 19 release, the second of two public forums regarding pregnancy, parenting and drug use was held. This forum, held at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, was co-sponsored by the local chapters of the National Association of Social Workers and of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the YWCA Oklahoma City, and Oklahoma State University's Gender and Women's Studies program. The panel discussion included local experts, doctors Eli Reshef and Dana Stone, and continued a conversation that drew upon evidence-based research concerning pregnancy, parenting and drug use. This conversation had begun at an Oklahoma forum one year earlier, in anticipation of Ms. Hernandez's sentencing.

The extent to which the organizing and public education effort made a difference is not only evident in Ms. Hernandez' early release, but also in what happened on the day of her release, how the media reported the decision, and what the prosecutor, District Attorney David Prater is now saying and doing.

Ms. Hernandez' release was not typical. Even in cases where a conviction is completely overturned, prisoners are almost always returned to prison for processing – something that can take weeks or even months - before they are finally released. In Ms. Hernandez' case, the judge ordered that her handcuffs be removed right in the courtroom and that she be allowed to leave straight from the courthouse to her awaiting family and friends. Ms. Hernandez was thus able, that day, to have her first taste of freedom in four years.

The media reporting was also an amazing example of what can be accomplished through meaningful education, outreach and activism.

The Channel 9 news story: "Freed from Prison" began by noting that "The case created a firestorm with doctors and women's advocates who rallied to the woman's side." Both print and television coverage noted that her release was met by the applause and cheers of family, onlookers, and supporters.

The entire Channel 9 news story was framed in a positive light. The correspondent on the Channel 9 story was asked to report about, "how authorities are now working to prevent another case like this from occurring." The correspondent began his report again referencing the experts: "Medical experts questioned whether the drug use actually caused the death of the baby, and the District Attorney heard those pleas and today asked that the prison sentence be suspended."

Kathleen Wallace, an Oklahoma City University law student, NAPW legal intern, and Oklahoma activist, appeared in the broadcast news report explaining, "It is bad precedent to charge pregnant women with a crime when what they did was try and take their pregnancy to term in spite of a drug addiction." According to Channel 9 news, "the district attorney agreed. . ."

District Attorney David Prater's actions and statements also indicated the extent to which education, outreach and activism made a difference. On the one hand, Mr. Prater stuck to the junk science story that pregnant women who use illegal drugs kill their babies, and the fable that imprisonment serves a social good by giving bad people like Ms. Hernandez a chance to prove themselves and to taking advantage of prison-based treatment programs.

(Surely, though Mr. Prater is aware of a recent case in which Oklahoma county had to pay $385,000 in damages to a woman who suffered a stillbirth as the result of horribly inadequate health care and treatment while imprisoned in the very same County Jail that Theresa Hernandez was held in for three years. )

On the other hand, Mr. Prater emerged as a meaningful spokesperson regarding the value of drug treatment and the need to increase access that treatment. On Channel 9 news, he said, "Drug and alcohol addiction is something that most people don't understand and that people need help in dealing with their drug and alcohol addiction." According to the Channel 9 news report, "Because of this case, Prater is now working to put a pilot program in place to divert pregnant women on drugs into treatment instead of locking them up. And state lawmakers will be asked to fund the program once it is developed."

Significantly, there has not been a single new OK County arrest of a pregnant woman or of a woman who suffered a stillbirth since the state-based organizing and education efforts began.

Nevertheless, while there is real cause to celebrate, there is no cause to stop working to ensure justice for pregnant and parenting women who struggle with drug problems. Although Ms. Hernandez was released to a treatment program, this was only made possible by a private benefactor willing to pick up the costs of her private treatment program – a program that may or may not facilitate her recovery and ensure that she will remain free.

The state needs to address the appalling lack of access to drug treatment and other services that will help pregnant women and families address drug and other health problems and stay together. On June 30, 2004 the Oklahoma Legislature established the Joint Task Force on Prenatal Addiction and Treatment. At their first meeting on Dec. 20, 2004, Sally Carter, an employee with the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services reported, "More than 80 percent of pregnant women in OK who need substance abuse treatment do not have access to it." Nearly three years later, on May 23, 2007, the Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Terri White, stated:

"Although we are making progress in providing better perinatal services to pregnant women addicted to drugs or alcohol, a large gap in access to services still remains. . . . Not enough resources are going toward this group of women, among the most vulnerable in our society. . . Greater access to services is key[.]"

For Ms. Hernandez's sake and the sake of so many other women and families, we need to keep the pressure on to ensure that health problems are addressed through the public health system, not the criminal justice system, and that supportive, accessible and appropriate services are fully funded and made available to the people who need them. In other words – treatment must become available not as a matter of diversion from the criminal justice system but rather provided as a matter of human rights.

We know that many of you are committed to developing new interventions, programs and policies to support pregnant and parenting women, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on these efforts.

Sincerely,

Lynn Paltrow, JD
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
To read the stories and see some of the video coverage, please visit:

1. http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=9382106Meth Mom in Stillborn Case Leaves Prison, (with featured video), News 9, staff and wire reports - News9.com, posted and updated: Nov. 19, 2008.

2. http://www.koco.com/news/18019393/detail.htmlRecovering Meth Addict Gets Second Chance, Teresa Hernandez's Unborn Baby Died From Her Drug Use, KOCO 5, koco.com, posted and updated: Nov. 19, 2008.

3. http://newsok.com/okc-meth-mom-wins-early-release/article/3323593OKC Meth Mom Wins Early Release: Woman Was Convicted of Murder in Her Unborn Son's Drug-Related Death, Oklahoman (Oklahoma City), Jay F. Marks, Nov. 20, 2008.

Posted by lois at 10:08 AM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2008

WI Books to Prisoners: artwork by prisoners and others wanted

WANTED – ARTWORK BY PRISONERS AND OTHERS

Wisconsin Books to Prisoners was the recipient of a powerful set of posters created by 20 printmakers from the JUSTSEEDS Visual Resistance art collective. These posters were created in anticipation of the 10th anniversary of Critical Resistance, a prison abolitionist movement, and call attention to the human rights catastrophe in U.S. jails and prisons, and the use of policing, prisons and punishment as a “solution” to social, political and economic problems.

The posters and artwork by prisoners and others will be displayed at a gallery in Madison at the end of January 2009. Art that addresses the condition of prisons and the daily drudgery and cruelties of prison life would be particularly appreciated.

Please do not send anything that you want returned or is not copyright free. Also, please let us know how you wish to be (or not be) identified. We welcome artwork year around.

Many thanks in advance to those who make contributions to this event.

Please send artwork:

Wisconsin Books to Prisoners
Rainbow Bookstore
426 W. Gilman St.
Madison, WI 53703

WI Books to Prisoners was banned by the WI DOC from sending books to Wisconsin prisoners. They are fighting that ban now and continue sending books to other prisoners.

Please feel free to forward this email. Thank you.

Posted by lois at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)

MA: "Reform is Needed" letter by Barbara Dougan of FAMM

Letters to the Editor - The Boston Globe
Reform is needed
November 23, 2008

"PRISON TO double-bunk inmates" highlights the urgent need for sentencing reform in Massachusetts. Our prisons are bursting, due in large part to costly and inflexible mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Almost 17 percent of state prisoners are serving a mandatory sentence, a 32 percent increase over the past 10 years. Many are serving these harsh sentences for first-time, nonviolent offenses. These prisoners are also ineligible for parole or participation in work-release programs, which are key tools to relieve prison overcrowding.

Massachusetts currently spends, on average, about $48,000 per year on each state prisoner. Building new prisons is costly too - about $1 million for each new prison bed. Repealing mandatory minimums for drug offenders would lead to significant savings of taxpayer dollars.

Harold Clarke, commissioner of the Department of Correction, is correct to say that costly prison space should be for those who pose a public safety risk, not for those needing drug treatment or for low-level offenders. The coming legislative session offers the Commonwealth an opportunity to save money by adopting sensible sentencing reform.

Barbara J. Dougan
Newton
The writer is Massachusetts project director with Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

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

November 22, 2008

Phone and Fax for Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim

PhonSF 8 defendants Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim (aka Anthony Bottom) are being held in intolerable conditions in the San Francisco County jail, a facility designed to hold arrestees for only a day or two.

The Free the SF 8 committee is are asking that you phone and fax California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger every Wednesday demanding that California return Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim (Anthony Bottom) to New York state for their parole hearings. Please also send us an email when you have done so at FreetheSF8@riseup.nete and Fax for Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqim

In order for this to be a success, we need you to help spread the word and take a few minutes to make the call and send the fax.

You can print out and fax the attached form letter and use the phone script below.

********* Phone Script **************

Phone (916) 445-2841

Governor Schwarzenegger,

I call upon you to immediately transfer Herman Bell and Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), back to New York State custody. Mr. Bell and Mr. Bottom have been languishing in the San Francisco County Jail for over two years, while their case – the San Francisco 8 – has no trial date in sight. The San Francisco County Jail is not meant to hold people for an extended period of time, and two years in sub-standard living conditions has had devastating effects on Mr. Bell and Mr. Bottom and their families.

California State prosecutors and the judge have already agreed to transfer Mr. Bell and Mr. Bottom. I urge you, Governor Schwarzenegger to follow through and implement this agreement. Stop reneging and do what’s right! Transfer them now!

AND
PHONE (518-474-8390) Governor David Patterson of NY to grant clemency/commutation to Jalil. And to ask Gov. Patterson to allow Jalil and Herman Bell to appear before the parole board.

Posted by lois at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)

November 18, 2008

Amherst MA: Justice for Jason Campaign

On February 3, 2008, two white men appeared at the window of the dormitory room of Jason Vassell, a black student who was majoring in Biology at UMass Amherst. The two men subjected Jason to racial invective and threats of violence. They kicked in his window and later gained access to an outer lobby of his dorm, where they attacked Jason, breaking his nose and causing a serious concussion. Injured and attempting to defend himself, Jason wounded his assailants with a small knife while the police were on the way to the site of the crime.

Jason faces two felony charges that could result in 30 years in prison.
http://www.justiceforjason.org/

Posted by lois at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2008

California Youth Defeat ‘Lock ‘em Up’ Politics -Prop 6

New America Media, Commentary, Raj Jayadev //
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 Review it on NewsTrust

Eclipsed by the enormity of a nation voting in a black President, and a statewide cultural war over gay marriage, is that fact that California registered one the most dramatic and significant shifts in attitude over incarceration policies in state history this past election.

The quintessential “tough on crime” initiative, Proposition 6, was overwhelmingly rejected by voters across the state, a count of 70 percent to 30 percent, and did not win a majority in a single county. With little news coverage, and no commercials on either side leading up to the election, the trouncing of Prop. 6 was a near unadulterated reflection of California's new mind-set on criminal justice policies. The numbers point to a repudiation of “lock 'em all up” politics that has dominated the state for decades.

Prop. 6 was an ambitious, catch-all initiative that targeted youth, immigrants, and even families of those who had been involved in the criminal justice system. The proposition would have created more than 30 changes in the law. It would have turned some nonviolent misdemeanors into felonies, dramatically increased prison sentences for "gang-related" crimes, put 14-year-olds in the adult system, mandated regular criminal background checks on families in public housing with aims of removal, and denied bail to undocumented immigrants facing certain felony charges. It would have cost an estimated $965 million to fund annually.

But as far-reaching, perhaps even arrogant, of an attempt Prop. 6 was to balloon incarceration rates, proponents knew they were facing good odds given the track record of previous tough on crime proposals. The three strikes law, that doubles sentences for second offenses, and gives life on their third, was passed by voters in 1994 with numbers inversely mirroring the Prop. 6 results (72 percent in favor), and has withstood repeated legal and legislative attempts to be removed. Prop. 21 passed in 2000 despite the birth of a California youth movement that fought tooth and nail to defeat it. That proposition further cemented anti-gang laws and lowered the age for minors to be convicted and sentenced as adults. It won with the approval of more than 60 percent of voters.

Ironically, though, it may have been the consequences of these tough on crime laws that caused voters to depart from their previous voting pattern.

California, upon the governor's orders, is in a Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency. The legislature was forced to authorize $7.7 billion to create more beds at state prisons over the next 10 years. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the state's prison population is more than 170,000 inmates housed in facilities designed for 100,000.

Proponents of tough crime laws typically extol their proposals by arguing that they would "take more criminals off the street," but, more accurately, they just put more people in prison – to a point well beyond the state’s infrastructure capacity and budget.

Any policy that would increase prison rates, given the current crisis, would seem irrational. And with the financial crisis facing California, plus the $8 billion for prisons we still need to come up with, any proposition with a billion dollar price tag was going to be a hard sell -- whether it was beds for prisons, or even books for kids.

But outside of the fiscal argument against Prop. 6, California has been witness to the devastating impact of tough on crime laws on communities of color. Statewide, roughly 75 percent of those serving second and third-strike sentences are minorities. In Santa Clara County, black youths are arrested at a rate of seven times their proportion in the general population. Any new law that would increase incarceration would simultaneously increase the conscience-shocking racial disproportionality as well.

And of course we knew who was at the polls this time around: youth and people of color – those more likely to know firsthand how prison destroys families, those more likely to know personally the man given his third strike for stealing a candy bar, or the juvenile who is deemed a gang member just because he liked a certain sport team or was from a certain neighborhood. Indeed, the contradiction would be too large for an electorate to overwhelmingly vote for a black man to be president, yet at the same time seal the fate of thousands of black men to a life behind bars.

Many families who were victims of three strikes and Prop. 21 – having learned how quickly a public policy can become a personal nightmare – also became the most vocal advocates against Prop. 6.

Without the gloss of a campaign public relations firm, their efforts took on the dynamism and energy of a movement rather than a campaign. Immigrant youth, the same group that in 2006 sparked the largest protest marches in this country's history, already knew what tactics worked. Young people from East Palo Alto sent weekly fact texts like, "Did you know Prop. 6 would lock up youth as adults? Pass it on." In San Jose, they held rallies in front of the jails, calling out their relatives’ names, and getting inmates to flash their lights on and off to signal their support. Across the state, youth posted YouTube videos, made rap songs and MySpace pages.

While Californians battle among themselves over gay marriage, and collectively rejoice and marvel at their new president, the biggest change in history ushered in by voters may be the one that didn't make the news.

The impact may be felt across the country in coming years. We know from three strikes, Prop. 21, and anti-gang laws that originate from California that such proposals become the template laws for other states and even federal legislation if they make the grade in California. Currently, more than half of all the states in the country now have anti-gang laws that are based on the language of California legislation, and there are eight similar proposals pending in Congress.

Stopping Prop. 6 may be have the biggest "change" that never made headlines.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=f046d9d7c84cbc1724f01206edaf4749

Posted by lois at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

CA: Prop. 5 and 6 defeated in election

2 of 3 CA crime measures fail at polls
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
AP

LOS ANGELES -- Two of three crime initiatives on California's ballot were rejected Tuesday by voters who may have been deterred by the hefty cost to taxpayers in hard economic times.

In a one-two punch, voters defeated two competing measures that appeared consecutively: Proposition 5, which would have increased drug rehabilitation programs, and Proposition 6, which would have cracked down on gang crimes.

They were narrowly favoring a third measure that would write crime victims' rights into the state Constitution.

Proposition 5 failed with 62 percent voting in opposition and 38 percent in favor with 28 percent of precincts reporting. The measure would have diverted an estimated 84,000 drug offenders - including those able to convince judges that their serious crimes are drug-related - into treatment programs each year.

Proposition 6 failed with 69 percent opposed and 31 percent in favor, also with 28 percent of precincts in. The initiative would have stiffened penalties for many gang crimes, including allowing gang members as young as 14 to be tried as adults. It would have made methamphetamine possession a felony.

A majority of voters were favoring Proposition 9, however. The measure was leading with 54 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed with 28 percent of precincts tallied. The measure would expand on the "Victims' Bill of Rights" approved by voters in 1982 while making it more difficult for criminals to be paroled.

Both of the failed measures carried hefty price tags at a time when California faces a growing state budget deficit.

"I think they both signify more money and I think people are tightening their belts," said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who opposed Proposition 5 and favored 6 and 9.

Proposition 5 would have eventually cost $1 billion a year for expanded rehabilitation programs for 84,000 drug offenders annually, projected the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

However, incarcerating fewer offenders would cut the number of inmates in California's crowded prisons by 17 percent, the analyst estimated. That could have eventually saved the state $1 billion in annual prison costs and $2.5 billion for new prisons.

The initiative was backed by billionaire investor and liberal activist George Soros, who also sponsored a less sweeping drug diversion measure approved by California voters in 2000.

Critics - including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and all four of his living predecessors - say the measure is one step in a nationwide drive to decriminalize drugs.

"I think people saw through that initiative," Baca said. "Those who perpetuate the crimes, because they're drug users, are almost given an incredible free ride."

They likely rejected get-tough Proposition 6 after opponents highlighted its cost to taxpayers, Baca said.

Proposition 6 would have cost the already stressed state budget $500 million a year in increased payments to local police, prosecutors, probation and rehabilitation services, plus $500 million for new prisons, the state analyst projected. It also includes $15 million to monitor the movements of sex offenders through global positioning systems.

Costs were tougher to project for Proposition 9, the crime victims' rights measure.

The initiative would require state and local officials to spend whatever it takes to avoid releasing inmates early to ease crowding in prisons or jails. That sets up potential legal conflicts with federal court orders capping the number of inmates who can be housed in 20 jails throughout the state.

"I think the empathy is on the side of the victims," Baca said, though he expects the crime initiative to face court challenges.

Both 6 and 9 were backed by billionaire Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III, who was indicted in June on federal securities fraud and drug charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6489380

Posted by lois at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

November 05, 2008

MA: Voters approve marijuana law change

The Boston Globe
QUESTION 2
Voters approve marijuana law change
By David Abel, Globe Staff | November 5, 2008

Voters yesterday overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying dozens of joints will no longer be reported to the state's criminal history board.

With about 90 percent of the state's precincts reporting last night, voters favored the Question 2 proposition 65 percent to 35 percent. (from Lois: MA presidential tally: Winner Obama- 1,838,746 or 62% McCain,075,007 or 36%)

"The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy," said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. "They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense."

The proposition will become law 30 days after it is reported to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they have done with prior initiatives passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Opponents of the proposition said they are concerned about the potential consequences of the vote. "The administration is clear in its opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana, and we are concerned about the effects of ballot Question 2's passage," Kevin Burke, secretary of the state's Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, said in a statement.

He would not comment on whether the administration will try to repeal the law, which will require violators younger than 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.

Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record.

The opponents, who include the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence.

In a statement, the Coalition for Safe Streets, which opposed the initiative, blamed the loss on being outspent by supporters of Question 2, which included the billionaire financier George Soros, who spent more than $400,000 in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

"Now these pro-drug special interests will move on to another state as part of their plan to inflict a radical drug-legalization agenda on as many communities as possible," said the statement.

The Rev. Bruce Wall, pastor of Global Ministries Christian Church in Dorchester, was among several prominent black ministers in Boston who called on fellow clergy to oppose the initiative.

"I guess there are a lot of people smoking the stuff, and they don't see what we see," Wall said.

The initiative's success last night sparked loud cheers from supporters gathered at the Silvertone Bar & Grill in downtown.

"I think this points to how our Legislature is unwilling to represent their constituents on these issues," said Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.

Globe correspondent Matt Negrin contributed to this report.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/voters_approve_marijuana_law_change/

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

November 03, 2008

CA: Prop 5 vs. the prison-industrail complex

From the Los Angeles Times
Prop. 5 vs. the prison-industrial complex
The officials and special interests who oppose the drug rehabilitation measure are doing so to protect their own power and money.
By Ethan Nadelmann
November 3, 2008

If Proposition 5 goes down to defeat on Tuesday, the five governors who lined up to condemn it Thursday will have won a Pyrrhic victory. Not one has offered an alternative to Proposition 5 for dealing responsibly with California's prison overcrowding crisis, the exploding prison budget or the outlandish power of a union whose interests lie in incarcerating as many of their fellow citizens as possible.

Each of them has given lip service to the need for treatment instead of incarceration in dealing with drug convictions and other nonviolent offenders with drug problems. But not one of them has shown any willingness to take seriously decades of empirical research on what works best in reducing drug addiction, crime and recidivism.

This has always been an area of government action in which rhetoric drives policy. But what's so depressing about this Gang of Five's united opposition to Proposition 5 is their combination of dishonesty and myopia.

A duplicitous TV ad that features Sen. Dianne Feinstein and is paid for by the prison guards union, beer distributors and casino interests tell us that Proposition 5 will cost too much. But those ads do not acknowledge, cite or even bother to challenge the analysis of the state's legislative analyst's office. Estimated annual cost: $1 billion. Estimated annual savings: $1 billion. One-time savings in capital outlay costs: $2.5 billion. That makes Proposition 5 a wash on annual costs and a true bargain for taxpayers. In fact, it's only the third ballot initiative in the last decade that contains quantifiable cuts to state spending. Only one of those ballot initiatives has passed: Proposition 36, California's first treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative, which voters passed in 2000.

So why the effort to deceive voters?

It's all about -- no surprise -- resources and power. Why is the prison-industrial complex rearing its fearsome head right now? Because Proposition 5 would effectively transfer $1 billion from prison and parole to treatment and rehabilitation. That means fewer jobs in a massive prison system now consuming about 10% of the state's budget and more resources for programs proven to reduce drug abuse, crime and recidivism more cheaply and effectively than prison and parole.

The opposition to Proposition 5 is grounded in America's tragic exceptionalism when it comes to incarcerating its own citizens. The United States makes up less than 5% of the world's population but claims almost 25% of the world's incarcerated population. We rank, shamefully, first in the world in reported per-capita incarceration rates. But not one of those governors stops to ask why California, with rates of drug use and nonviolent crime roughly equal to those in other advanced industrialized countries, relies on incarceration at a rate five to 10 times higher.

Proposition 5's opponents keep claiming, falsely, that the initiative would make it impossible to hold nonviolent offenders accountable. In reality, Proposition 5 is chock full of accountability, not just for the offenders who get a second chance to get their lives together but also for those charged with enforcing the laws. Ask why California has evolved from the state of higher education into the state of higher incarceration. Ask why the state has built just one new University of California campus but 21 new prisons over the last 25 years. It's because the prison-industrial complex has exercised its political power to ensure that it is never held accountable -- that its budgets grow unchecked and that its exercises of discretion and prejudice are never balanced by independent oversight and objective judgment.

Proposition 5 would provide just that balance. Its provisions incorporate several of the major expert recommendations on prison, parole and treatment diversion reform as put forth by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's hand-picked advisors, the Deukmejian commission, Schwarzenegger's Rehabilitation Strike Team, the governor's Corrections Independent Review Panel, UCLA experts, the Little Hoover Commission, the state Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections' Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming, the VERA Institute of Justice and others.

That's what ultimately makes Proposition 5 unacceptable to powerful vested interests within the political and criminal justice system. It dares to speak truth to power and take the politics out of criminal justice -- which is why that motley crew of statehouse residents ganged up Thursday to condemn it. Now it's the voter's turn to lead.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance Network (drugpolicy.org), a major proponent of Proposition 5.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-nadelman3-2008nov03,0,3924232.story

Posted by lois at 07:05 PM | Comments (0)

October 25, 2008

VA: R.I.H.D: Advocacy conference promotes rehabilitation, not warehousing

Advocacy conference promotes rehabilitation, not warehousing
By Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy

More than 150 people came to Richmond from across the country to attend a conference that had a simple but profound message: prisoners and inmates are people too, and deserve to be treated as such. And doing so will benefit not only the incarcerated, but society as a whole.

The non-profit, all-volunteer organization Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged (R.I.H.D.) held its 2nd annual "Reducing Crime and Recidivism Awareness Conference" and "Prisoner Art Show Fund Raiser" Oct. 11 at Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church in Richmond’s East End. Participants came from as far away as California.

The days event’s began on the church’s steps, as the Wesley Memorial’s Rev. Rodney Hunter offered a prayer for those assembled. Then Blacks, Hispanics, whites, adults, youth and children in strollers set off and walked through the community, past the City Jail and the Oliver Hill Courts Building, chanting in English and Spanish: "Stop the war on the poor!" and "Education, not warehousing!"

The conference itself offered a forum for the professional exchange of knowledge and the interaction between the Virginia criminal justice system, the state’s legislative branch, faith-based community organizations and concerned members of the community.

It also called on Virginia state politicians to pass proposed restoration of voting rights legislation that would affect more than 377,000 presently disenfranchised Virginia citizens.

R.I.H.D.’s goal was to raise awareness of how concerned people can mobilize in their respective areas and be proactive in the legislative process. The organization states that communities must ensure that our elected officials are working towards keeping our communities safer through new and innovative approaches to reducing crime and recidivism.

R.I.H.D. contends that incarceration should not merely punish, but should also foster rehabilitation through education and "earned" second-chance re-entry programs. Additionally, programs that deter criminal behavior before a crime is ever committed should be expanded. The safety of the public and adequate rehabilitation for the offender can co-exist by passing "Fair & Smart" laws.

Conference panelists included: former Richmond City Councilman Sa’ad El-Amin, speaking on "Reform Advocacy;" Rev. J.E. Gash, from the Active Hand Ministry; Rev. Claude Gunn, form Virginia Re-entry in Lynchburg ; Carroll Malik, from Re-entry Housing for Men; Delegate Joe Morrissey, speaking on "Restoration of Rights;" Harold (Universal) Richardson, a former Virginia prisoner; Janet (Queen Nzinga) Taylor, from Prisoners and Families for Equal Rights & Justice; Larry Valentine, a former Virginia Supermax prisoner; Richmond Defender Editor Phil Wilayto, speaking on "Prisons as a Continuation of the Slave Labor System;" Jeff Winder, from People United, speaking on "Immigration;" and Cathy Woodson, from the Virginia Organizing Project.

Congressman Robert "Bobby" Scott was unable to attend the conference, but was interviewed about the issues later that evening by California TV reporter Lisa Lake. The entire conference and the Scott interview was filmed for future national broadcast. A DVD is expected to be released sometime in November.

For more information, including times and channels for the TV broadcast and DVD availability, visit www.rihd.org.

Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy is Executive Director of R.I.H.D.

http://www.defendersfje.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/RD4-5.pdf

Posted by lois at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

October 19, 2008

VA: Richmond Investors Plan to Cash in on Immigrant Detainees

Richmond Investors Plan to Cash in on Immigrant Detainees
by Jeff Winder

Changing immigration enforcement policy has left federal authorities struggling to cope with rapidly rising numbers of detainees. A controversial partnership in Farmville, VA proposes to address the crisis with a 1,040 bed, for-profit immigrant detention center.

During 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has conducted raids of historic proportions, arresting hundreds of undocumented workers at a time in Iowa, California, Mississippi and most recently, South Carolina. Virginia has not been immune to this trend. 2008 saw a sharp increase in ICE activity with raids in Amelia, Harrisonburg, northern Virginia and the high-profile arrest of 33 construction workers at the nearly completed Richmond federal courthouse.

ICE, a federal agency hastily created under the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of September 11th, is floundering as they try to cope with this influx, creating dangerous conditions for those detained. Recent investigations by the Washington Post and New York Times thoroughly document a pattern of medical neglect in ICE detention that has resulted in dozens of preventable deaths.

A partnership between ICE, the city of Farmville, VA and a private company proposes to address this crisis with a new 1,000-plus bed immigrant detention center in the small, southside Virginia town. Immigration Centers of America - Farmville (ICA) plans to break ground on October 15th and be operational by June of 2009.

Information about ICA and their qualifications to run a detention facility has been withheld from the public. The company, owned by two real estate developers and the CEO of a company that sells industrial mixers to bakeries, does not have a web site.

According to the Virginia Corporation Commission website, they first filed in June of 2007. This was just one month before the first of two grants was requested from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission, a state-administered fund whose stated purpose is "to make payments to farmers to compensate for the decline of tobacco quotas and to promote economic growth and development in tobacco-dependent communities." The fund awarded the projects two grants totaling nearly $600,000 to pay for water, sewer, roads, parking lots and fencing.

Spokesperson Tim Pfohl said the grants were awarded based on a formula that projects how quickly a community will "recapture" the grant monies in the form of tax revenues. When questioned on the qualifications of ICA to manage this facility, he said, "Our job is not to weigh their ability to do the job. That is for the federal folks to figure out. We accept the receipt of a federal contract as proof of their qualifications."

But during an October 2nd interview, ICE spokesperson Richard Rocha denied that there is any commitment yet by the federal government to house prisoners at the Farmville facility. "We have only signed a transportation agreement with Farmville so far. We have not committed to using any facility if it was built. We are, however, working with the city to ensure that any facility built would be to ICE standards." When asked about the qualifications of ICA to run the facility, Rocha said, "It would be premature to talk about staffing or process, but our only contract is with the city of Farmville. You will have to talk to the town manager."

Gerald Spates, Farmville town manager, had this to say about ICA, "Well, I'll grant you, they are new at this, but they have been trying to get this project going for five years. The key is in the highly qualified personnel that they will bring in." He suggested contacting ICA directly but also agreed to respond to a series of question about the background of ICA, the roster of upper-level employees that they plan to bring in and the financial arrangements by October 7th. He failed to provide any of this information and has not returned phone calls since then.

An unidentified spokesperson at the offices of ICA declined to answer any questions and said that all information about the plans would have to come from Gerald Spates. A call to real estate developer and partner in ICA Warren Coleman resulted in this statement, "We have a policy of not giving any information about this project. All of that has to come from ICE."

"We've been hearing horror stories about detainees being put into prison with other criminals when all they have done is be here without documentation. Our goal is to keep them safe," Spates continued, "But I want to be honest with you. We do stand to gain financially from this."

During a public meeting in Farmville, ICA spokesperson Ken Newsome projected that at 85% capacity the facility will generate $322,000 annually in fees for the City in addition to an estimated $450,000 in tax revenue for Farmville and Prince Edward County. According to the Washington Post, if the facility does run at the projected capacity, ICA stands to gross $20 million in federal tax dollars annually.

Privately-run immigrant detention centers of this type have been plagued by scandal, lawsuits and controversy. The private-prison watchdog group Grassroots Leadership, has documented a pattern of abuses. They cite examples including a center in Elizabeth New Jersey that was shut down temporarily when immigrants were awarded $2.5 million in damages after an investigation showed that poorly trained guards served rotting food and physically and mentally abused prisoners. ICE turned the facility over to Correctional Corporation of America (CCA), despite this group also having a documented history of abuses in its facilities. In March of last year, nearly 1,000 immigrant prisoners in the 1,500 bed facility run by CCA in Lumpkin, GA, went on a hunger strike protesting conditions including lack of medical care.

Private companies like ICA profit from inefficiency in the immigrant detention system. A recent article by the Washington Post documents immigrants languishing in ICE custody for months even after signing a voluntary deportation order. This means more days of space "purchased" from companies like ICA at taxpayer expense.

The demand for these spaces is at an all-time high with the recent increase in ICE raids and all indications are that it will continue to rise. Under the Secure Communities plan, ICE will be expanding enforcement efforts and initiating deportation proceedings against any noncitizen, documented or not, who is arrested.

Viable alternatives to immigrant incarceration do exist at a fraction of the cost. With their Appearance Assistance Program, the Vera Institute for Justice achieved a 93% appearance rate in court including final appearances at a cost of $12 a day. ICA's $63 dollar per day rate is at the low end of the range of per diem charges in the region where Alexandria tops the list at $113 daily.

Shenandoah Valley community organizer Patrick Lincoln questions the role of corporate lobbyists in setting immigration policy, "The criminalization of immigrants is about feeding a profit driven prison system. It's no coincidence that alarm about immigration has mirrored a national decrease in crime, a slow-down in the growth of the prison system and a shrinking in the profits of companies like the Corrections Corporation of America."

Community activists express concerns about the impact plans for the prison are having on the immigrant community in Virginia. Prince William County (PWC) is the most noteworthy in a series of new state and local level laws that target immigrants. Despite vigorous community opposition, the PWC board of supervisors unanimously passed a resolution that denies social services to immigrants and increase powers of local law enforcement officers to inquire into immigration status. This trend, along with the increase in ICE raids has helped to create a climate of fear among immigrants and resulted in many families leaving the area.

"For a lot of the people I have talked to this new prison is the last straw," said community activist Sue Frankel-Streit, speaking of her involvement with the Louisa Pan-American Friendship Committee. The Louisa County group was started by Latin-American immigrants who met at an English class. They work to dispel myths about immigration by hosting dinners at local churches where immigrants and citizens can get to know each other. "Knowing that a 1,000 bed immigrant prison is opening just 40 miles from here is causing people to think maybe it is time to leave this country. It disgusts me that we treat people this way."

"We are seeing people who have already been hurt by our economic policies victimized again," said Teresa Stanley of the advocacy group Sowers of Justice. "These people are only trying to work to support their families. They contribute hundreds of millions to the Virginia economy and they are being locked up so that corporations can reap a profit." This was a reference to a study released this year by the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis which found the annual tax contribution of undocumented workers in Virginia to be over $400 million.

As an increasingly popular immigrant destination and home to some of the most repressive local immigrant ordinances in the country, Virginia is often in the national spotlight. "We want this facility to be a model that other localities can use," said Spates. For better or worse, it does appear that the fate of this facility will be an indication of how communities will respond to immigration during the years to come.
http://www.thepeopleunited.org/immigrantJustice.php?id=7

Posted by lois at 01:24 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2008

NV: Article on Frank Smith Fighting Detention Center

Oct. 15, 2008
Opponent plans meeting on detention center
By MARK WAITE
Pahrump Valley Times (Nevada)

Officials from Corrections Corporation of America don't plan to be in attendance when the Private Corrections Institute hosts a meeting on the pros and cons of a federal detention center in Pahrump at 3 p.m. Saturday at the Hafen Elementary School Auditorium.

Frank Smith, field organizer for the Private Corrections Institute will be the featured speaker. He invited prominent local opponents of the project to join him on a panel.

A biography on the Private Corrections Institute Web site states Smith has been a social justice activist for four decades, involved in criminal justice research, worked on a medical marijuana initiative in Alaska, labor organization, moratoriums on prison construction, restoring civl rights, alternatives to incarceration and programs offering substance abuse treatment.

If his resume looks as if he's committed to finding alternatives to incarceration, that's a correct assumption.

"That makes sense to the taxpayer," Smith said in a telephone interview. "We have way too many people in jail for way too long."

During comments at the public hearing on the development agreement for the federal detention center at the Nye County Commission meeting Sept. 16, Smith said the new president inaugurated Jan. 20, 2009, could change the country's immigration policy. The CCA facility would house prisoners awaiting a hearing in federal court and illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

"There will be an enormous surplus of beds which the (private prison) industry tends to ignore," Smith predicted.

Smith said he has dealt with CCA, the nation's largest private prison operator, for 12 years and warned, "A deal is never a deal."

"If you look at a town like Shelby, Mont., you'll find out how many times a deal gets negotiated in CCA's favor," he said at the public hearing.

Smith said CCA uses a central purchasing system, which means they don't spend as much money in town.

Smith and CCA Vice-President of Marketing and Communications Louise Grant exchanged words at the conclusion of the public hearing. Grant said the Private Corrections Institute was founded by the Florida Police Benevolent Association, a union representing prison workers.

"They're completely opposed to privatization because unions are (opposed)," Grant said. She charged the organization receives funding from the American Federation of State, Federal, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

"They are paid or they volunteered to come into communities specifically to go against privatization. That's their sole purpose," Grant said.

Smith, who is from Love City, Kan., denied Grant's accusations. He said the Private Corrections Institute was formed by several people active in the area of private prisons. He downplayed executive director Ken Kopczynski's role with the Florida Police Benevolent Association, though his resume on the institute's Web site states Kopczynski has been a legislative and political affairs assistant for the FPBA since 1993, the largest collective bargaining agent for law enforcement, correctional and probation officers in Florida.

"I can assure you that we won't be there," Grant said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "We have stated publicly what the agenda of the Private Corrections Institute is, and certainly our relationship is with the county and we are continuing to very proactively work on the development agreement. That's where our focus is today."

Grant said the company has held numerous public hearings, spoke at length at two recent town hall type meetings, posted information on its Web site and had community officials visit their facilities in other communities.

Smith will provide extensive data regarding the harmful consequences for host communities of detention centers, the advertisement states. He will discuss media, political and legal strategies to keep Pahrump from being victimized by CCA.

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2008/Oct-15-Wed-2008/news/24520518.html

Posted by lois at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)

October 08, 2008

MA: Town scrambles as 70 inmates register to vote

Town scrambles as 70 inmates register to vote
Civilly committed act on court ruling
Boston Globe

By Christine Legere, Globe Correspondent | October 1, 2008

BRIDGEWATER - More than 70 sex offenders and substance abusers from the local correctional facility have registered to vote here next month, following a recent court ruling that civilly committed prisoners are eligible to participate in elections.

The decision, which affects inmates who have finished their prison terms but remain committed for other reasons, has officials scrambling in this college town that hosts a psychiatric hospital, substance abuse center, and prison all under the authority of the state Department of Correction.

The Superior Court ruling stemmed from a case filed in 2004 by inmate William Stevens, who was civilly committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater because he was considered sexually dangerous. Stevens argued that Bridgewater Town Clerk Ronald Adams acted improperly in denying him the right to vote in the town because of his status as a prisoner.

Adams had also argued Stevens could not claim Bridgewater as the place where he lived simply because he was being held by the Department of Corrections in a Bridgewater facility. "He doesn't own a home here or rent here, pay taxes here, or have a car," Adams said. "All the things that usually define 'domicile.' "

Under state law, felons cannot participate in elections while in prison. But Superior Court Justice Richard Connon argued that the ban does not apply to civilly committed inmates, who have officially completed their criminal sentences but remain incarcerated because they have been deemed dangerous either to themselves or society.

In an August ruling, Connon said Stevens should not only be allowed to vote, but could also register as a Bridgewater resident because he didn't appear to have a strong tie to any other place.

Adams did not take any immediate action when the court decision arrived, but instead waited to see whether Stevens would follow through. Stevens did, and was followed by more than 70 inmates, who in the last two weeks have forwarded their voter registration cards to Adams, listing Administration Road in Bridgewater as their place of residence - the address of the prison facilities.

Adams has sent all of their names to the Department of Correction's central records office in Concord to determine whether each is still a prisoner or civilly committed. "Some of them, but not all, will qualify to vote," Adams said yesterday. "If they're not felons, the records division will tell us they're free and clear."

Corrections spokeswoman Diane Wiffin confirmed yesterday that Concord officials are working on Adams's list.

"All the Department of Correction will do is verify the status of the inmates," Wiffin said. "Then it will be up to the town clerk to decide who votes," based on whether they are eligible to claim residency in Bridgewater.

Assistant Town Clerk Jolie Martin said her office has never faced this problem.

"Before, I guess they just sent requests to their hometowns for absentee ballots," Martin said.

Selectmen Chairman Herbert Lemon said his board was asked by Adams to discuss the issue during last night's meeting. But he and Adams decided legal clarifications should be obtained prior to any public discussion.

"I wasn't even aware this was going on," Lemon said yesterday. "We have to find out how many this applies to, where they are going to vote, and what it's going to cost the town."

Asked his opinion on the developing situation, Lemon said: "It doesn't matter what I think about it, if that's what the court ruled."

"The time and effort involved in this, with the staff I have, is unbelievable," Adams complained, adding that prisoners number in the thousands. "But I will abide by what the court ruled."

Christine Legere can be reached at christinelegere@yahoo.com
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/01/town_scrambles_as_70_inmates_register_to_vote/

Posted by lois at 10:45 AM | Comments (0)

October 06, 2008

CA: Justice issues collide on ballot

Justice issues collide on ballot
By Andy Furillo
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sacramento Bee

Law and order activists, critics of California's drug laws and victims rights groups independently have loaded three separate crime measures onto the Nov. 4 ballot, and they're not making it easy for state voters to sort them out.

Together, Propositions 5, 6 and 9 cover 115 pages, would change scores of laws and would affect billions of dollars in state spending.

"My mom asked me if I have positions on all of them, and I told her I'm still working on it," said Assembly Public Safety Committee chairman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana, who presided over nine hours of hearings on the measures. "There's a lot to digest."

On Nov. 4, voters will decide whether to drastically change the way the state prosecutes drug addicts and the lower-level property crimes they commit, to the tune of diverting an estimated 18,000 offenders from prison into treatment programs. That's the basic thrust of Proposition 5.

They're also being asked to give local law enforcement more money, protect what funds they already get, and toughen laws aimed at street gang members, methamphetamine cookers and serious ex-cons who possess guns in public. Those are the basics of Proposition 6.

The third measure seeks to put victims at or near the center of the entire criminal justice process and give them a constitutional right to participate in plea bargaining and parole decisions. It also wants to make life-term inmates wait 15 years between parole hearings, stop early inmate releases and have counties build tent jails to handle inmate overflow. That's Proposition 9.

"The skies are getting crowded," UC Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring said of the air traffic over the criminal justice system. "It's become a two-sided process, with the left using it as well as the right."

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, whose office opposes Propositions 5 and 9 and has deep reservations about Proposition 6, said the ballot campaigns represent criminal justice policy-making at its worst.

"It only takes $2 million or $3 million to put any nice-sounding piece of junk into the constitution," Cooley said.

Big money is behind all three initiatives.

Billionaire financier George Soros contributed $1.4 million and three other out-of-state businessmen put in $2.6 million for Proposition 5. Soros and friends financed the Proposition 36 drug treatment initiative to victory in 2000.

Orange County high-tech tycoon Henry T. Nicholas III – now fighting a federal stock fraud, drug and prostitution indictment – gave $5.85 million to Propositions 6 and 9. His cash helped kill a ballot measure to overturn key provisions of California's "three-strikes" law in 2004.

At Solorio's hearings last month, police management and labor groups, prosecutors (minus Cooley) and crime victims led the fight for 6 and 9. Their opponents included criminal defense lawyers, teachers unions and civil rights activits. Proposition 5 had Soros' National Drug Policy Alliance, public defenders and drug treatment providers lined up against police and prosecutors (this time, with Cooley on their side).

The initiatives have reached the ballot as crime in California has descended to its lowest level in decades. Last year, violent crime, including the murder rate, had dropped to less than half its 1992 level. Property crime fell 44 percent in the same 15-year period.

Meanwhile, the state's prison population has more or less stabilized at just above the 170,000 mark. The system now houses a rising number of violent felons (52 percent, compared with 45 percent eight years ago) and a lower rate of drug offenders (20 percent, compared with 28 percent in 2000), according to California corrections statistics.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers also have prodded prison officials last year to do a better job of rehabilitating offenders. Their Assembly Bill 900 plan last year allocated billions in bond money to build more prison space tied to improved rehab programs. Partisan politics since have snagged its but prison officials still think the AB 900 plan will work.

Competing sides in the debate about California crime mostly see problems that only their measures can fix.

Proposition 5 supporters cite prisons crammed to twice their designed capacity, rising corrections budgets that now make up 10 percent of state general fund spending and nation-worst 70 percent recidivism rates.

Advocates for Propositions 6 and 9 worry about 420,000 street gang members in the state and constitutional protections that favor perpetrators more than their prey.

Emotions are running high.

At Solorio's hearings, Oakland attorney Keith Wattley, an opponent of the victims' rights measure, called Proposition 9 a "revenge initiative."

The statement outraged the measure's supporters.

"This is not a revenge initiative at all," said Harriet Salarno, president of Crime Victims United of California. "All we're asking for is the same rights. They (the convicted) have that right in the constitution. Why can't we have that right? Equal justice, that's as simple as it could be."

L.A.'s Cooley said Proposition 5, the drug initiative, was "vague" and filled with 60 pages of "minutiae that is incomprehensible."

Initiative spokesman Daniel Abrahamson said Proposition 5 needs to be long and complicated to "unravel" the state's heavy-handed approach to criminal justice.

"It's a complicated mess that requires nuanced responses," Abrahamson said.

Opponents of Proposition 6 questioned why the state needs it when crime has plummeted, but the initiative's point man, state Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, disregarded the overall statistics.

"Just listen to the victims," he said, referring to parents of murdered children who testified at the hearing. "Tell the victim, tell the mother of a child that's been shot, that crime's down."

In an interview after the nine hours of hearings, Solorio described the measures as containing "a kitchen sink of policy ideas and new programs that cost the taxpayer money."

He said there has to be a better way to set criminal justice policy.

"If there's a way to simplify them, that might be a good idea," Solorio said of the initiatives. "I hope the voters figure out what they all mean."
http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/1290837.html

Posted by lois at 06:36 PM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2008

Justice Policy Institute Report: Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex

The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) released a new report this week examining the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC)--the relationship between government and private interests that use imprisonment, policing, and surveillance as a solution to social, political, and economic problems. Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex, examines the progress of reform 10 years after Critical Resistance first launched its efforts to dismantle the PIC. The report underscores:

Despite crime rates at 30-year lows, the criminal justice system has under its control more people than ever.

* More than seven million people live their lives under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States.
* More than seven million people live their lives under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States.
* Spending on the criminal justice system, including police, corrections, the judiciary, has increased 64 percent between 1996 and 2005 to a total of $213 billion.
* The prison system disproportionately impacts communities of color. African Americans and Hispanics make up one third of the U.S. population but makeup 61 percent of the imprisoned population.
* Incarceration rates continue to increase whether crime rates are up or down.

Economic incentives encourage the growth of prisons and support increased surveillance, arrests, and imprisonment.

* Private Prisons: Corrections Corporation of America's stock price has been steadily rising. CCA recently posted a $35 million profit in the last quarter of 2007, up from $32 million in the same period in 2006.
* Prison Industries: Federal Prison Industries, a corporation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, has an online catalogue of merchandise for purchase by other federal agencies, including office furniture and clothing. State prison industries employed 56,000 people in prison in 1999 and, according to research published in Labor Studies Journal in 2002, generated $3 billion in sales and $67 million in profits for the states.
* Private Industry in Prison: In 1979, Congress established the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program to authorize private companies to employ people who are held behind bars and to execute contracts. Companies frequently pay people in prison below minimum wage for these "low-skilled" jobs and prisons garnish their wages further by charging for room and board. This process ensures that resources are pumped back into prisons and that individuals see little of their earnings.
* Industry for Surrounding Communities: Although public officials will often claim that prisons will bring jobs to rural or economically depressed areas, actually there is often little or no economic improvement or revitalization of the community.

Investments in policing and surveillance have increased, thereby widening the gateway to the criminal justice system.

* Although local police still receive the majority of funding, increases at the federal level are the most dramatic. Between 1982 and 2005, federal expenditures on police protection have increased 945.1 percent, from $2.15 billion in 1982 to $22.5 billion in 2005.
* Law enforcement agencies have significantly increased their surveillance capacity and presence in certain areas: in just three years the number of police departments using video cameras increased 15 percentage points. In 2000, 45 percent of local police departments regularly used video cameras. By 2003, 60 percent regularly operated video cameras, and an estimated 48,800 in-car cameras were in use.
* Cop-watching groups are increasing and becoming more organized in cities across the counties as a way to monitor police behaviors.
* Specialized police, particularly in schools, has also increased dramatically. In 1999, 54.1 percent of students ages 12 to18 reported the use of security guards and/ or assigned police officers at school, compared to 67.9 percent in 2005.

The prison industrial complex relies on the criminalization of certain actions to thrive.

* Federalization of certain offenses: The U.S. has added one new federal crime to the books every week for the past 7 years. This increase in crimes has directly added to the federal prison system, which has grown at triple the rate of state prison populations.

* War on Drugs: The war on drugs is increasingly waged with paramilitary-style tactics. In the past 20 years, there has been a 1,400 percent increase in the total number of SWAT team deployments.

* Criminalizing Poverty: More cities are relying on policies that are meant to address "quality of life crimes" by having a zero tolerance approach to behaviors such as panhandling, loitering, and "camping." A report in 2006 that surveyed 224 cities around the country on their laws involving the criminalization of homelessness and found that 27 percent of cities prohibited sitting or lying in certain public places and 43 percent prohibited begging in certain places.

* Criminalization of Immigration: The number of USBP agents nearly tripled between 1990 and 2005. In FY 2006 alone, 1,500 more agents were added. Since 1995, the number of people held by ICE in prisons and jails has increased more than 200 percent.

Media messages, public opinion, social policy, and government agencies legitimize the criminalization of certain behaviors to the benefit of the prison industrial complex.

* Crime and Public Safety: The frequency with which media reports crime does not fluctuate with actual crime rates. In 1994 when the violent crime rate was at its peak, there were more than 2,500 media crime stories. But as the violent crime rate continued to fall, the number of crime stories continued to fluctuate for the next 10 years, regardless of trends in violent or property offenses.

* Criminalization of Poverty: Researchers have found that television media relies on stereotypical assumptions about poverty and the symptoms of poverty (crime, drug use, mental illness) by linking those symptoms to visual cues and language ("abandoned house" or "drug-infested"). In one study, of the 239 news stories that mentioned symptoms of poverty, approximately 147 stories showed crime, drugs, and gangs as a manifestation of poverty.

* Criminalization of Immigration: Public opinion polls document public fear about Latino immigrants coming to the United States not to commit a terrorist act but to take jobs and use services typically guaranteed to U.S. residents, and to commit crimes. This is despite research which shows that while the number of undocumented immigrants increased 57 percent from 1990 to 2000, crime rates plummeted to some of the lowest in U.S. history.

Communities of color and people living in poverty are overwhelmingly disproportionately affected by the prison industrial complex.

* Data shows that in 2002, 8.5 percent of whites used illicit drugs, compared to 9.7 percent of African Americans. However, African Americans are admitted to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of whites.

* Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that 83.5 percent of people in jail in 2002 earned less than $2,000 per month prior to arrest.

* People of color are disproportionately affected by poverty and, thus are also more likely to be imprisoned. African Americans made up about 13 percent of the general population but approximately 22 percent of the people living in poverty and 40 percent of people in prisons and jails in 2006.

The report concludes that advocates must be just as innovative and flexible as the prison industrial complex in order to dismantle the system, while resisting so-called reforms that inadvertently expand the reach of the criminal justice system. Positive social investments in education, employment, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment are cost effective means of creating strong communities
Find the report here:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-09_REP_MovingTargetCR10_AC-PS.pdf

Posted by lois at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

Message from Justice Action in Austraila on Abolition

Message to "Discovering Balance" Conference, Perth October 2, 2008.

Justice Action attended the prison abolition conference "Critical Resistance" CR10 in San Francisco last weekend presenting a workshop and talking with key organisers. We also were in London in July for the International Conference on Penal Abolition ICOPA X11, and facilitated its final report.

Last week we achieved a landmark success forcing the NSW government to transfer the prison hospital from Corrective Services to Health, following a six month campaign involving the patients, nurses, psychiatrists, mental health and community organisations Australia-wide. It meant gaining hospital conditions
including late lock-in for the patients.

Here we share the lessons we learnt from those experiences.

Prisoners themselves should be central to our effort. Prisoners must be listened to and trusted as good people, but under immense stress without their normal supports. This acknowledges their humanity and gives us grounded strength, with their faces seen and voices heard, along with their communities outside. We are twenty-five thousand plus, strong. This means that access and interaction, the vote, visits and all communication should be defended. The
latest prisoners newspaper JUST US was distributed in five states and
territories, rejected in three. The NSW Supreme Court said any proposed rejection must be justified by the administration.
Recidivism can only be reduced if prisoners are involved, agree and participate with support from their own communities.

Tackle difficult cases head on. These capture media attention. The fear generated justifies laws like the indefinite detention of people charged with child sex offences, and this affects other sentencing. We should believe that the people accused are not "others." The recent example of Dennis Ferguson in Queensland is useful. The government admitted that it couldn't pacify the public
fear that was generated by his exclusion and the media exposure of his reentry. We entered the furore offering refuge and claiming him as a member of our community. We got a resolution supporting him from the international conference ICOPA X11 and now he has secure housing and mentoring support from Queensland groups and with JA in constant contact. Sixty percent of a 7,000 people poll said that his whereabouts should not be exposed in future.

Therapeutic communities with restorative justice and mentoring are effective solutions to community problems. Our own experience of positive responses to trust and sharing are entirely applicable in the area of crime. The Alexander Maconochie's Norfolk Island experience, Jimmy Boyle's story of the BarlinnieUnit in Scotland, and the Special Care Unit in Long Bay are documented examples of how they work effectively.

Link with allies in mainstream services. The health and education
communities are strong and will defend their principles. Our win in the Long BayPrison Hospital was a win for them as well as us.

Abolition of prisons is achievable. Slavery is the prison precursor. The old penal colony of Australia has a special role in civil reconciliation. The goodness of our people in the dungeons, the damage done, the human rights breached, the unreasonable fear generated by the exclusion, the outrageous cost and the
documented failure of prisons to create public safety, all ensure our eventualsuccess.

JUSTICE ACTION
Trades Hall, Suite 204, 4 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
PO Box 386, Broadway NSW 2007 Australia
T 612 9283 0123 | F 612 9283 0112
E ja@justiceaction.org.au
http://www.justiceaction.org.au
http://www.churcheswa.com.au/2008/08/discovering-balance/

Posted by lois at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)

CA: Prop 5 Would Overhaul Sentencing of Poepole with Non-Violent Drug Convictions

Prop. 5 would overhaul sentencing of drug offenders
The far-reaching measure would increase treatment and eliminate incarceration for those convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes. But opponents see another agenda.
By Michael Rothfeld
Los Angeles Times

October 2, 2008

SACRAMENTO — In a state that has consistently boosted penalties for criminals, packing California's prisons to bursting, sponsors of the far-reaching Proposition 5 are asking voters in November to go in the opposite direction.

The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, funded in part by billionaire George Soros, would be "the most ambitious sentencing and prison reform in U.S. history," according to the Drug Policy Alliance Network, a primary sponsor.

By 2010, the measure would commit the state to spending at least $460 million a year, mostly to increase treatment -- and eliminate incarceration -- for those who commit nonviolent crimes involving drugs or fueled by them.

Even when drugs aren't involved, the state no longer could seek to return many ex-convicts to prison for low-level parole violations, as occurred nearly 18,000 times last year, or revoke parole for actions that would qualify as misdemeanor crimes.

Parole terms for some offenders would decrease from three years to six months. A new prison bureaucracy devoted to rehabilitation would be created. And possession an ounce or less of marijuana would be an infraction, instead of a misdemeanor.

The measure could eventually cost Californians up to $1 billion, but also could ultimately save that much by reducing incarceration, according to the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst.

Opponents contend that the drug treatment offered in lieu of incarceration would be toothless, a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for addicts. They say the Drug Policy Alliance Network -- a spinoff of Soros' New York-based Open Society Institute, which fights against punitive drug laws -- is using the initiative to chip away at its true agenda: legalizing drugs.

"It is very well-crafted to move several steps in the direction of decriminalization," said Douglas B. Marlowe, chief of science, policy and law for the National Assn. of Drug Court Professionals. The backers "don't think that drugs should be illegal to begin with."

Law enforcement groups said the initiative would be difficult to change, requiring a four-fifths vote of the state Legislature, and lead to an increase in crime. And they object to a provision that would allow the expunging of some records, saying that, for example, a methamphetamine addict who steals cars can avoid prison, if a judge agrees, and have his record sealed after completing treatment.

Opponents have raised less than $300,000 for their campaign against the initiative, mainly from law enforcement groups and a San Diego County Indian tribe, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, state records show. Supporters have raised more than $5 million, mostly from wealthy donors in other states.

The out-of-state contributors are interested in prison and sentencing issues nationally, said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, the backers' deputy campaign manager. California, in part because of its size and its giant prison system, "has a significant impact" on the national debate, she said.

Dooley-Sammuli said the measure would advance sensible policy with respect to drug treatment, prisons and at-risk youth, for whom programs are also funded.

"It's looking at all of the places in the system where our policies are failing," she said.

Dan Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, said the initiative is needed to combat the power wielded by law enforcement lobbyists in Sacramento.

"My biggest reason for supporting it is its emphasis on parole reform, which we've never been able to get through the Legislature because all the interest groups come in and block it," he said.

Proposition 5 would require dozens of new employees in the sprawling state prison and parole system, which already costs more than $10 billion a year. The agency would become two-headed, with a new secretary for rehabilitation and parole appointed by the governor to a six-year term, in addition to the existing secretary for corrections.

Each of the state's 33 prisons would be required to have a chief deputy warden for rehabilitation. And inmates would have to be given rehabilitation programs, which often are unavailable, at least 90 days before their release.

New state boards would be created, including one with 23 members to oversee treatment programs and another with 21 members, including a former inmate, overseeing parole. The new parole oversight board would implement additional credits that could allow inmates to cut their sentences by more than half -- the maximum they can reduce them now -- if they complete treatment, work in prison and behave.

The existing Board of Parole Hearings, which revokes and grants parole but is heavily backlogged, would increase from 17 to 29 members, and the state Senate would lose its power to confirm them.

On the drug treatment side, the measure would vastly expand an earlier initiative, Proposition 36, approved in 2000, which appropriated $120 million a year initially for drug treatment. The state allocated $108 million to those programs this year.

UCLA researchers who studied the original measure found it saved the state money on incarceration costs but said only a third of participants completed the program and many spent too little time in treatment.

The new system would expand the pool of criminals who could take part, creating three "tracks" for offenders to receive treatment, including, at the discretion of judges, those who commit nonviolent crimes such as theft to feed their habits. Depending on their crimes, their records and their number of treatment failures, they would gradually move from the least intensive programs to the most intensive -- drug courts -- and the possibility of jail or prison.

Advocates say that some of the initial sanctions that can be imposed on offenders who have problems, such as performing community trash pickup, are appropriate. But judges complain that they too rarely will be able to threaten incarceration, which they believe is most effective at coercing offenders to cooperate.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan said the measure would be "like throwing money down a rat hole."

"Most drug court judges are in favor of treatment for these people," Tynan said. "We want it to meaningful."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-drugs2-2008oct02,0,6714466.story

Posted by lois at 11:35 PM | Comments (0)

OR: Measure 62 may take a bite out of crime as well as school budgets

Measure 62 may take a bite out of crime as well as school budgets
by Janie Har, The Oregonian
Thursday October 02, 2008, 12:07 AM

Oregon voters will have to choose between public safety and public schools on the November ballot.

Under Measure 62, a yes vote would set aside 15 percent of state lottery profits for district attorneys, sheriffs and state police investigations that measure co-sponsor Kevin Mannix says get short shrift by Oregon lawmakers. The 15 percent amount would be carved into the state constitution.

A no vote would allow lawmakers to continue to spend that money on schools. At stake is about $200 million every two years. Because roughly half of Oregon's lottery money is tied up by state law or the constitution, most of the $200 million would come from schools.

For Doug Harcleroad, retiring district attorney for Lane County, the question is easy in a county that's been hammered by low property taxes and the loss of federal timber money. The county operates only 93 of 500 jail beds, he says, and releases about a dozen people a day because of overcrowding.

"We let out sex offenders and gun violators and domestic violence offenders. We let out terrible people who shouldn't be let out, and some of them re-offend," Harcleroad says.

But opponents say the measure would hurt classrooms and give an unexpected windfall to counties and to specific Oregon State Police units.

The Defend Oregon Coalition, which includes unions, teachers, seniors citizens and human services groups, figures schools would lose about $185 million and economic development about $20 million.

"I'm afraid in the absence of a campaign, people's attitude might be: 15 percent for crime? Sounds good to me. And the question is whether they know it's at the expense of education," says Steve Novick with Defend Oregon.

Each school district would deal with the loss in different ways, says Chuck Bennett of the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators.

"But ultimately, district budgets are personnel costs ... and this kind of stuff results in fewer teachers for the kids."

The measure calls for 15 percent of lottery profits to go into a public safety fund starting July 1. In 2007-09, the Oregon Lottery transferred about $1.4 billion to the state.

Half of the set-aside would go to fund criminal investigations and forensics work at Oregon State Police. That amounts to about $100 million in lottery money, compared with $65 million the divisions got in general support from the state in 2007-09.

About $40 million -- or 20 percent -- would go to counties for "early childhood" programs. Mannix says programs such as Head Start could help reduce crime in the long run.

District attorneys and sheriff's offices would get the rest for investigations and operations. The proposal specifically prohibits using the extra money as a substitute for county support.

Polk County Sheriff Robert Wolfe said he'd use the extra $653,000 to hire more detectives. His budget is roughly $7 million a biennium, and he has two criminal detectives handling 100 cases, 30 of which require daily checks.

"Overworked is kind of an understatement. They're just swamped," Wolfe says. "They're carrying cases that are dating back five years."

Dedicating lottery money isn't new. Voters created the lottery in 1984 with the idea of using proceeds to create jobs and boost Oregon's economy.

In 1995 and in 2002, Oregonians amended the state constitution to slice off 18 percent of profits for an education reserve fund. In 1998, they agreed to reserve 15 percent for salmon restoration and parks.

The rest of the dedicated lottery money goes to economic development for counties, debt service, gambling prevention programs and college athletics.

A portion goes for state economic development, but the bulk of discretionary lottery money goes to public schools. In 2007-09, that was about $650 million for a K-12 school budget of more than $6 billion.

Mannix argues schools won't miss out because lottery revenue has been increasing rapidly and should continue to grow.

But opponents say that's far from guaranteed, and the latest state revenue forecast projects lottery earnings to grow just 0.1 percent in 2009-11.

The forensics and criminal investigations units provide support to local law enforcement. The divisions analyze DNA and fingerprints, register criminal sex offenders, investigate major crimes and narcotics cases, and root out potential bomb threats.

Extra money could reduce the turnaround on DNA samples from four months to several weeks, says Randy Wampler, director of the forensics services division.

On the other hand, the Department of Education says it needs all the money it can get to meet tougher new high school diploma standards.

Ed Dennis, deputy state schools superintendent, says it costs $42 million a year to trim class sizes by one student in kindergarten through fifth grade and $51 million to send all at-risk students to summer school to get them caught up.

"It would be the worst of all possible times right now if Oregonians dealt us this kind of blow," he says.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/measure_62_may_take_bite_out_o.html

Posted by lois at 11:31 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2008

GOP Intimidation Halts Historic Drive to Register Voters in Alabama

GOP Intimidation Halts Historic Drive to Register Voters in Alabama
State Law Allows Certain People to Vote Even While Incarcerated

Alabama Department of Corrections Caves to Republican Pressure, Tells Advocates: You Can No Longer Register Voters Inside Alabama Prisons

DOTHAN—Alabama-based The Ordinary People's Society and their national partner the Drug Policy Alliance began a historic voter registration drive this week in prisons across Alabama. The drive was prepared with the full support of the Alabama Department of Corrections (DOC). However, after Alabama newspapers reported on the registration drive, the state GOP voiced their opposition to the effort and pressured the DOC to end it. Yesterday, the DOC reversed their position and has barred advocates from registering eligible voters in Alabama correctional facilities.

"Voter registration drives are an essential part of our democracy, and this action by the GOP and the Department of Corrections smacks of voter intimidation," said Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, founder and executive director of The Ordinary People's Society, the group leading the registration drive. "Our focus isn't politics, it's restoration. We're just doing what the Bible says, visiting people in prison and ministering to them. The chairman of the Republican Party and the chairman of the Democratic Party can go into prisons with us and monitor the registration process to make sure it's nonpartisan, if that's a concern."

In Alabama, nearly 250,000 people have been stripped their voting rights due to a felony conviction. But in a 2006 court ruling in Alabama, a judge found that only those convicted of felonies of "moral turpitude" lose their right to vote. The judge found that certain felonies—such as drug possession—do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude, and therefore individuals convicted of those crimes do not lose their right to vote, even during incarceration. Alabama's Attorney General, Troy King, concurred with the ruling. This change could have an impact on nearly 70,000 Alabamians, including nearly 10,000 currently incarcerated in state prisons on drug charges alone.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act, which supports the process of people with felony convictions re-entering society by funding programs inside and outside prisons to increase civic participation upon their release. Bush, the country's top Republican, also has expressed support for the restoration of voting rights to people with felony convictions.

"Alabama state law makes it clear that people incarcerated for simple drug possession never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated," said Glasgow. "The GOP and the Alabama Department of Corrections cannot decide on their own which constituencies are going to have access to the vote, and which will be barred from it. We live in a democracy, after all."

###

Associated Press
GOP opposes letting prisoners register to vote
9/19/2008
By JAY REEVES

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Republican Party opposes a drive to register inmates to vote so they can cast absentee ballots from inside state prisons, with the state GOP chief saying Thursday there needs to be safeguards against voter fraud.

State Rep. Mike Hubbard, chairman of the party, told Corrections Commissioner Richard Allen in a letter delivered by e-mail that the party supports the idea of registering more people to vote, but not when it comes to prisoners.

"Furthermore, I have concerns about potential issues with how this effort is being monitored to ensure no form of voter fraud occurs," Hubbard wrote. He asked Allen to outline the prison system's plans for preventing fraud.

Prison spokesman Brian Corbett said the commissioner was working on a response and declined further comment.

Hubbard's letter came two days after The Associated Press reported that a coalition of groups led by a community activist, the Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, began registering inmates to vote in state lockups this week. Nearly 80 filled out registration forms in two days.

Glasgow, a Democrat from Dothan who served time for robbery and drug convictions, said no one with the state has told him to stop registering inmates. He plans to continue the effort with other members of the coalition, which he said includes Republicans and Democrats.

"I think they're more worried about me being a Democrat than anything," said Glasgow. "The chairman of the Republican Party and the chairman of the Democratic Party can go in there with me and monitor it to make sure it's nonpartisan."

Glasgow, a pastor, intends to turn in the registration forms and return to the lockups later to make sure inmates mail in absentee forms. He said the project is about human rights and preparing prisoners to return to society, not politics.

"We're just doing what the Bible says, visiting people in prison and ministering to them," he said.

About 3,000 people could be eligible to vote from inside Alabama prisons, Glasgow said, and he plans to register as many as possible in coming weeks.

Alabama law prohibits felons convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude" from voting unless they have had their rights restored. State law doesn't define such crimes, but court opinions have said they include major offenses like murder, robbery and rape plus some lesser offenses, like taking a stolen car across state lines.

Glasgow's drive is concentrating on registering prisoners who have been convicted only of drug possession, which an attorney general's opinion issued in 2005 did not define as a crime of moral turpitude.

Confusion over which crimes involve "moral turpitude" has led to litigation seeking the restoration of prisoners' voting rights. The most recent was filed in July by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three ex-inmates.

Associated Press
State inmates register to vote in prison
By Jay Reeves
September 17, 2008

BIRMINGHAM -- Alabama inmates are registering to vote from prison in a precedent-set­ting effort organized by activist groups with the blessing of state corrections officials.

Nearly 80 prisoners had filled out registration forms during drives at two lockups, and organizers plan to help them and hundreds more obtain absentee ballots in time to vote in the presidential election on Nov. 4.

Laura Schley, 34, has eight months left on a four-year sen­tence for illegal possession of prescription drugs. She had a hard time believing she was reg­istering Tuesday at the Bir­mingham Work Release Center.

"It just blew my mind," said Schley, who was wearing prison whites. "My voting rights are very important to me and have been ever since I was 18."

The state attorney general's office issued an opinion seven years ago that inmates could vote from inside prison using absentee ballots. But confusion and lawsuits followed over which felons had that right be­cause of a murky phrase in state law.

Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett said no one previ­ously had registered prisoners to vote in Alabama.

"It's something that we sup­port and authorized for them to do," said Corbett.

The drive is led by Kenneth Glasgow of Dothan, who served 14 years on robbery and drug charges and is now a pastor. Glasgow said restoring voting rights is essential to returning felons to society.

"What we're interested in is not so much the politics but the restoration of people's lives," Glasgow said.

Glasgow is state coordinator of a coalition that includes the Drug Policy Alliance, which ad­vocates reforms including a move toward treatment rather than prison time for drug users.

Angela Wright, in the work-release center for cocaine pos­session, said she has to study be­fore casting her vote for either Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama for president.

"I haven't really even been paying attention because I fig­ured it was a lost cause," Wright said after filling out a registra­tion form.

Studies have estimated that more than 250,000 Alabama resi­dents are barred from voting be­cause of criminal records.

State law says those con­victed of crimes of "moral turpi­tude" can't vote unless they have their rights restored by the state. The law does not state ex­actly which crimes are bad enough to make that list. Turpi­tude is defined as "baseness, vil­eness, depravity."

The state attorney general's office has said those offenses in­clude murder, rape, multiple sex and obscenity offenses, bur­glary, robbery, forgery, conspir­acy to commit fraud, aggravated assault, drug sales, bigamy, im­peachment, treason and trans­porting stolen vehicles out of state.

Others convicted of lesser crimes such as possession of small amounts of drugs, battery or attempted burglary are eligi­ble to vote, even from inside prison.

Glasgow, who coordinates a coalition of eight prisoners' rights groups, is registering in­mates convicted only of drug possession. He previously regis­tered hundreds in county jails across the state.

Many convicted on drug charges also were sentenced for other crimes. Prison system sta­tistics don't indicate how many inmates are behind bars only for drug possession.

Glasgow believes about 3,000 people could be eligible to vote from inside Alabama prisons, and he plans to register as many as possible in coming weeks.

Completed voter registration forms will be sent to the secre­tary of state's office and volun­teers will return to state lockups to make sure prisoners cast their absentee ballots.

A Jefferson County judge in 2006 ordered the state to let all convicted felons vote because the law failed to define offenses or moral turpitude, but the Ala­bama Supreme Court over­turned the decision.

Posted by lois at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2008

OK: Counties reminded people with felony convictions can vote

Counties reminded ex-felons can vote
Publication:The Oklahoman Sept 18, 2008
Section:Front page

By Michael Kimball Staff Write

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma mailed letters to the state’s county election boards this week reminding them former felons have the right to vote.

“With Oct.10 being the deadline (for voter registration) for the presidential election, we find this to be extremely timely,” said ACLU spokeswoman Katy Jones at a Tuesday news conference. “A lot of people don’t understand that these exfelons have voting rights.”

In Oklahoma, convicted felons are stripped of the right to vote while incarcerated, on parole or probation. When a felon’s original sentence is complete, voting rights are restored. Those given a deferred sentence for a felony crime retain their voting rights without interruption. Voting rights for felons vary by state.

All of Us or None Oklahoma, the local chapter of a national felon advocacy group, is conducting a survey this month to see which counties are giving incorrect information about felons’ voting rights, spokeswoman Faye Tucker said. Counties have shown improvement over a 2005 survey in providing correct information, Tucker said.
Felon Voting Rights FAQs:
Q: Can convicted felons vote in Oklahoma?
A: Yes – so long as their sentence has been completed.
Q: Can people accused of a felony, but not convicted, vote?
A: Yes – voting rights are stripped only upon conviction for a felony.
Q: What about deferred or suspended sentences?
A: People given a deferred sentence can vote. People given suspended sentences for felony convictions cannot vote.
Q: Must felons provide proof they are not on probation or on parole when registering to vote?
A: No. Like all voters, felons are simply asked to swear they meet requirements.
Q: What if a person’s felony conviction came from another state?
A: The same rules apply, regardless of jurisdiction.

Posted by lois at 05:25 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2008

States Restore Voting Rights for Ex-Convicts, but Issue Remains

September 14, 2008
States Restore Voting Rights for Ex-Convicts, but Issue Remains Politically Sensitive
By SOLOMON MOORE
NY Times

Striding across a sweltering strip-mall parking lot with her clipboard in hand, Monica Bell, a community field organizer in Orlando, Fla., was looking for former convicts to add to the state’s voter rolls.

Antonious Benton, a gold-toothed 22-year-old with a silver skull-shaped belt buckle, a laconic smile and a criminal record, was the first person she approached.

“I can’t vote because I got three felonies,” Mr. Benton told Ms. Bell. He had finished a six-month sentence for possession of $600 worth of crack cocaine, he said. But Ms. Bell had good news for him: The Florida Legislature and Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, changed the rules last year to restore the voting rights of about 112,000 former convicts.

“After you go to prison — you do your time and they still take all your rights away,” Mr. Benton said as he filled out a form to register. “You can’t get a job. You can’t vote. You can’t do nothing even 10 or 20 years later. You don’t feel like a citizen. You don’t even feel human.”

Felony disenfranchisement — often a holdover from exclusionary Jim Crow-era laws like poll taxes and ballot box literacy tests — affects about 5.3 million former and current felons in the United States, according to voting rights groups. But voter registration and advocacy groups say that recent overhauls of these Reconstruction-era laws have loosened enough in some states to make it worth the time to lobby statehouses for more liberal voting restoration processes, and to try to track down former felons in indigent neighborhoods.

“You’re talking about incredible numbers of people out there who now may have had their right to vote restored and don’t even know it,” said Reggie Mitchell, a former voter-registration worker for People for the American Way. In Florida, “we’re talking tens of thousands of people,” he said. “And in the 2000 election, in the state of Florida, 300 people made the difference.”

A loose-knit group of national organizations working to restore voting rights includes the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn (Ms. Bell’s employer); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; and the Brennan Center for Justice.

Two other groups, the Sentencing Project and the American Civil Liberties Union, said they had given briefings to officials for Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign about how to register former felons. But the Obama campaign has been reluctant to acknowledge any concerted effort.

An Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, said via e-mail, “We are trying to register voters across the country and follow the state laws wherever we are.”

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and senior adviser to the Obama campaign on criminal justice issues, said he had briefed campaign officials about felony disenfranchisement issues and the various and often-confusing state requirements to restore voting rights to former convicts.

Campaign volunteers get briefed on specific state laws governing voting rights restoration in case they come across former felons during general voter registration drives, Mr. Ogletree said, “but it’s not as if the Obama campaign said, ‘Here’s a plan for felony disenfranchisement.’ ”

None of the felony voter registration organizations contacted for this article could recall hearing from Senator John McCain’s campaign. And a campaign spokesman said there had been no effort to reach out to former prisoners specifically.

Last month, Obama campaign workers took down a sign at their headquarters in Pottstown, Pa., that said “Felons can vote,” because it might have sent the wrong message.

“The fear is that it might cost them more votes to be portrayed as the candidate of the felons than it could gain them,” said Anthony C. Thompson, a New York University law professor and Obama campaign adviser. “This is a mistaken belief, in my view, when there are tens of millions of citizens with criminal records.”

In fact, felony voter restoration efforts have received bipartisan support in many states including Alabama, Florida, Indiana and Maryland. Still, surveys have shown that about 70 percent of former convicts lean Democratic, according to Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota criminologist who said that had led some to believe that Democrats benefited from felony voter restoration more than did Republicans.

“That’s because of the high rate of incarceration among African-Americans, who have strong Democratic preferences,” Mr. Uggen said, “and because many people who have committed felonies are working class, relatively young, unmarried and in particular individuals with less than a high school education. These are all demographics that traditionally align themselves with the Democrats.”

Muslima Lewis, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, said: “Really, you’re not having a full participatory democracy if you disenfranchise so many people. It weakens the whole system and, in particular, communities of color.”

All of Us or None, a prisoner-advocacy organization in San Francisco, held a rally last month about restoration of voting rights in California. Also last month, the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition successfully lobbied the Denver County jail system to begin registering felons upon their release.

The A.C.L.U. is also advising lawyers’ groups planning to deploy to polling places in November to enforce the rights of former convicts who have restored their voting privileges.

According to the A.C.L.U. only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners, parolees and probationers to vote. Thirteen states allow parolees and probationers to vote, eight states reinstate probationer voting rights, and 20 states restore voting rights to people who have completed their sentences, although each state has different processes, exceptions and limits on eligibility requirements. Kentucky and Virginia permanently disenfranchise nearly all felons.

Florida’s felony voter registration law divides applicants into three categories based on the seriousness of their crimes: nonviolent criminals, the biggest group, need not apply for restoration of voting rights and just need to re-register. Violent criminals, but not murderers or rapists, must apply to the clemency board. The board either grants those rights immediately or investigates on a case-by-case basis. The most violent criminals are subjected to a more rigorous investigation and must attend a hearing of the clemency board, which meets only four times a year, before their rights can be reinstated.

Despite the state’s liberalization of felony voter procedures, only 9,000 out of a potential 112,000 former convicts in Florida registered to vote in the last year, according to a report last month in The Orlando Sentinel. Part of the reason is that thousands of notifications sent by the state went to the wrong addresses because of poor data and former prisoners’ high mobility.

Fred Schuknecht, the director of administration for the Florida Clemency Board, acknowledged in an interview that there was a backlog of 60,000 former felons who could potentially have their rights restored, but must first be reviewed by the agency. Despite the fact that 3,500 newly released prisoners are added to the caseload every month, the Legislature cut 20 percent of the staff devoted to felony voter restoration cases, Mr. Schuknecht said.

Further, Ms. Bell said that many former convicts shun attention, even if that means abdicating their voting rights.

“You might want them to fill out the registration form, but they have an outstanding warrant,” she said. “And in order to help them, I need to ask what their crimes are, but they might not want to say.”

Cheria Murray, 24, of Orlando, regained voting rights this year, after serving a two-day jail sentence with two years’ probation for grand theft in 2003. Ms. Murray lives in a housing project where, she said, many people had been stripped of their rights because of their records.

Her companion, Duane Miller, 28, recently returned from serving a sentence for illegal firearm possession, and has not applied to reinstate his voting rights.

Ms. Murray said she thought about restoring her voting rights only recently, inspired by the presidential campaign.

“When I saw Barack Obama, that’s when I got excited to get my rights back,” she said. “I wanted to vote for history.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14felony.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Posted by lois at 10:12 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2008

NYCLU Launches Public Education Campaign on the Voting Rights of People with Criminal Records

Published by the New York Civil Liberties Union (http://www.nyclu.org)
NYCLU Launches Public Education Campaign on the Voting Rights of People with Criminal Records

As the presidential election approaches, the New York Civil Liberties Union today announced it has launched an intensive statewide campaign to help New Yorkers with criminal records reclaim their right to vote.

The campaign, which runs through the voter registration deadline on Friday, Oct. 10, features bus advertisements in New York City, train advertisements in Buffalo and Western New York, public service announcements to be broadcast on radio stations throughout the state, and a new web page – www.nyclu.org/vote – where visitors can access voting rights toolkits, posters and videos. Every weekend until the voter registration deadline, teams of NYCLU volunteers will be in New York City parks registering voters and educating New Yorkers about their rights.

“There is a mistaken belief that those with criminal records permanently lose their right to vote. As a result, thousands of New Yorkers are either unnecessarily forfeiting their rights or being unlawfully denied their right to vote,” said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. “This campaign seeks to correct that mistake by educating both the public and county election officials that people who have completed felony sentences have the right to vote.”

In New York State, individuals who have been convicted of a felony cannot vote while incarcerated or on parole. The right to vote is restored once someone is released from prison or completes parole, though it is up to the voter to re-register with their county board of elections. No documentation or special forms are required to prove the completion of a sentence. Those sentenced to probation for a felony offense never lose the right to vote.

More than 100,000 people are convicted of felonies each year in New York State – in 2007 alone, a record 115,573 people were convicted of felony offenses. Nearly 62,300 of those who are convicted are currently on probation for felonies. An additional 12,100 people are released from parole each year.

A study conducted by the Sentencing Project shows that a majority of these people are under the mistaken belief that they are unable to vote, which means there are hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who incorrectly believe they are permanently disfranchised.

Many workers at county election boards are poorly informed about the voting rights of those with criminal records. A 2006 report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 38 percent of employees at New York’s county election boards indicated they didn’t know whether probationers could vote. A study conducted before the 2004 election revealed that more than half of New York’s county election boards unlawfully required formerly incarcerated individuals to present documentation of their criminal status before they could register to vote.

“This is a matter of justice,” said Corinne Carey, NYCLU public policy counsel and voting rights campaign coordinator. “Voting provides people a voice – something stripped from them while in prison. The vote allows people to demonstrate their commitment to American democracy and helps them rejoin society.”

The campaign, partly paid for by a $15,000 grant from the Adco Foundation, educates the public about the voting rights of those with criminal records through a variety of media. Partnering with the Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Against Recidivism and The Fortune Society, the NYCLU sponsored advertisements on MTA buses in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan alerting people of their voting rights and directing them to the NYCLU’s voter enfranchisement web page: www.nyclu.org/vote. The NYCLU ran similar ads in Buffalo and Western New York.

By visiting www.nyclu.org/vote, people can download voter registration forms; access a toolkit of information on voting rights; listen to a public service announcement on registering to vote; and download posters to help spread the message.

Visitors to the web page also can watch a series of videos chronicling a Brooklyn woman’s effort to reclaim her right to vote. Maria Perez, who completed parole in 2000, was unlawfully denied the right to vote in the 2004 presidential election. The videos follow her as she visits her local election board and registers to vote and as she receives the election board’s decision on her voting status. A third video will follow her to the polls on Election Day as she casts her first vote in a decade.
Source URL:
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1976

Posted by lois at 04:32 PM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2008

Bay Area: September 24 to 29th: Book events for the Real Cost of Prisons Comix

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008
7 PM. Book Launch
Green Arcade Bookstore
1680 Market Street, San Francisco

Speakers:

Lois Ahrens, editor, Real Cost of Prisons Comix and director/founder, The Real Cost of Prisons Project.

Marlon Altan is a social studies teacher with 5 Keys Charter School. 5 Keys charter school is a high school that works out of the San Francisco County Jail.

Amie Dowling is an Assistant Professor in the Performing Arts Dept at the University of San Francisco and through Community Works leads theater/writing workshops in the San Francisco jails.

Debbie Reyes, OSI Fellow, Central Valley Coordinator, California Prison Moratorium Project, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, Fresno.

Karen Shain is Co-Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a San Francisco-based 30-year-old prisoners' rights organization that advocates for the rights of incarcerated women, their families and communities.

Mara Taub from Santa Fe, NM, is the coordinator/editor Coalition for Prisoners' Rights Newsletter. Since 1976, the Coalition for Prisoners' Rights has worked to gather and disseminate information and analysis for those imprisoned, formerly imprisoned and their allies.

Thursday, September 25th, 7 PM
“Politic