The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

November 18, 2009

PA: Donna Pfender, Pres., Fight for Lifers West. Senate Judiciary Cmte Hearing on Prison Overcrowding and Sending Prisoners to MI

Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearing on
Prison Overcrowding
November 16, 2009
Harrisburg, PA

Donna Pfender, President – Fight For Lifers West

Good afternoon to the Chairman, Senator Greenleaf; to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee; to Senator Greenleaf’s aide, Gregg Warner; Ladies and Gentlemen.
I wish to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to testify today about the impact that transferring inmates to other states will have, not only on the inmates themselves, but on their family members and loved ones.
When I first heard that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections was in negotiations with other states to transfer inmates in a bid to alleviate overcrowding, my first reaction was one of disbelief. I couldn’t believe that human beings were being treated as commodities to be bought, sold or bartered for any reason. I knew about the Interstate Compact Act, but this was on a whole new level. I wondered why this wasn’t considered as an Eighth Amendment violation for “deliberate indifference” as well as an “objectively serious deprivation?” I felt not only that inmates were being dehumanized but that their family structures would fall apart.

I told myself that this couldn’t happen in the land of the free. After all, inmates’ family members are not incarcerated, but affected directly. I told myself that surely people will stand up and protest when they realize the inhumanity of such a proposal and that there would be a public outcry to stop such alienation and separation of Pennsylvania families. Then it hit me that it could happen to my own daughter; to our family! She is serving life without parole sentence in Pennsylvania and has been incarcerated for over 25 years. I asked myself, “Will they move lifers?” A short while later I got an e-mail from another PA inmate support group stating that 300 lifers were to be moved from SCI, Graterford to Michigan if they had not had a visit in the past 4 years. In addition, programs such as G.E.D.s would no longer be offered to lifers. E-mails and phone calls were generated across Pennsylvania and across the United States. Everybody had questions. Everyone appeared to be in disbelief. There were even people from other countries who contacted us to see if it was true.
Shortly thereafter, we had our regular monthly meeting on October 17, 2009 and the issue of moving inmates to other states was a hot topic on our agenda. Before the meeting began, Ruby, a small, frail, African American woman walked up to me and was visibly shaken and upset. She told me that her nephew was a lifer at Graterford and she had received a letter from him that he would be transferred to California in January. I told her that surely that couldn’t be true because California is known to have the most overcrowded prison population in the country.

I told her I would see what I could find out. When the topic came up on the agenda, I asked her to tell the other members what she had told me. Ruby rarely speaks in meetings but she courageously told the others what she had learned. You could have heard a pin drop. As I looked around the room, I could see the incredulous faces of those in attendance who had not yet heard about the transfers or thought that it couldn’t be possible. At that time, nothing had been confirmed. I later spoke with prison advocates in California who told me that they were also shipping in prisoners from the state of Oregon. Later that week, we were to learn that even more states were being considered to ship Pennsylvania prisoners to and that inmates had already been informed that they would be moving out of state. We were all in shock!
We all understand that the problem of overcrowding leads to dangerous conditions not only for the prison staff, but for the inmate population, visitors, outside vendors and society in general. Overcrowding can contribute to outbreaks of physical aggression, disease, medical neglect, abuse, extensive isolation, suicides, suspicious deaths, chronic mental and physical problems, insufficient or no education and a population not ready for re-entry back into society. Every time a human being is locked away in a facility where they are warehoused and treated as non-human, they become a further threat to society and more victims will likely result. While prison costs keep escalating, funding is taken from outside education and social programs to build yet more institutions and the prison system continues to burst at the seams.
Not only have I heard reports from California, about shipping prisoners either in or out of state, but also from other associates throughout the United States. This is not a problem confined to Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania seems to be doing it on a grander scale. It seems prisoners are being shuffled around from state to state to appease overcrowding laws and court orders, while the public is unaware of the increased burden in taxes that are being levied on them in order to accomplish this.
As a member of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in Pittsburgh, I asked District Director, Larry Ludwig, if inmates could be paroled if the institution didn’t give a recommendation and he told me no. I had countless letters from inmates who said they were still sitting in prison even after they had complied with all of their program requirements. They said that often, they were told they needed to have additional, newly adopted, programs and that the waiting lists to get on them were very long. So, they continued to sit in prison. I question why such programs couldn’t be handled upon release? Wouldn’t it create jobs and relieve overcrowding? I had reports that inmates due for parole had been told that their records had been lost. At the State Correctional Institution at Cambridge Springs, 300 such records were found and a guard was reported by another officer who had located them months later.
One woman, housed at the State Correctional Institution at Muncy, sent me a copy of a court order from a Judge remanding her into the community, but she was still in Muncy nine (9) months later. It made me question if there were people still in prison who should have been sent home or to other facilities? I also learned that inmates with drug or alcohol records were held back when their parole minimum dates came up, even though they had no history of violent crime. Why couldn’t they have been given further treatment outside of prison walls? They too, remained in prison, padding the institutional profiles.
I also question how inmate advocacy groups can keep track of prisoners who were sentenced in Pennsylvania, but will now be housed elsewhere? What will happen with the “Right to Know Act?” Will it cross state lines? How can prison advocacy groups serve our fellow Pennsylvanians when we don’t know where they are located? Will this information be made readily available? Will families and loved ones be informed? Will the families survive? Questions, unanswered questions.
And then, we worry about the high cost of exorbitant phone bills that will only increase if a loved one is moved even farther away. We worry about higher traveling expenses to visit them and if we will ever be able to see them again? Under the Department of Corrections Handbook for Visitors (DC-ADM 812, p.20, enclosed), it states that, “Visitation by relatives and friends are encouraged by the Department. Visitation helps to keep the inmate’s family together. A child needs to know that his/her mother or father is still a part of his/her life and that he/she will be able to see his/her parent. A husband and wife need to be able to share his/her daily struggles and joys with each other. Visitation is also important to the morale of the inmate. Research has shown that an inmate who receives regular visits readjusts much better once he/she is released from prison.”
Those who don’t have loved ones on the inside may reason that some inmates don’t receive visitors because their families don’t care. I have spoken to many family members that, for a variety of reasons, are unable to visit although they would like to. For example, many offenders are housed at opposite ends of Pennsylvania from where their families live. Family members often don’t have the resources to visit so far away, or get days off from work that match the days when visits are allowed. (See: DC-ADM, p. 47, Family Finances, enclosed)
Sometimes, loved ones travel far distances of up to 10 hours with small children or elderly relatives, only to be turned away. Days to visit have been scaled down and there are numerous reports of prison officials treating visitors with distain and disrespect. Some family members need to work more than one job just to support their families on the outside and then there is the added cost of helping their loved ones on the inside with the high commissary costs. Inmates are employed at slave wages making anywhere from nineteen (19) to forty five (45) cents/hr. and the food budgets for the institutions keep being cut.
Not only are families paying taxes at work to support their loved one on the inside, but they typically also help them with commissary and medical co-pays so they can maintain some manner of human dignity and health.
I have heard many times, that families will save for months or even years to make a costly trip to visit a loved one on the inside. Work schedules, school schedules, institution visiting days and the weather are other factors that impact families that must travel long distances. Imagine if they were in another state?
We worry about ever increasing commissary costs, phone fees and no choice in vendors. We worry about “out of sight, out of mind” and what will happen to those on the inside that we love. If they report problems, we won’t be able to visit them to assure ourselves that they are alright. Will there be groups in other states such as the Pennsylvania Prison Society’s Official Visitors that will be able to visit our loved ones and intervene if necessary? Will the PA Official Visitors be allowed to visit out of state institutions?
Secretary Beard is quoted in the 10/15/2009 edition of the Philadelphia Enquirer “that the other states would not require any special programming, only basic religious, recreational and similar perfunctory programs.” Nothing is mentioned about education or preparing them for re-entry. Nothing is mentioned of how much it will cost Pennsylvania tax payers for each inmate transferred.
On 11/13/2009 there was a report by Andy Sheehan on KDKA news about the high cost of housing elderly lifers. It stated that housing inmates convicted of serious crimes are elderly, infirm and expensive and that their risk of committing a new crime is negligible. Rep. Frank Dermody argues that the state should more aggressively pursue alternative sentencing for many of the elderly inmates to make room for younger, violent criminals currently being housed out of state.
In the 11/04/2009 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Bill Dimascio wrote an excellent article titled “Bizarro” (enclosed) about the state ignoring solutions to costly prison overcrowding. I recommend that everyone here read it.
In closing, I would just like to ask this panel to think about how they would feel if someone in their family was arrested for a crime and sentenced to prison in Pennsylvania? What if later they were told that their loved one would be moved to a far away state? Of course, no one ever thinks that one of their loved ones will ever wind up in prison. I didn’t either. Thank you.

Posted by lois at 04:46 PM | Comments (0)

PRISON LEGAL NEWS SUES VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS OVER CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS, MAGAZINES SENT TO PRISONERS

PLN files censorship suit against Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Tue Nov 17, 2009
PRESS RELEASE

PUBLISHER SUES VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS OVER CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS, MAGAZINES SENT TO PRISONERS

Richmond, VA – Prison Legal News (PLN), a non-profit monthly publication that reports on criminal justice-related issues, filed suit today in U.S. District Court against Gene M. Johnson, director of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), and other prison officials. PLN contends that the VDOC violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by censoring magazines and books sent to Virginia prisoners.

According to PLN's complaint, the VDOC has regularly censored PLN's monthly publication, claiming that it is "detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety or health of offenders, staff or others," or because it "presents information geared toward a negative perception of law enforcement. " However, VDOC officials have provided no explanation as to why PLN's coverage of criminal justice issues is considered detrimental to security or rehabilitation, or casts law enforcement in a negative light.

The VDOC's censorship policy does not provide for timely and adequate notice that allows publishers, including PLN, to challenge such censorship. Further, the VDOC does not permit prisoners' families or friends to purchase books or magazine subscriptions for prisoners. PLN's lawsuit notes that Virginia prisoners, "many of whom are indigent, may not receive purchases on their behalf by family members, friends, or charitable organizations. "

VDOC prisoners must obtain permission from prison officials before ordering, subscribing to or receiving publications. However, the VDOC has prohibited prisoners from receiving correspondence from PLN that contains information about magazine subscriptions, renewals and book sales. PLN contends that these policies "serve no neutral, legitimate, penological purpose," and therefore infringe upon its rights.

"Prisoners are adults and should not be treated as children by the VDOC by requiring approval by prison officials before prisoners can order legal and self-help materials," stated PLN General Counsel Dan Manville.

"Although prisoners lose many of their constitutional rights when they are incarcerated, the First Amendment does not end at the prison door," noted attorney Jeffrey Fogel, who represents PLN. "The Virginia Department of Corrections has censored numerous issues of Prison Legal News on the flimsiest of grounds. Moreover, the Department's procedures do not comply with the law, which requires a meaningful opportunity for a publisher to challenge censorship decisions."

"We have made good faith efforts to communicate with the VDOC to resolve these problems," added PLN editor Paul Wright, "but those efforts have been unsuccessful. PLN has a well-established right under the First Amendment to send our magazine and books to prisoners, and we have filed suit to enforce that right."

PLN is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. The case is Prison Legal News v. Johnson, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Case No. 3:09-cv-00068. PLN is represented by attorneys Jeffrey E. Fogel and Steven D. Rosenfield in Charlottesville, and by PLN General Counsel Dan E. Manville in Ferndale, Michigan.

Prison Legal News (PLN), founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights in U.S. detention facilities. PLN publishes a monthly magazine that includes reports, reviews and analysis of court rulings and news related to prisoners' rights and criminal justice issues. PLN has almost 7,000 subscribers nationwide and operates a website (www.prisonlegalnew s.org) that includes a comprehensive database of prison and jail-related articles, news reports, court rulings, verdicts, settlements and related documents. PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center.

Posted by lois at 01:52 PM | Comments (0)

November 17, 2009

WI: Why deny used books to prisoners in Wisconsin's state prison system?

Keep books flowing to prisons
By Camy Matthay • November 16, 2009
Greenbay Press Gazette
Why deny used books to inmates in Wisconsin's state prison system?

Wisconsin Books to Prisoners (WBTP), a project of Rainbow Bookstore, is a volunteer nonprofit organization that provides books to prisoners free of charge. Since the project began in 2006, it has put thousands of books into prison cells statewide.

The project currently receives more than 40 book requests a week. These requests show that prisoners love to read, want to learn more about the world, and want to improve their prospects when they get out of prison.

A prisoner at the Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI) recently wrote, "I would be grateful if you could send me any books about the construction trade and/or business skills."

"I am interested in any books by or about African Americans. Do you have any books by James Baldwin or Alice Walker?" wrote another prisoner.

The most frequently requested books by prisoners are collegiate dictionaries and thesauruses. The project also frequently gets lists of topics from prisoners who hope some of their interests will be fulfilled.

A recent request, for example, listed the following topics: "1. Beginning Japanese or a Japanese/English dictionary; 2. Barn owls; 3. Vultures or other birds of prey; 4. Ancient Roman society; 5. Ice age animals and humans; 6. Warships of the U.S. from the revolution through WWII; 7. Iron mining, logging, railroads; 3. Something about Upper Peninsula Michigan, 9. Salamanders and amphibians. Thanks for your time," he wrote. "I hope you have something for me. I look forward to hearing from you."

Wisconsin Books to Prisoners was able to fulfill requests like this until May 2008, when the Department of Corrections (DOC) banned the project. After months of negotiations with the DOC, we succeeded in overturning the ban on new books, but the project is still barred from sending used books to prisoners.

The department's justification for the no-used-book policy is that the likelihood of contraband being concealed in used books is greater than that in new books. WBTP thinks this is excessively cautionary, unfairly preventing thousands of prisoners from engaging in much-valued self-education.

Nearly every study on corrections recommends reading in prison as a meaningful way of occupying time behind bars and as a preparation for a successful re-entry into society after incarceration.

The no-used-books policy not only undermines the state's interest in rehabilitating prisoners, it infringes on the Constitutional rights of prisoners to read. The policy also ignores the fact that all prisons in Wisconsin have stringent security procedures for incoming publications.

Ninety-seven percent of prisoners will eventually return to our communities. A policy that denies them meaningful literature, and provokes frustration and bitterness, just lacks common sense.

Wisconsin is the only state banning used books to prisoners.*
Camy Matthay is from Madison.

* I received this email after posting this article:
" Colorado also denies used books. All books must come from online catalogs such as Amazon or major retailers such as Borders, and be new, no "private" people. I know, I was "in the system" for three years, (unjustly, even from an unjust system.)"

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091116/GPG0602/911160549/1269/GPG06/Keep-books-flowing-to-prisons

Posted by lois at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2009

Sex Worker Outreach Project: December 17, 2009 in Tucson Honoring Marcia Powell, who died in a holding cage in 107 degree heat while serving 27 months for prostitution

A Message from the Sex Worker’s Outreach Project - Tucson www.swop-tucson.org
Please forward this message.
Please Join Us December 17, 2009 for the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers Event in Tucson, Arizona!

November 11, 2009

Dear Friends & Supporters of Sex Worker’s Rights:

In 2009, sex workers from around the globe met gruesome deaths and endured unspeakable violence. Some died at the hands of a solitary perpetrator; others were victims of serialprostitute killers. While some of these horrific stories received international media attention ( Boston, Grand Rapids, Albuquerque, Tijuana , Hong Kong , Moscow , Great Britain ,Cape Town , New Zealand ), other cases received little more than a perfunctory investigation. Many cases remain unresolved, sometimes forever.

In fact, most violent crimes against sex workers remain unreported. Stigma and decriminalization facilitate this violence; when sex work is criminalized, prostitutes can't turn to the police for protection without risking prosecution themselves. Sex workers remain one of the largest marginalized populations in existence without the benefit of the basic civil rights that everyone else takes for granted.

Each year, December 17th marks the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. Last year’s event in Washington, D.C. was a big success and this year, sex workers and their allies from across the U.S. will gather together in Tucson, Arizona to remember and honor sex workers who have been victimized by virtue of their chosen profession - including rape, assault and murder.

You are invited to join us on December 17, 2009 in Tucson, Arizona to honor the memories of the fallen. (A schedule of events is at the end of this letter). This year is especially poignant for us in Arizona because in May, 2009, Marcia Powell, an inmate at the Perryville women’s prison outside of Phoenix who was serving 27 months for prostitution, died when she was left outside in a holding cage in 107 degree heat without shade, food or water. Marcia Powell’s death is not only a travesty of justice and a failure of the prison system, but of the unjust laws which continue to oppress sex workers everywhere. We are outraged and saddened by both the loss of freedom and of lives, and we ask for your participation in putting an end to the violence.

Here’s How You Can Help

Please join us in honoring sex workers who have fallen victim to the travesties of violence and injustice. You can:

* Attend the IDEVASW event in Tucson, Arizona on December 17th; we have plenty of resources for free housing and transportation.
* If you can’t join us in Tucson, organize your own IDEVASW event in your hometown.
* If you’re a business who’d like to help the Tucson event by sponsorship, please contact info@swop-tucson.org. We need both money and volunteers.
* Circulate this letter to your own listservs and use social media to get the word out - blog about this, add this letter to your website, Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.
* Donate to the Sex Workers Outreach Project. Visit http://swop-usa.org to find out more.

If silence is the voice of complicity, then your presence in Arizona on December 17th would be a powerful message for justice to be heard across the world. Thank you.

In Solidarity,

Sex Workers Outreach Project - USA Sex Workers Outreach Project -Tucson
For more event information, please visit: http://swop-tucson.org

_________________________@@@_____________________
IDEVASW Event Schedule - Tucson, Arizona

Volunteers are still needed – please contact info@swop-tucson.org !
December 17, 2009

5:00 – 6:00 p.m. “No Human Involved” Event El Presidio Park, 160 West Alameda Street, Tucson, AZ. Performance art/art installation with the theme, “No Human Involved.” The central image will be a physical representation of the Perryville Prison which will honor Marcia Powell and sex workers everywhere who have been victims of violence; a performance piece/die-in and live music.

6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. “Remembrance Memorial” El Tiradito Shrine, 354 South Main Avenue, Tucson, AZ. Join us in remembering and honoring sex worker who have been victims of violence. Live music, performance poetry, ritual, candlelight vigil and refreshments. El Tiradito is a national historic shrine dedicated to the “castaway sinner” and holds a special place in the hearts of Tucson sex workers.
December 18, 2009

Political Rally at the downtown Phoenix offices of the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections to protest current anti-prostitution laws and prison conditions. Did you know that in Arizona, a fourth conviction is a mandatory Class 5 felony with 180 days of prison for consensual sex between a client and a sex worker? Please visit http://swop-tucson.org for more details. Volunteers are needed to organize this day!

Posted by lois at 04:00 PM | Comments (0)

November 06, 2009

NY: Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment launches our original Survival Guide

Allied Sister and Brothers!!

I really hope you can come out and support! And, remember - if you can't attend the event, you can still help us reach our goal of raising $5,000 to distribute this unique Survival Guide!

Imagine learning that someone you love has just been sentenced to prison – where do you turn? What should you expect? How do you keep yourself and your family together?

Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment launches our original Survival Guide, on November 14, 2009 - a unique reference created BY and FOR people with incarcerated loved ones. And now YOU have an OPPORTUNITY to make sure that information gets into the hands of those who need it most! Don’t miss this exciting event!

FREE! IS RAISING $5,000 TO DISTRIBUTE OUR "SURVIVAL GUIDE" FOR FAMILIES AND WE NEED YOUR HELP! IF 100 PEOPLE DONATE JUST $50 EACH WE WILL REACH OUR GOAL QUICKLY! ALL DONATIONS OF $25 OR MORE WILL RECEIVE ONE TICKET TO OUR SURVIVAL GUIDE LAUNCH PARTY AND YOUR OWN COPY OF OUR SURVIVAL GUIDE! (You can request that your copy be sent to a family member of your choice, or to a low-income member of FREE!)

The Survival Guide Launch Party will be held November 14th, 2009, from 4-7pm, at La Pregunta Arts Cafe, 1528 Amsterdam Avenue, Harlem, NY (btw 135th/136th Streets).

Featuring live entertainment, a Prison Art Auction by Inside Out Art, Inc., this event is also an opportunity to announce leadership transitions as our Founder and Acting Director, Kym Clark, steps aside, and we welcome Marion Rodriguez back into the Organizer position, and other members step forward to carry various torches of our work! Bid farewell to Kym, Happy Birthday to Cheri, Kym and Denise, and make your very first donation to Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment - FREE!

Go to: www.freefamilies.us and click on the CHIPIN widget to donate, or to http://survivalguide.chipin.com/free-survival-guide-launch-party. BE SURE TO INDICATE THE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE LAUNCH PARTY TICKET AND GUIDE when you donate!

DON’T WANT TO DONATE ONLINE? Make checks payable to our Fiscal Sponsor, "Brecht Forum", and write "FREE Families Rally" in the memo section.

Mail to: Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment
c/o Fortune Society
Long Island City, NY 11101

Please drop us an email at prisonfamz@gmail.com or leave a phone message so we can look out for your donation. 718-706-0195.

The Survival Guide was made possible in part by the North Star Fund, and the New York Foundation, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Posted by lois at 07:08 PM | Comments (0)

October 30, 2009

PA Supreme Court Overturns Thousands Convictions By Judge Who Received $2.6 million in Kickbacks Who Sent Teenagers to Private Youth Jails

Pennsylvania Overturns Many Youths’ Convictions
By IAN URBINA - NY Times
Published: October 29, 2009

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday overturned thousands of juvenile-offender convictions handed down by a judge now charged in a corruption scandal.

The judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, and Michael T. Conahan, a fellow judge who for a time was the chief of that court, are charged with taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks from the owner of two privately run youth detention centers in exchange for their sending teenagers there.

The Supreme Court said the conviction of any juvenile who appeared before Judge Ciavarella after Jan. 1, 2003, was invalid. The justices barred the retrial of all but an estimated 100 of those cases.

The decision followed advice the court received from Arthur Grim, a Berks County judge whom it appointed in February to review juvenile cases involving Judges Ciavarella and Conahan.

Judge Ciavarella, who along with Judge Conahan awaits federal trial on charges of income-tax and wire fraud, routinely held juvenile hearings that lasted just minutes, failing to ask the youths before him whether they understood the consequences of waiving their right to a lawyer and pleading guilty.

“We concluded,” the justices wrote Thursday, “that the record supports Judge Grim’s determination that Ciavarella knew he was violating both the law and the procedural rules promulgated by this court applicable when adjudicating the merits of juvenile cases without the knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel by the juveniles.”

Under the justices’ ruling, the only cases that will be eligible for retrial are those in which youths are still under court supervision. The district attorney’s office has been directed to notify Judge Grim of those cases it wishes to prosecute again. He will then make a determination on each case.
A version of this article appeared in print on October 30, 2009, on page A18 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30judges.html?_r=1&ref=us

Posted by lois at 05:41 PM | Comments (0)

October 21, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 20, 2009

TX: How a private prison pushed immigrant inmates to the brink.

How a private prison pushed immigrant inmates to the brink.
Forrest Wilder | October 2, 2009 | Features
Texas Observer
http://www.texasobserver.org/features/the-pecos-insurrection

Last Dec. 12, on the outskirts of Pecos, Texas, the immigrants doing time in the world’s largest privately run prison decided to turn the tables on their captors. It was the Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, an important religious holiday in Latin America. But the inmates were in no mood for celebration.

The motin, as the overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking inmates called their uprising, began in the Reeves County Detention Center’s Special Housing Unit (SHU), better known as solitary confinement, with two men—a Honduran and a Mexican—using the wires in an electrical outlet to set a mattress on fire.

They broke out the windows of their cell, and when prison guards tried to extinguish the fire by sticking a fire hose through a port in the door, the two broke the sink off the wall and held it up as a shield. One brandished, but didn’t use, a “shiv,” a crude jailhouse knife. Meanwhile, the two men yelled for other inmates to join in the uprising. Soon, at 12:45 p.m., a lockdown order went out across the prison. Staff tried to hustle prisoners on their way to lunch or the recreation center back to their cells. Inmates in one of the housing areas refused, and they forced the guards to release friends from their cells. “Open the doors or we will take your keys,” the prisoners demanded, according to an FBI account. “We’ll see who has control in a bit,” one inmate told a guard.

The prison’s emergency-response team deployed an arsenal including rubber bullets, pepper spray, expulsion grenades and bean-bag guns. To little avail. The insurrection quickly spread to the other housing areas. The rioters assembled in the outdoor recreation yard armed with rocks, concrete, and steel poles as well as horseshoes, hammers and box cutters they had pilfered from the recreation building. Many of them, aware of the prison’s extensive surveillance system, hid their faces with T-shirts, hats and bandanas. Some wore sunglasses.

Two prison employees were taken hostage. (Neither was harmed.) With more than 1,200 inmates milling around outside and hordes of law enforcement officials, the prison must have looked like a war zone.

It was not mere anarchy, though.

By midafternoon, members of the FBI, Texas Rangers, DPS and the Odessa Police Department arrived at the prison. As the crisis negotiators quickly found out, the riot had not been prompted by gang infighting, racial tensions or a spontaneous outburst of violence. The men incarcerated at the Pecos prison are considered “low-security”; most are serving relatively short sentences for immigration violations or drug offenses. All are set to be deported at the end of their sentences.

Leaders of the rebellion were demanding a meeting with the Mexican Consulate, the FBI and the warden to discuss a number of grievances that they said GEO Group, the prison company that manages the 3,700-bed facility, had refused to address.

The evening of the uprising, the inmates sent a delegation of seven men—a Venezuelan, a Cuban, a Nigerian, and four Mexicans—to meet with the authorities.

They explained that the uprising had erupted from widespread dissatisfaction with almost every aspect of the prison: inedible food, a dearth of legal resources, the use of solitary confinement to punish people who complained about their medical treatment, overcrowding and, above all, poor health care.

The delegates pointed to a string of deaths (according to public records, five men died in Reeves between August 2008 and March 2009, including two suicides) they attributed to the prison’s inattention to medical needs. The riot had been sparked by the death of Jesus Manuel Galindo, an epileptic, who had been carried out of the prison’s Special Housing Unit in a body bag that same day. “Suspect(s) are talking about the guy being out of the shoe [SHU],” the Odessa Police Department report said. “Someone should have been there with him. Special housing was not the place for [him].”

The authorities jotted down the concerns and promised to take them seriously.

Twenty-four hours after it began, the uprising was over. More than $1 million worth of damage had been done to the prison. Less than two months later, on Jan. 31, the prison would be under inmate control again—and this time the rioting would last for five days and end with one building destroyed and some $20 million in damage.

To critics of GEO and other for-profit prison companies, the two huge riots in as many months—rare, especially in low-security prisons—were the logical consequence of the largest experiment in prison privatization to date.

The story of the death of Jesus Manuel Galindo is the story of a death foretold.

For weeks, Galindo, a 32-year-old epileptic Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States since he was 13, had been complaining to anyone who would listen that something terrible was going to happen to him because of poor medical care.

In May 2007, Galindo was found illegally crossing the border in El Paso. Galindo, nicknamed “Negro” for his dark complexion, was sentenced later that year to 30 months for illegal re-entry (crossing into the U.S. after being deported). Ten years ago, he would likely have been quickly deported, not prosecuted. But the Bush administration piloted a “zero-tolerance” policy in Texas that eventually spread across the border: All illegal border crossers would be arrested, detained and, if possible, prosecuted in federal court. Prosecutions surged, as did the need for detention centers, jails and prisons to hold the tens of thousands of newly minted criminals. The Obama administration has more than embraced the policy. The number of prosecutions for immigration crimes—almost 68,000—during the first nine months of 2009 is on track for a 14 percent increase over 2008. More than half of those prosecutions took place in Texas.

The result has been a system swamped with low-level immigration cases and prisons bursting at the seams with illegal immigrants. Rather than build and run the facilities themselves, federal agencies have turned in large part to private prison companies, such as Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group. In 2008, GEO reported more than $1 billion in revenue, an 80 percent increase over 2005.

Privatization has been less profitable for others. GEO’s Texas facilities have been plagued with suicides, filthy conditions, sexual abuse scandals, hunger strikes, riots and lawsuits.

Jesus Galindo became another case in point. According to his family, Galindo had had seizures before his incarceration but they grew worse and more frequent under the care of the Physicians Network Association, a Lubbock-based medical services provider that serves 17,000 inmates in 24 facilities across the nation. In 2002, Reeves County hired PNA to run the prison’s health care, attracted by its promise to improve services and cut costs. (The county pays PNA $6.03 per inmate per day, about $8 million a year at full capacity.)

Four months into their contract, then-warden Rudy Franco lauded PNA at a county commissioners meeting for drastically reducing the number of surgeries, X-rays, outside visits and other medical services, the latter of which had dropped from 3,148 to 222.

On Nov. 12, Galindo was locked up in the Special Housing Unit. The mostly Spanish-speaking inmates call it la celda de castigo, the punishment cell. Prisoners and others say the SHU was frequently used to isolate and punish men with health problems who complained about their medical care.

According to Galindo’s family, the prison authorities said they put him in the SHU to keep an eye on him. “That’s not true,” says Jesus Galindo Sr., his father. “It was to punish him.”

Galindo pleaded with prison officials to return him to the ­general population where he had friends who woke him up to take his pills and took care of him during his frequent seizures.

“He would say he was really afraid because if he got sick who was going to help him?” says his mother, Graciela Galindo. She begged officials to look after her son. “They told me he was in a high security place; that was what the warden said, and that I should not worry about him. They told me they were taking good care of my son.”

Galindo did what he could to reassure his family, singing love songs to his mother over the phone. “He had hope,” his brother Jesus Galindo Jr. said. “He was real strong. The only thing that bothered him was his condition. I saw him on his birthday [Nov. 29]. I said, ‘Hey, hang in there. Think of us like we think of you.’”

Judy Madewell, the public defender in charge of Galindo’s criminal case was so worried that she sent an investigator to the prison on Dec. 4. The investigator, Octavio Vasquez, urged the authorities to put Galindo back into the general population.

On Dec. 9, Graciela talked to her son on the phone. “He told me to tell Belinda [his daughter] to do a dance to the Virgin because he’s getting out of the SHU on Friday [Dec. 12] ... and that if he wasn’t, to contact the jail.”

The following day, Dec. 10, Galindo wrote a letter to his family saying that he felt bad and had asked the doctor and warden to do something. The letters begins in the morning, with Galindo noting that a nurse had promised him that she would return later that day to take his blood.

Two days later, on Dec. 12, Graciela called to see if her son had been released from the SHU. “I called and to my surprise he was dead. They kept me on the phone for an hour. They said we have to wait for the doctors. I told them please do something. But my son was already dead.”

“Mama, the day already passed and nothing,” he writes later that same day. “All they did was walk up and down but here, where I am, no one even stopped. We’ll see what happens tomorrow.”

When Galindo was found in his cell, rigor mortis had already set in. His body was purple and stiff. The El Paso County medical examiner ruled the cause of death as epileptiform seizure disorder. A toxicology report found “below-therapeutic levels” of Dilantin, a cheap anti-epileptic drug, in Galindo’s blood and urine. The drug is only effective at certain dosages, and a patient’s blood must be checked regularly to make sure it’s not too high or low, says Robert Cain, an Austin neurologist who reviewed the autopsy.

“With multiple seizures, inadequate levels of medication and left in isolation without supervision, he was set up to die,” Cain says.

Galindo’s experience was strikingly similar to those of other inmates under PNA’s care. In 2003, the Justice Department investigated the Santa Fe County Jail in New Mexico, which was then run by Management & Training Corp. (MTC). Just as it does at Reeves, PNA had a subcontract to provide health care there. The Justice Department found nearly non-existent medical and mental health care, and specifically noted PNA’s inattention to properly calibrating dose-sensitive medications, especially anti-epileptics.

“We found several instances in which PNA failed to monitor inmates on these types of medications, even when inmates reported experiencing side effects,” the report states. In one case, blood testing showed that an inmate with a seizure disorder did not have enough of the anti-seizure drug to be effective. The PNA medical staff did nothing, and seven days later the inmate attempted suicide and then suffered a seizure. “Even with all the attention from medical staff due to his suicide attempt, his seizure medication blood level was not measured until four days” later, the report says.

No such authoritative report has been done for the Pecos prison. But in interviews and correspondence, prisoners, their relatives, attorneys and immigrant rights advocates describe a facility overrun with corruption and dangerous cost-cutting measures. Prisoners writing to the Observer have made allegations ranging from physical abuse to tacit arrangements between guards and prisoners to traffic drugs and other contraband inside the facility. (GEO Group declined to comment.)

A prisoner we’ll call Juan, who asked that his real name not be used for fear of retribution, describes an environment of fear where hardened criminals serving long sentences live side by side with men who are there solely for crossing the border illegally. Juan says that prisoners in the jail are divided into groups based on their home state in Mexico with the tacit approval of the guards and the warden. Prisoners who have money and can buy influence and authority run these groups. These bosses dole out punishments and determine with the guards who gets sent to the punishment cell, Juan says. “We are threatened and beaten if we complain. While [the prison bosses] can have cell phones and other benefits that are forbidden.”

Another prisoner, Jose—who also asked that his name be changed—writes that he has hepatitis. “I begged for medicine and they sent me a bottle that was unsealed and only half full,” Jose writes. “I haven’t received treatment for my hepatitis since December 2008.”

“The problem with Reeves is that there are no medical services,” says Graciela Arredondo, the mother of a man who served part of his sentence at Reeves. “They won’t bring a doctor if you are sick. They don’t want to spend the money, but these are human beings and they deserve medical services.”

After the riots in December and January, the ACLU of Texas called on the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General to investigate the prisoners’ charges. This wouldn’t be the first time the OIG was asked to look into reports of abuse at the Reeves facility. In 2006, an investigation resulted in the arrests of five employees at the jail for smuggling drugs into the facility and having sex with inmates. Because it hasn’t received an answer from the OIG, the ACLU is starting its own investigation.

“Riots are relatively rare, and are an indicator of serious problems at a facility,” says Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas. ”We continue to receive complaints that the Bureau of Prisons and its contractors, GEO and Physicians Network Association, are systemically failing to address life-threatening and chronic medical conditions of detainees.”

None of this is surprising to longtime prison activist Bob Libal, co-coordinator of Grassroots Leadership, an Austin nonprofit that fights private prisons. “Conditions at GEO facilities have been horrendous, and it stretches across every type of facility,” says Libal. “It’s case after case after case. Whether Coke County, Val Verde, Dickens County, Reeves, Pearsall, it’s one horrendous thing after another.”

In 2007, the Texas Youth Commission removed 197 youths from GEO Group’s Coke County Juvenile Justice Center after inspectors found deplorable conditions including filthy cells that reeked of feces and urine, insects in the food, and inmates only being allowed to shower and brush their teeth every few days.

A year before, the family of 23-year-old LeTisha Tapia sued GEO Group after Tapia killed herself at the Val Verde County Jail, which the company runs. Tapia had told her family that she was raped, beaten, sexually humiliated and deprived of psychological and medical treatment in retaliation for telling the warden about guards allowing inmates to have sex with each other. The suit was settled out of court.

In the past two years, the state of Idaho has pulled out of contracts at two GEO-operated jails—the Dickens County Correctional Center, near Spur, and the Bill Clayton Detention Center in Littleton—citing chronic understaffing, a lack of required treatment programs, and suicides linked to squalid conditions.

In a lawsuit set to go to trial in March, two detainees at the GEO-run South Texas Detention Complex in Pearsall claim that the company “intentionally and systematically violates the rights of mentally disabled detainees.” Echoing the Reeves County allegations, both of the plaintiffs, Miroslava Rodriguez-Grava and Isaias Vasques Cisneros de Jesus, allege that instead of treating them for their mental disabilities, GEO put them in segregation for extended periods of time.

“I think that any time you insert profit into the equation that care and also the rehabilitative elements of corrections goes out the window,” said Libal. “They try to do things as cheap as possible. You get what you’re paying for in a lot of ways.”

The Pecos prison, a remote, austere correctional campus flanked by farmland and a weirdly out-of-place cemetery, sprawls across several acres a few hundred yards from Interstate 30. To travelers zipping by at 80 mph, the facility is little more than a blur of barbed wire and guard towers. But to the people of Reeves County (population 13,137), it’s an engine of progress.

In the mid-1980s, with the regional economy devastated by the Texas oil bust, local business and government leaders decided to move into a recession-proof industry that was exploding in an increasingly criminalized America: prisons. In 1986, the county built a 300-bed prison. The prison filled rapidly with federal inmates, pumping revenue into the county’s budget and adding decent-paying jobs to the local work force. By 2002, Reeves had 2,000 beds. In 2003, the county completed ­construction on a $39 million, 960-bed unit only to find that the feds had no interest.

“They built a $39 million prison on speculation,” said Jon Fulbright, a reporter for the Pecos Enterprise. While the prison sat empty, payments on the bonds, reduced to junk status, were coming due. On the verge of default, county officials begged the Bush administration to send prisoners and hired Randy DeLay, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s brother, to lobby in Washington, D.C. That’s when Wackenhut Corrections Corp., now GEO Group, rode to the rescue. In November 2003, GEO agreed to take over management of the whole 3,000-bed prison complex and soon struck a deal with the Bureau of Prisons to fill the new unit.

Despite the troubles at the Pecos prison under GEO management, local officials are grateful.

“A lot of people criticize GEO but I don’t,” says Sheriff Arnulfo “Andy” Gomez. “We had a hard time and they pulled us out. They’ve got lobbyists and all that.” Besides, he says, “You’re going to have trouble in every prison.”

Some more than others. On Jan. 31, a month and a half after the first uprising, prisoners at the Reeves County Detention Center rose up again. Prison and law enforcement officials have released little information on the disturbance, but inmates, advocates and family members say it began when Ramon Garcia, 25, was forced into solitary confinement after complaining of dizziness and feeling sick.

“We spoke with the warden and we told him to take our countryman out of the punishment cell and take him to the hospital because he needs medical attention,” an inmate told Laura Rivas, an advocate with the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “We told them that if they were not going to do it then we would do it, we would take him out, because we have more strength, and they laughed at us. And that’s when it all started.”

Lana Williams, a friend of Garcia’s family, told KFOX-TV in El Paso that Garcia had been put into solitary confinement whenever he complained of feeling sick. “He’s gotten to the point where he can’t walk down the hall without holding on to the wall, and this has been going on and getting progressively worse,” Williams said.

During the five-day takeover, the inmates drafted another list of demands: better medical treatment, adequate food (especially for those who are ill or have diabetes) and no guard retaliation against any person.

“To them, we don’t matter,” the inmate told Rivas. “If we die, it doesn’t matter to them. The only thing that interests them is money—nothing more.”

Melissa del Bosque contributed reporting for this story.

AND

http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/talking-about-insurrection.html

via Border Lines by Tom Barry on 10/9/09

Getting into the federal building in Pecos, Texas takes political sophistication – something I was apparently lacking when attempting to enter the building for the trial of a couple of immigrant inmates indicted for their role in the Dec. 12-13 incident, let’s call it, at the immigrant prison in this far West Texas town.

It’s the same all over the country. After Sept. 11 the federal halls of justice have been on virtual lockdown status. To get into these buildings – which typically house the district courts and U.S. Marshals Service offices, you need to pass through metal detectors, present identification, and rid yourself of all electronic devices. As many as half dozen or more federal security guards – usually retired police officers and sheriff deputies – are usually in the courthouse foyer to block entry to criminals and terrorists.

In Pecos, which has a privately run, federally supplied, and locally owned immigrant prison on the outskirts of town, people are feeling jittery about the criminal alien business. It’s a business that has for the past two decades been a source of a steadily expanding number of local jobs and increasing county revenues, as the prison has gone through three expansions to accommodate the ever larger number of immigrant inmates under Bureau of Prisons custody.

I felt it as soon as I stepped pass the doorway: suspicion and outsider disdain. “What are you here for? Who are you,” one of the guards demanded.

“Well, I am here for the trial of the immigrant prisoners indicted for the disturbance at the prison last December,” I said, handing the questioning guard my business card (from Center for International Policy).

“Disturbance, there was no disturbance,” says he. (It wasn’t until later that I asked how HE was.) “There was a riot, and it’s costing us tens of millions of dollars.”

During several trips to Pecos since the second inmate news event of Jan. 31 –Feb. 5, I had been alternating between “riot,” “protest,” “mutiny,” and “disturbance.”

What happened at the Reeves County Detention Center in two separate occasions was that immigrant inmates – officially classified “criminal aliens” who will be processed for deportation upon completing their 1-5 year sentences – set fire to prison buildings to protest the deaths and untreated illnesses of fellow prisoners. In both cases, the main prisoner concern was that sick inmates were being placed in the Secure Housing Unit (SHU) assigned for “medical observation.”

The SHUs in modern prisons and detention centers are the modern equivalent of the old “solitary confinement” – intended as both punishment for disciplinary infraction and as deterrence to prevent unruly behavior. But, as the practice at the Reeves County Detention Center, SHUs are often used simply to better manage prison populations – to isolate and punish problem inmates whether they break the rules or not.

At the Reeves County Detention Center (RCDC) – which since 1985 has expanded from 300-bed prison to one that holds up to 3700 inmates – the SHU is systemically and routinely used to house severely ill inmates. That’s because there is no infirmary at what the prison giant GEO Group (which the county contracts to run the BOP prison) calls RCDC “the largest detention/
correctional facility under private management in the world.”

The first incident was precipitated by the death of Jesus Manuel Galindo, 32, who was serving a 30-month sentence for illegal reentry from Mexico. Galindo was picked up by the Border Patrol after an epileptic seizure at a convenience store near the borderland town of Anthony, NM, where he had lived with his family since he was in his mid-teens. The local police, who responded to the call for assistance from the clerk at the local 7-11, turned Galindo over to the Border Patrol after it was determined he was an “illegal alien.” Galindo, after being deported to Ciudad Juárez (about 20 miles from his home in the United States), attempted to return home to his extended and nuclear family (three children and second wife) – all of whom were legal residents or citizens -- two years ago after spending a month in the Mexican border town across from El Paso.

But increased border security and a new “criminal alien” policy that criminalizes and penalizes illegal border crossing combined to put Galindo into the federal slammer in Pecos, where an estimated 75% of his fellow inmates were also serving time for illegal border crossings and the balance for nonviolent crimes, mostly drug violations.

Another severe epileptic seizure in mid-November 2008 sent Galindo to an area hospital – and in the SHU. The greatest fear of inmates at the Reeves County Detention Center is getting sick and being consigned to the SHU – what they call “el hoyo” (the hole). It’s the hole not because it’s so dark or dirty, but rather because it’s where there is no relief from the walls, the loneliness, the emptiness.

Galindo corresponded frequently with his mother, Graciela Galindo. His letters from mid-November until the day before he died tell of his fear and despair at being kept in the hole without any company, without the friends he made in prison. He tells his mother of the inhumanity of most of the guards who didn’t seem to recognize the humanity of the immigrant inmates. He writes of the urgency to get the right medicine to prevent his seizures – medicine, his mother told me, for which he had a prescription before he was imprisoned but was replaced by the nurses at Reeves with sedatives that kept him sleepy and unable to stand up. On Dec. 5 he wrote of being “afraid” of what would happen to him if he stayed in the hold any longer, of how his was being ignored by the guards and nurses, of his bruises from thrashing around during unattended seizures.

The day before he died he wrote a letter to his mother that the family didn’t read until much later when they received his few personal belongings along with his body.

In his Dec. 11 letter he wrote: “I told them that I have been here (in SHU) for a month, and I’ve gotten sick twice, and let’s see if they move me or do something quickly. All they say is 'yes, yes.' and they don't do anything.”

What happened after two of his fellow inmates in the SHU saw his body being removed in a black body bag on the morning of Dec. 12 is a matter of interpretation and interests.

The Dec. 12-13 incident resulted in some damage – several hundred thousands of dollars -- to the SHU and in a badly burnt recreation building. Reeves County attributed the property loss at the RCDC III prison (the most 2005 expansion of the immigrant prison) to a “disturbance.” Calling it a “riot” would have precluded the insurance company from covering the losses, said County Judge Sam Contreras.

The inmates themselves referred to it as a “motín” or mutiny – a term that conveys the sense of an uprising against authority.

After the Dec. 12-13 incident in Pecos and after the second closely related incident of Jan. 31-Feb 5 (when inmates also rebelled and set fire to prison buildings in an incident also sparked by medical malpractice and mistreatment concerns involving the use of the SHU for “medical observation”), the criminal justice system, the insurance system, and the financial system are providing most of the follow-up.

Despite demands by the Texas ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups, the Office of Inspector General of the Justice Department has not initiated an investigation. But the criminal justice system did immediately kick in other respects. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Midland, Texas immediately began investigating the new crimes of the immigrant inmates who, in part out of solidarity with those sick fellow prisoners shut in the hole and in part out of fear that too would be released from prison in a body bag, took control of the two different sections of the prison to highlight their concerns.

Like the inmates, the U.S. attorney called the incidents “mutinies” and like the media and the security guards in the federal building lobby is also referring to the incidents as riots. Twenty six inmates from the first incident have been indicted. At first, they faced two counts – causing a riot or mutiny, or aiding and abetting in a mutiny or riot. The first count declared that the defendants “and other persons known or unknown to the grand jury, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly, did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other and others to instigate, connive, attempt to cause, assist, and conspire to cause a riot at the Reeves County Detention Center, a federal penal, detention, or correctional facility.”

(Apparently, the U.S. attorneys are as confused as everyone else about what the Reeves County Detention Center really is, a prison or detention center. And while it does hold federal prisoners – all immigrants with orders for deportation – there is much confusion about whose prison is it. It is county owned – hence the Reeves County – but it is operated by GEO Group while the BOP contracts with the county to run it and the county subcontracts with GEO.)

The second count was the essentially the same but in this count the defendants purportedly “aided and abetted by each other and others did instigate, connive, attempt to cause, assist, or conspire to cause a riot.” In brief, the criminal indictment described the incident as a “mutiny or riot.” Those two counts were filed April 9 and May 12.

But they didn’t have the desired result. Not all the defendants were entering guilty pleas, thereby saving the U.S. attorney the trouble of presenting evidence and actually trying the case. Then, on July 14, the U.S. John Murphy came to the grand jury with a superceding indictment that includes a new charge: “the use of fire to commit a federal felony offense.”

Mary Stillinger, one of the court-appointed attorneys appointed to represent the immigrants, said the new indictment “really hammered” the immigrants, since it came with a mandatory ten-year sentence.

There was little hard evidence against the men, and even with the court-appointed defense attorneys, most of whom simply go through the motions of defending immigrants in the flood of criminal charges resulting from immigration violations that is overwhelming the judicial system along the border. As part of the prison reconstruction, GEO has insisted that the county install a comprehensive system of security cameras and video recording units so as to insure that the next time around, as was explained in a county commissioners meeting in Pecos by the architect directing the reconstruction: “Cameras and recording equipment are among the highest things on their list, because if say that if they had more security cameras, better recording equipment, when they had this disturbance, they would have been able to prosecute more, indict more people, if they had more proof of what everybody did.”

No one in a position of responsibility– not in county government, not in GEO, not in the correctional healthcare subcontractor Physicians Network Association (of Lubbock, Texas), not in the BOP , not in the U.S. Attorney’s Office – is apparently concerned of prosecuting, indicting, gathering evidence, or even investigating the conditions at RCDC that sparked the riots and the death of Jesus Manuel Galindo.

But the county has other concerns that involve high finance and keeping prison jobs in Reeves County.

Since 1985 the county has issued approximately $115 million in revenue bonds to finance the construction and maintenance of the RCDC immigrant prison complex. Going into the riots/mutinies/disturbances, the county had $92 million in outstanding prison debt. This debt is in the form of tax exempt municipal bonds called project revenue bonds that are issued by a specially established county public facility corporation to create a project that brings revenue to the county.

The county got off relatively easily from the first incident. The insurance companies paid by the county over the past couple of decades for the prison covered most of the rebuilding expenses. But then came the proverbial ‘fire next time.’

Less than two months after the first inmate protest, inmates renewed the Dec. 12-13 protest with a much larger incident – one that completely destroyed the oldest prison unit and resulted in reconstruction and upgrading expenses project to approach $40 million. This time the insurance companies are expected to come through with only $25 million, leaving the county $15 million short.

Here comes Barry Friedman of Carlyle Capital Markets, the bond underwriting firm that has been with Reeves County since the beginning of its prison enterprise. Friedman assures the county that he can sell another $15 million plus in bonds to cover the gap. “I have been on the side of Reeves County since 1986,” Friedman recently told the county commissioners, assuring them that he only wants what is good for the county.

Not only is Friedman underwriting the new bond issue but after the prison disturbances he was hired as a special financial consultant to the county for about $15,000 a month. In addition to his commission for bond underwriting, he is also advising the county on what is in their best financial interest, as he told the commissioners. “As financial adviser, my responsibility is to the county,” he explained, angrily and righteously dismissing a complaint raised by County Attorney Alva Alvarez. “Do you represent the bondholders,” he was asked. “No, I represent the county,” he replied.

Reeves County is angry, worried, and deep in debt – and going deeper. No wonder then the reaction of the elderly security guard at the federal building. After I asked who he was, he threatened to call the U.S. Marshals. Knowing about justice in Reeves County, I turned around and walked out. Just as well, the immigrants had all decided to plead guilty. The scheduled trial was cancelled.

Tempers are also flaring in the county building across the street with conflict-of-interest charges swirling around having Carlyle’s Friedman work two sides of the prison business and with fears that if the county doesn’t get the prison back together the BOP might, as one county official noted, “bring in the buses and bring the inmates out.”

That would leave Reeves County with massive prison bond debt, Pecos with any empty prison complex on the edge of town, and more than four hundred area residents without a job. It would be a near fatal blow to the county, where a quarter of the population lives in poverty and unemployment stands at 14.1%. Poor Reeves County.

And poor immigrants who still suffer the same medical conditions that sparked the incidents.

See related articles:

Tom Barry
February 24, 2009
“Medical Claims and Malpractice in Correctional Healthcare”
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5895

Forrest Wilder
October 2, 2009
“The Pecos Insurrection”
http://www.texasobserver.org/features/the-pecos-insurrection

Posted by lois at 09:35 PM | Comments (0)

October 10, 2009

Angola 3: Herman Wallace's Appeal Denied After 37 Years in Solitary Confinement

Appeal Denied After 37 Years in Solitary Confinement
by James Ridgeway. The Unsilent Generation
Posted: 10 Oct 2009

The Louisiana State Supreme Court Friday denied an appeal from Herman Wallace, who has been held in solitary confinement for more than 37 years. Wallace and Albert Woodfox are members of what has become known as the Angola 3, whose story I have been covering for Mother Jones. Convicted of the 1972 murder of a prison guard at the notorious Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, both men maintain their innocence; they believe they were targeted for the crime and relegated to permanent lockdown because of their organizing work with the prison chapter of the Black Panthers. Wallace, who is now 68 years old, was recently transferred from Angola to the Hunt Correctional Center near Baton Rouge, where he continues to be held in solitary. Two days ago, Wallace descended even deeper into the hole, placed in a disciplinary unit called Beaver 5 for unknown violations of prison policy.

Herman Wallace launched the appeal of his conviction nearly a decade ago. His lawyers have introduced substantial evidence showing that the state’s star witness, a fellow prisoner named Hezekiah Brown, was offered special treatment and an eventual pardon in exchange for his testimony against Wallace and Woodfox. In 2006, a judicial commissioner assigned to study the case found that there were grounds for overturning the conviction, but Wallace’s application was subsequently denied–by the state district court, court of appeals, and now by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

While every setback comes as a blow to a man nearing 70 who has spent nearly four decades in lockdown, one of Wallace’s attorneys said tonight that this denial by the state’s highest court came as no surprise, since it has a reputation for refusing to overturn the decisions of lower courts. Today’s ruling opens the doors to a federal habeas corpus challenge, beginning with the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana at Baton Rouge. Here, if Wallace is lucky, his case will be reviewed by a fact-finding federal magistrate, and his conviction overturned by a federal judge. This is what happened to Albert Woodfox last year. Yet Woodfox, too, remains in prison–and in solitary confinement–as the state appeals the judge’s decision.

Louisiana’s Attorney General, James “Buddy” Caldwell, has stated that he opposes releasing the two men “with every fiber of my being,” while the Warden of Angola and Hunt prisons, Burl Cain, has more than once suggested that the two men must be held in solitary because they ascribe to “Black Pantherism.”

In addition to their criminal appeals, Wallace and Woodfox (along with Robert King, who was released in 2001), have a case pending on constitutional grounds. They argue that the conditions and duration of their time in solitary confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Their lawyers have submitted reports showing the effects of decades of solitary confinement on men in their sixties—including arthritis, hypertension, and kidney failure, as well as memory impairment, insomnia, claustrophobia, anxiety, and depression. The suit also argues that Wallace and Woodfox are being held in lockdown for their political beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment.
http://unsilentgeneration.com/

Posted by lois at 10:52 PM | Comments (0)

October 06, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the editorial:
Editorial
Prisoners’ Rights

Published: September 23, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 05, 2009

From National Advocates for Pregnant Women: Shackling Pregnant Prisoners in Labor Found to be Cruel by the Eighth Circuit

Dear Friends and Allies:

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (the federal level appellate court that reviews decisions from federal district courts in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, and Arkansas) issued the long-awaited decision in Nelson v. Norris. In this case, Shawanna Nelson argued that being forced to go through the final stages of labor with both legs shackled to her hospital bed was cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. She argued that she should be allowed to sue the director of the prison and the guard who repeatedly re-shackled her legs to the bed. Ms. Nelson, an African-American woman, was incarcerated for non-violent offenses of credit card fraud and "hot checks."

In this historic federal court decision, the Court held that the guard was not immune from (protected from) suit because it has been clearly established by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts that shackling pregnant women in labor violates that 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court suggested that the corrections officers should have known that the medical risks of shackling were "obvious" and that "the shackles interfered with Nelson's medical care, could be an obstacle in the event of a medical emergency, and caused unnecessary suffering at a time when Nelson would have likely been physically unable to flee because of the pain she was undergoing and the powerful contractions she was experiencing as her body worked to give birth."

Ms. Nelson originally filed this case in 2004. As the case progressed through the courts, she seemed to be losing. In 2008, three judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that she had no right to sue. Recognizing the harm this decision would do, her counsel reached out to national advocacy groups for help in an effort to petition the court for re-hearing. Even though NAPW does not specialize in prison issues, we are recognized for our commitment to pregnant women and our extraordinary ability to mobilize leading public health and advocacy groups. With allies at the Rebecca Project for Human Rights and the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI), we were able to identify more than 35 organizations (see full list below) that wanted to be represented as amicus in this case. In a brief filed with the Kesten Law Firm in Arkansas, amici articulated both constitutional and international human rights arguments in support of the re-hearing and against the degrading and cruel practice of keeping pregnant women in labor in shackles. We did all this in less than a week.

This effort succeeded, garnering a decision by the court to re-hear the case en banc (with full court review). In any year, fewer than 100 cases in the entire federal system are granted rehearing with en banc review. This was a strong initial indication that our brief had made a difference. Not only that, but at oral argument one of the judges specifically referred to our brief, asking: "Based on the amicus submission filed in support of the petition for rehearing, wasn't Arkansas an outlier in the world's community in terms of treatment of pregnant prisoners?" Our answer is yes, and the Court of Appeals decision this Friday agreed.

That this decision is "historic," and that five of the eleven circuit court judges dissented, makes clear both how far we have come and how far we still have to go to ensure the civil and human rights of all pregnant women (the dissent in Friday's opinion saw no "clearly established" constitutional violations in shackling Ms. Nelson during labor.)

Congratulations to Ms. Nelson, her counsel, and all of the groups who sought reproductive justice and won in this case!

This victory makes clear that with persistence we can win.

Sincerely,
Lynn M. Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org
info@adovacatesforpregnantwomen.org

Amici on behalf of Shawanna Nelson:
National Perinatal Association
American College of Nurse Midwives
American Medical Women's Association
Citizens for Midwifery
Birthnet Inc.
The Bronx Health Link Inc.
California National Organization for Women
Center for Reproductive Rights
Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers
The D.C. Prisoners' Project of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
Florida Institutional Legal Services Inc.
Justice Now
Law Students for Reproductive Justice
Legal Momentum
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Lutheran Services of Illinois Connections Program
Maternal and Child Health Access
The Ms. Foundation for Women
National Juvenile Justice Network
National Women's Health Network
National Women's Law Center
National Women's Prison Project
The New Mexico Women's Justice Project
The Northwest Women's Law Center
The National Organization for Women Foundation
Penal Reform International
Prison Legal News
Prisoners' Legal Services of New York
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
Southwest Women's Law Center
Texas Jail Project
The Uptown People's Law Center
WORTH(Women on the Rise Telling Her Story)

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

September 30, 2009

NAACP's president returns to Maine for voter drive in prisons

NAACP's president returns to Maine for voter drive in prisons
BY TREVOR MAXWELL Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel 09/30/2009

Less than a year after he came to Maine to lobby for prison reform and ensure that inmates have an opportunity to vote, the president of the NAACP led a voter registration drive on Tuesday at five of the state's seven correctional facilities for adults.

Benjamin Jealous, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, said more than 100 inmates registered to vote at the Maine State Prison in Warren, and he was waiting for a tally on the other four facilities.

The effort, he said, was the first system-wide voter registration project in the history of America's prisons.

"It was a great day," Jealous said after leaving Warren on Tuesday afternoon. "How you teach someone to live on the inside is more than likely how they are going to live on the outside. This is about helping people to get on a path, to be more productive and involved members of society.

"As somebody with Maine roots, I have always believed this is a place where big problems can be solved," said Jealous, whose father was raised in Maine and graduated from Deering High School in Portland.

Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow felons to vote while they are incarcerated.

The first voter registration drive at the Maine State Prison was held in May 2008, but the organizing inmates and leaders of the Portland chapter of the NAACP said there were no guarantees at the time that future drives would be allowed.

The inmates also were frustrated that it took more than two years to get permission for the project.

Jealous came to Maine in December of 2008, at the request of Portland chapter President Rachel Talbot Ross, and met with prison officials and outgoing state Attorney General Steven Rowe.

Coming out of those talks, the Department of Corrections announced that the NAACP could hold annual voter registration drives at every prison in Maine.

Coinciding with the voting drives, the NAACP conducts membership drives.

"This is fulfilling the commitment that was made," Talbot Ross said on Tuesday. "It has been a great success."

Because of scheduling conflicts at the Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport and the Central Maine Pre-Release Center in Hallowell, organizers were not able to register voters there on Tuesday.

Ross said she will visit inmates there in the coming weeks, before the Nov. 3 general elections. In 48 states, incarcerated felons are not allowed to vote.

And in Virginia and Kentucky, a felony conviction prohibits an individual from ever voting again.

"Maine is a leader in placing no restrictions on the right to vote," said Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

The group has supported the efforts of the NAACP in the prisons.

Bellows said a study done in 1996 in Minnesota, as well as other studies, show that offenders who vote are less likely to reoffend.

"Voting rights encourage offenders to become productive members of society," Bellows said. "It enhances their ties to our democratic institutions and their ties to the community."

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

September 28, 2009

Interview with Young Women's Empowerment Project on their research "Girls Do What they Do In Order to Survive"

An interview with the Young Women's Empowerment Project on their research study of girls involved in the sex trade.
Participatory Action Research emphasizes the involvement of those being studied in the actual research process. It’s a technique the Young Women's Empowerment Project has used to fill in the gaps of previous research on the sex trade and street economy. YWEP assists young women ages 12-23 who are either currently working in the sex trade and street economy, or have in the past. The group is also entirely run by peers with experience in the sex trade and street economy. Today, YWEP releases their findings in a new report entitled, “Girls do what they have to do to survive: Illuminating Methods used by Girls in the Sex Trade and Street Economy to Fight Back and Heal.” Alison Cuddy sat down with the study’s research coordinator Jazeera Iman, and Shira Hassan, co-director for the Young Women’s Empowerment Project.
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=37026

Posted by lois at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2009

NV: Pahrump: fight continues against detention center

"At the time, there was no group like Concerned Citizens for a Safe Community, no anti-prison privatization consultants like Frank Smith of the Private Corrections Institute, and only a couple residents who attended the relevant meetings and spoke up."

Proposed distance from 'prison' was redlined by staff
By MARK WAITE and MARK SMITH
PVT
Sep. 18, 2009
It all began a long time ago.

Jan. 24, 2007 -- more than two and a half years ago -- the PVT printed on its front page a story titled "Town has no lock on fed prison plan."

And so what has become a major issue regarding development, revenue, jobs and political viability, got under way.

Over the intervening months, the PVT has been riddled with stories about the detention center, many on the front page and for which it won a number of Nevada Press Association awards in 2008.

But one issue has persisted as a burr under the saddle -- the reduction in the minimum distance between a prison, as many insist the detention center is, and the nearest residences.

Nye County commissioners long ago, on April 18, 2007, passed what remains a controversial motion to change the county zoning code and eliminate the minimum distance requirement of 50,000 feet between a correctional institution and residences.

At the time, there was no group like Concerned Citizens for a Safe Community, no anti-prison privatization consultants like Frank Smith of the Private Corrections Institute, and only a couple residents who attended the relevant meetings and spoke up.

Despite ongoing publicity about the detention center, it was a year later, during the summer of 2008, before the code change began to attract significant public attention.

The idea of revising the zoning to allow a correctional facility first came up during a March 9, 2007, county commission meeting held via a conference call, when then County Manager Ron Williams told commissioners a provision in the county code would have to be changed.

At the time, Nye County Code allowed only for a lockup for people already convicted, he said. Williams said the code also required such facilities be at least 50,000 feet, about 9.5 miles, from the nearest residence.

That minimum distance in the county code was enacted after the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission in the late 1990s decided it didn't want a correctional facility in Pahrump.

At that time, there had been talk of building a prison somewhere in Southern Nevada, Williams told commissioners. Pahrump Valley was sufficiently expansive to include areas where a correctional facility could be built 10 miles from homes, he said.

Williams said if the ordinance wasn't changed, Nye County could catch flack from some of the companies spending money on surveying land for possible detention center sites.

Commissioner Butch Borasky expressed concerns over the increasing size of the privately-built, federal detention center, which was originally going to be 350 beds, but at the time, there was talk of boosting it to 1,000 beds.

Former Commissioner Peter Liakopoulos and Borasky both talked about trying to situate the facility as far away from town as possible.

The county commission had just backed off from a suggestion to submit Nye County's own bid to build a federal detention center, after former Commissioner Roberta "Midge" Carver raised concerns over liability.

Williams added Nye County didn't have the experience to compete with private contractors already established in the industry. It also wouldn't be a good idea to revise the solicitation for bids by the U.S. Department of Justice to include beds for the county's own inmates, he said.

On March 23, 2007, county commissioners voted to set an April 18 hearing date for what had become bill 2007-07 that would establish a new community facilities zone that would allow a federal detention center in the zoning code.

It would also dump the minimum distance requirement.

County commissioners were being urged to take action as contractors were required to submit phase one environmental surveys on proposed locations for the detention center by April 30, 2007.

Former Pahrump Town Board Chairman Laurayne Murray talked about the tremendous financial impact from a detention center requiring 200 to 250 jobs, an annual payroll of $9 million and tax payments of $800,000 per year.

She urged commissioners to move quickly in light of competition from other communities for the project. There were 11 original sites proposed.

The Pahrump Regional Planning Commission recommended approval of the bill April 11, 2007.

At the April 18, 2007, public hearing by the Nye County Commission, Borasky suggested a minimum distance remain between correctional facilities and residences.

"I would really like to see some distance between residential housing and that type of facility -- a mile and a half -- and also be on a paved road as well," Borasky said.

The proposed bill, 2007-07, had five special conditions at the end, one of which was a requirement that "the facility must be located at least five miles from any established residential use."

Those special conditions, however, were deleted sometime between March 23, 2007, when the bill was first scheduled for a hearing, and the RPC April 11 meeting with a red line through them. No one objected to the red line deletion -- no one took credit for the deletions at the time, and who actually redlined them is unclear even today -- but Williams told commissioners the county was supposed to be removing the 50,000-foot setback.

"Again, I'll make the same statement: Are we going to add a mileage requirement or not?" Borasky asked.

"The way we're drafting this ordinance, there is no distance or mileage requirement from the residents to the facility," Nye County Planning Director Jack Lohman said.

Borasky, in a front page April 25, 2007, PVT story titled "Released detainees concern town board member," said he felt satisfied the county would have enough control over where the detention center was to be located when it came to approving the conditional use permit.

The story specified that the minimum distance had been removed from the special conditions.

But when it came to the rezoning of the Mesquite Avenue property in July 2007, Williams said the county would vote on a development agreement instead of a conditional use permit.

"Would planning approve a correctional facility within a residential neighborhood?" Commissioner Gary Hollis asked at the April 2007 hearing.

"Well, not without a general plan amendment," said Lohman, "and it would be up to you folks to decide where to put it."

Hollis, then the county commission chairman, mistakenly called for the vote on the bill before the public comment period.

When public comment was reopened, however, only a couple of people spoke up.

Pahrump resident John Koenig, a regular attendee at county commission meetings, said, if the county set a minimum distance from residences, "it will make it a lot easier at decision time to say that's a good site."

Pahrump Town Board member John McDonald had concerns over detainees being released onto the streets of Pahrump.

Attorney Tony Celeste, representing the Geo Group, one of the two contractors bidding on a detention center project, said, placing a minimum separation distance would preclude the county commission from evaluating a potentially viable site for consideration.

Liakopoulos made the motion to approve bill 2007-07. It passed on a 4-1 vote. Carver cast the sole vote in opposition without explaining her objection.

There was an attempt shortly afterward to build a separate Nye County detention facility.

In May 2007, county commissioners voted 3-1 to negotiate with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on a 500-bed detention facility to be built and operated by the county.

Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo said he met with Mike Webb, a supervisory agent for ICE, about the proposal, which would allow the county to house its own prisoners and lease bed space to other agencies.

Somehow that plan became mingled in the minds of some with the federal detention center.

On July 11, 2007, the RPC voted to recommend a site farther north on Parque Avenue, almost into Johnnie, for the detention center, while reviewing five zoning applications.

A week later, the county commission passed a motion by Borasky to approve a non-conforming zoning change for 160 acres at the 2250 E. Mesquite Ave., detention center site from open use-general commercial to a community facilities zone, overruling the RPC denial of that site.

County planner Rick Osborne said the nearest residence was 600 feet away.

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2009/Sep-18-Fri-2009/news/31275071.html

Posted by lois at 08:19 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2009

IL: DOC head visits Tamms and unveils some reforms

Illinois"Members of Tamms Year Ten, an activist group, praised parts of Randle's plan, but said it doesn't go far enough, particularly when it comes to mentally ill inmates.
"It sounds like the Illinois Department of Corrections is really moving into a new direction at Tamms," said Laurie Jo Reynolds, a spokeswoman for Tamms Year Ten. "But ... there must be some mental health oversight, independently, to prevent well-documented abuse and neglect of mentally ill prisoners."

Ill. Corrections head unveils reforms for Tamms
By SOPHIA TAREEN Associated Press Writer
September 17, 2009
CHICAGO - The head of the Illinois Department of Corrections unveiled a reform plan Thursday for the state's lone supermax prison, including increased mental health evaluations, more incentives for good prisoner behavior and the transfer of dozens of inmates.

Department of Corrections Director Michael Randle, who was charged with reviewing the debated Tamms Correctional Center when he was appointed in June, said his 10-point plan came after a visit to the far southern Illinois facility.

"We must take a holistic look at the entire institution," he said Thursday at a luncheon for the John Howard Association of Illinois, a prison reform group. "It's imperative to take systematic reforms."

Randle said he spent about 10 hours of his second day on the job at Tamms, which houses about 250 of the state's worst offenders. He said he interviewed staff, walked every cell block and observed routines.

He said a review was conducted of inmates held at Tamms from 1998 to 2004 and that 45 would be eligible for an eventual transfer to lower security facilities. He also vowed that every inmate at Tamms would receive a full mental health evaluation within 30 days of arriving and mental health staff would conduct weekly checks on inmates.

The reforms come as Tamms, where prisoners spend most of their days in solitary confinement, faces heavy scrutiny and numerous lawsuits for allegations of inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Amnesty International has urged Gov. Pat Quinn to end indefinite solitary confinement at Tamms and to prohibit transferring seriously mentally ill prisoners to the facility. Other advocates have even pushed for closing the 11-year-old facility.

Randle said Thursday that closing Tamms never was considered. He said he did not know the details of Amnesty's call for change at Tamms, but he does not support independent reviewers coming into the facility.

He declined to discuss specific details on allegations of abuse.

"Any allegation is looked into," he said.

Members of Tamms Year Ten, an activist group, praised parts of Randle's plan, but said it doesn't go far enough, particularly when it comes to mentally ill inmates.

"It sounds like the Illinois Department of Corrections is really moving into a new direction at Tamms," said Laurie Jo Reynolds, a spokeswoman for Tamms Year Ten. "But ... there must be some mental health oversight, independently, to prevent well-documented abuse and neglect of mentally ill prisoners."

Randle, a former deputy director of Ohio's prison system, devoted most of his speech, entitled "Charting a New Course for Illinois Prisons," to touting his Tamms plan.

He said the reforms also include informing all prisoners on their approximate length of stay, giving each prisoner a transfer review hearing, allowing Tamms prisoners to take the GED and increased incentives for good behavior, like telephone or out-of-cell privileges.

Quinn, who appointed Randle, has signed off on the reforms.

Tamms warden Yolande Johnson told The Associated Press the plan "is very doable" but some points will be more difficult to implement than others, like installing a telephone system for inmates.

She declined to comment on abuse allegations, saying prison staff follow the state's mission of treating prisoners humanely. She disagreed with some activists' recent comparisons of alleged abuse at Tamms to abuse allegations at Guantanamo Bay.

"We don't torture inmates," she told the AP.

During the speech, Randle said his other goals for all the state's prisons is to reduce the recidivism rate, which is about 51 percent, and the number of prisoners overall.

Illinois has about 46,000 inmates and about 33,000 parolees.

Randle said it would be better for lower level offenders to be punished through community programs, instead of jail, particularly as his agency faces budget cuts and staff reductions.

"We are reviewing every facet of IDOC," Randle said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-illinois-correcti,0,5700735.story

Posted by lois at 09:17 AM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2009

VA: Prison Officials Reverse Ban on Book Program

VIRGINIA
Prison Officials Reverse Ban on Book Program
By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 17, 2009

Virginia inmates will once again be able to receive free Bibles, dictionaries and other books from a nonprofit group, after state prison officials reversed a recent decision to ban the popular Books Behind Bars program.

The 20-year-old effort, run by the Quest Institute in Charlottesville, was halted last month after prison officials said that security risks were too great and that the influx of books created too much work for busy corrections officers.

But after protests from supporters, Corrections Department Director Gene M. Johnson said he will allow Books Behind Bars -- which has put as many as 1 million books in prison cells statewide -- to resume. In a Sept. 15 letter to Kay Allison, the program's founder, Johnson said each inmate could request up to three books a month.

"At this time it is my intention to restore the opportunity for inmates to request three free books per month through the Quest Institute while strengthening our procedures for the introduction of materials into [Corrections Department] facilities," Johnson wrote.

Community members, lawmakers and others came forward to support the program, Allison said.

"I'm ecstatic," she said. "This is a victory for the inmates."

Prison officials decided to stop the program after contraband made its way into prisons in books provided by Quest. State officials would not provide details, citing security issues. But they said they worried that someone trying to smuggle an item to an inmate could use Books Behind Bars to do it.

Allison said volunteers who help sort and search books before they are sent to inmates overlooked a paper clip and a CD packaged in a textbook. She said that both items were found by corrections officers and that neither made it into the hands of an inmate.

In the letter, Johnson wrote that "introduction of contraband of any kind into any correctional setting is a very serious matter."

"I trust there will be no problem with such an occurrence happening again regarding materials distributed by the Quest Institute," he wrote.

Allison said volunteers will take extra care to inspect each book.

Inmates write to Quest, asking for specific titles or topics. Dictionaries, Bibles and the Koran are the most frequent requests. African American literature, self-help books and novels are also popular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091601168.html

Posted by lois at 10:09 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2009

Prison Comix by Jim Ridgeway

Prison Comix
September 5, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 10, 2009

Dee Hubbard: Fighter Against Corruption and Private Prisons

One for the little people

By Krestia DeGeorge
Anchorage Press
September 2, 2009

According to the story, written by Rich Mauer, Hubbard bears no small responsibility for the start of what would eventually become the federal government’s investigation into government corruption in Alaska.

Mrs. Hubbard once worked in government, and had brushes with it as an engaged citizen—the piece describes a fight that went to the assembly to save a Muldoon neighborhood library. But Hubbard’s moment came late in life, when she and her husband learned of a group that was working on building a private prison in the state.

As Mauer recounts: “She and her husband began following the money, from halfway house contracts that [Bill] Weimar held with the state Corrections Department to political contributions by [Bill] Allen, whose company, Veco, would have built the prison.”

Weimar and Allen, of course, eventually pleaded guilty to corruption, once a small federal probe into the private prison issue turned into a large federal probe into corruption surrounding oil tax legislation. That investigation, as everyone knows, eventually snared a handful of powerful Alaskans, ranging from Vic Kohring to Ted Stevens.

In the process, it changed the face of Alaska politics.

Without the corruption probe, Democrats might not have won enough seats to wield any power in the legislature, leading to one-party rule. Without the probe, Sarah Palin might not have found a strong enough anti-corruption backlash into which she could successfully tap during her Republican primary challenge to Frank Murkowski three years ago. Without the probe Ted Stevens might still be stalking the halls of the Senate in his Hulk tie, and national Democrats, without a filibuster-proof majority in the upper house, might be talking about something less controversial than the nation’s broken health care system.

Without Dee Hubbard, there might not have been a corruption probe.

Okay, maybe that last one is a stretch. Something as big as the corruption investigation we’ve seen here in the last several years is generally too large to rest on the shoulders of just one individual. And if Hubbard hadn’t pursued her curiosity and sense of civic outrage, somebody else—eventually, inevitably—would have.

But as Senator Mark Begich told Mauer, Hubbard wasn’t the type to wait for somebody else: “When she thought something was unjust, she was not going to sit around and wait for someone to do something—she felt she was the someone.”

This is an old story in politics. A woman I once interviewed for a political profile got started because she was upset by a poorly planned development in her neighborhood. She didn’t stop the development, but she didn’t stop being involved either. Fast-forward a few decades and the same woman was about to take the reins of one of the most powerful committees in the U.S. House of Representatives.

But with Hubbard this story comes with a twist. She may’ve followed her civic instincts, but she didn’t follow them into a public office, or even into the limelight. She was content to work hard in the public’s interest, but to stay out of the public’s eye. Contrast that kind of humility with the brazen self-promotion of some who filed fistfuls of ethics complaints against then-Governor Sarah Palin, then rushed to congratulate themselves for having done so on blogs and in other sympathetic outlets.

Such pervasive selflessness—giving one’s time and effort for the greater good while spurning all compensation, whether in the form of pay or notoriety, except the satisfaction of knowing you did the right thing—seems valuable and rare.

Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a season of uncommon ambition in Alaska, especially when it comes to politics.

Perhaps that’s because of the power vacuum created by the power structures the federal corruption investigation dismantled. Perhaps it’s that we’ve become accustomed to the national media spotlight that’s been trained on Alaska in the past 12 months, following Sarah Palin’s rise and fall from political prominence. Perhaps it’s always there bubbling under the surface, emerging when conditions are right.

There’s nothing wrong with ambition, of course, and many of our most ambitious would-be leaders have impressive resumes and thoughtful policies. We’ll be spending a lot of time soon covering a gubernatorial race and a race for the state’s lone seat in the House of Representatives. And that’s as it should be.

But this is a good moment to take a break from that, to honor Hubbard—and those like her who discharge their civic duties beyond glow of the spotlights cast on the public stage.

Hubbard died on Saturday of kidney and liver failure at the age of 62.

She’ll probably go down as little more than a proverbial footnote in Alaska history. But the events she helped set in motion—that cataclysmic shift in who holds power in Alaska and how—and their aftermath, will likely prove to be a central part of this young state’s history for decades to come.

Let’s hope that the next Dee Hubbard is already out there, anonymously tracking the footprints left by those in power.
http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2009/09/02/news/doc4a9effdbb708d338753963.txt

Posted by lois at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)

VA Ban on Prison Book Program Prompts Protests

A Title Wave of Controversy
Va. Ban on Prison Book Program Prompts Protests

By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 10, 2009

A Virginia inmate studying for his GED asked for a dictionary, explaining that "there's a lot of words I just don't know." A criminal serving his 18th year wanted Christian fiction and Stephen King books. And a 61-year-old woman behind bars requested a how-to book on crocheting and a book of Bible commentary.

The three inmates are among thousands who have received books from the Quest Institute, a Charlottesville-based nonprofit group that has filled such requests for two decades.

But the group's popular Books Behind Bars program might have become a victim of its success.

Virginia prison officials banned the program last month, saying that the security risks are too great and that it creates too much work for busy corrections officers.

The sudden halt has prompted protests from prisoner advocates who say Books Behind Bars -- which has put as many as a million books in cells statewide -- is a relatively low-cost way to help inmates who want to learn.

"All these people would be sitting in their cells doing nothing," said Kay Allison, 78, the program's director and owner of Quest Bookshop in downtown Charlottesville. Officials, she said, "are not looking long term."

Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Corrections Department, said the decision was made after a banned item or items made their way into prison in books provided by Quest. He would not provide details, saying it is a security issue. But he said officials worry that someone trying to smuggle an item to an inmate could use Books Behind Bars to do it.

"Because Quest sent books directly to offenders and utilized volunteers to send these books, there was nothing in place to stop someone from attempting to introduce contraband to an offender by secreting it in a book," Traylor wrote in an e-mail.

Allison said volunteers, who search the books before they are shipped, overlooked two items this spring -- a compact disc packaged in a textbook and a paper clip. She said both were found by corrections workers, who examine each package that enters the prison, before they made it into an inmate's hands. Those two mistakes should not justify killing the program, she said.
ad_icon

Prison officials said Quest can provide books for prison libraries. And inmates who have money can buy books from approved vendors.

But Books Behind Bars supporters said inmates benefit from owning the most frequently requested books: dictionaries, thesauruses, Bibles and Korans. They said that prison libraries have limited collections and that Quest allows inmates with no money to seek specific titles. African American literature and self-help books top the list of sought-after volumes.

Deborah E. McDowell, a University of Virginia literary studies professor and an advocate of the program, said owning a book can encourage inmates to become better educated. McDowell, who has three relatives in Virginia prisons, said that benefits society.

A Title Wave of Controversy

We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.

"To me, this makes no sense whatsoever," McDowell said of the state's decision. "I can think of no better use of one's time in that position than to elevate and expand the mind. Reading does that."

Books Behind Bars traces its history back two decades, when Quest Bookshop received a letter from a convicted killer asking to buy a book on Taoism. Allison wrote back, adding a few fliers about lectures the shop held on Buddhism, self-help and other topics. The inmate responded with a list of questions. He and Allison became pen pals.

Allison, who eventually visited the man in prison, said she met someone "who made a stupid mistake one evening of drinking and shot someone." During his years in prison, Allison said, the man had become spiritual and wanted to learn. She wanted to help, and Books Behind Bars was born.

Books Behind Bars gets about 500 letters each month from inmates. Churches and other groups donate books and money. John Grisham has given hundreds of copies of his books.

The program's popularity has contributed to the decision to halt it. Virginia inmates are allowed only 13 books in their cells. Traylor said the steady supply of free books from Quest "led to more staff-intensive efforts of controlling the number of books that an offender had."

Over the years, several state officials have applauded the program. In a July 1994 letter, then-Gov. George Allen (R) said Quest's work "benefited incarcerated offenders, corrections staff and Virginia taxpayers." In a July 2005 letter to wardens, Corrections Department Director Gene Johnson wrote that "it is the belief of both the Department and of Quest Institute that if an inmate is reading, s/he is productively employing his or her time while incarcerated."

One inmate who had gotten a Books Behind Bars shipment sent a letter to Allison to say he had become the first in his family to receive a general equivalency diploma.

"The free books you send me are a blessing," he wrote. "I read everyone of them from front to back." He asked her to send Shakespeare and Ernest Hemingway.

Allison, who is appealing the program's cancellation to the state, said she would limit the number of books sent to each inmate at one time or make other changes. But she is hopeful that the program can continue.

"I can't imagine sitting in a cell without any books," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090901808.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Posted by lois at 09:07 AM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2009

AZ: Prison Legal News, ACLU of AZ Sue CCA Over Sensorship of Books Sent to Prisoners

SOURCE: PRISON LEGAL NEWS, ACLU OF ARIZONA
Publisher Sues Corrections Corporation of America Over Censorship of Books Sent to Prisoners
September 2, 2009

Phoenix, AZ – Prison Legal News (PLN), a non-profit monthly publication that reports on criminal justice-related issues, filed suit today in U.S. District Court against Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation’s largest for-profit prison firm. PLN contends that CCA violated its rights under the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution by censoring books sent to prisoners at the company’s Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona.

“Publishers have a well-established First Amendment right to send their publications and books to prisoners,” said PLN editor Paul Wright, “and CCA, which has been in the prison business for more than 25 years, should have been well aware of that right.”

According to PLN’s complaint, the Saguaro prison, which holds prisoners from Hawai’i and Washington state, maintains a policy that prohibits the receipt of books from PLN. PLN sells approximately 40 book titles, which include self-help books, educational books and books on criminal justice topics. In 2008 and 2009, at least six Saguaro prisoners were prohibited from receiving books from PLN or informed they could not order from PLN.

“Prison officials do not have the right to censor books and magazines simply because they dislike the publisher,” said lead counsel Sanford Jay Rosen, of the San Francisco-based law firm of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP. “The actions of the CCA officials are not only unconstitutional, but make it more difficult for publishers and the media to gain access to prisoners and for prisoners to receive information that can assist them in making a successful transition to society after prison.”

As justification for such censorship, CCA employees stated that PLN was an “unapproved vendor” and claimed that books ordered from PLN constituted “a serious danger to the security of the facility.” Additionally, CCA failed to notify PLN that its books were being censored, in violation of PLN’s right to due process.

“The actions by CCA continue longstanding patterns of arbitrary decisions by prison administrators based on their convenience, without regard to the rights and needs of prisoners and publishers alike,” added ACLU of Arizona Legal Director Dan Pochoda, who is serving as co-counsel on this case.

The Saguaro facility reportedly has a policy that requires prisoners to order books from Barnes & Noble or Amazon.com. CCA also has a policy that prohibits prisoners’ family members from purchasing books and publications on their behalf. In addition to naming CCA as a defendant in the suit, the complaint also names Daren Swenson, CCA’s regional manager in Arizona; Todd Thomas, the warden at Saguaro; and Saguaro’s assistant warden and chief of security.

The case is Prison Legal News v. Corrections Corp. of America, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:09-CV-01831-ROS. In addition to Rosen and Pochoda, PLN also is represented by Blake Thompson of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP and PLN General Counsel Dan E. Manville in Ferndale, Michigan.

Prison Legal News (PLN), founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights in U.S. detention facilities. PLN publishes a monthly magazine that includes reports, reviews and analysis of court rulings and news related to prisoners' rights and criminal justice issues.

The complaint is available on-line at: www.acluaz.org and at https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/plnmap.aspx?state=Arizona

Posted by lois at 04:09 PM | Comments (0)

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

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

September 2, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

August 29, 2009

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

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

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

August 27, 2009

NY largely bans use of shackles during childbirth

NY largely bans use of shackles during childbirth
By CRISTIAN SALAZAR Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
Aug. 26, 2009
NEW YORK — Gov. David Paterson on Wednesday signed into law a bill that largely bans the use of restraints on inmates during childbirth, making New York the sixth state in the country to do so, a spokeswoman said.

Paterson signed the bill in spite of having reservations about language in it that allows a woman to be cuffed by one wrist while being taken from a prison to a hospital if she is considered to be a danger to herself, medical staff or correctional officers, spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein said.

At a rally in support of the bill last week, Paterson said he was concerned that a woman cuffed in an ambulance, for instance, could be in danger if there were an accident and she couldn't get out of the vehicle because of the restraint.

Shorenstein said Paterson would look to address those concerns through an amendment, if necessary.

Incarcerated women at state prisons and county jails around the country are routinely shackled during childbirth, often by correctional staff without medical training, according to civil rights organizations and prisoner advocates.

The practice has been condemned by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for unnecessarily risking women's health, and court challenges are pending in several states.

Correction departments and unions have argued that such broad-stroke policy that bans shackling could put medical staff and correctional officers at risk. They also point to the risk of escape posed by potentially dangerous inmates if they are left unshackled.

Similar state laws banning shackling exist in Texas, Illinois, California, Vermont and New Mexico, the American Civil Liberties Union says. Legislatures in Massachusetts and Tennessee are considering bans.

Advocates say the bans haven't led to any escape attempts.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6588662.html

Posted by lois at 10:14 AM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2009

NY Times Editorial: "Protecting Mother and Child" and links to Rebecca Project Info on State by State Shackling Policies

Editorial NY Times
Protecting Mother and Child
Published: August 21, 2009

Obstetricians and other medical professionals have long called for an end to the barbaric and medically risky practice of shackling pregnant prisoners — by their legs, wrists and even around their abdomens — during labor. The Federal Bureau of Prisons ended routine shackling last year and limited the use of restraints to instances in which the women were at clear risk of harming themselves, their infants or others.

Five states and the New York City corrections system have adopted similar policies. Even so, a bill that would end shackling in New York’s state prisons and county jails that sailed through the Legislature seemed in danger of being vetoed because of strong opposition from corrections officials. Aides say that Gov. David Paterson has now decided to sign this important bill.

Critics argued that the legislation was unnecessary, because the state prison system had limited the use of shackling nearly a decade ago. But accounts by present and former inmates suggest that the guidelines have too often been ignored by the officers who transport women to and from the hospital.

The claim that women doubled over in pain and about to give birth pose a serious danger seems especially far-fetched. The Rebecca Project for Human Rights, the Washington-based group that is campaigning to end these policies nationally, says that states with anti-shackling laws report no documented cases of women in labor attempting escape or trying to hurt someone.

Governor Paterson’s staff has problems with a minor provision of the bill that deals with how pregnant women are transported to the hospital. But those issues can be addressed in regulations or in supplementary legislation. What’s important is that New York A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2009, on page A16 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22sat4.html?ref=opinion

Rebecca Project Fact sheet, memo on state by state shackling procedures:
/www.rebeccaproject.org/images/stories/policypapers/state_shackling_policies_memo.pdf
http://www.rebeccaproject.org/images/stories/factsheets/ShacklingPregnantWomenInCustodyMemorandum.pdf
http://www.rebeccaproject.org/images/stories/factsheets/ACOG_Letter_Shackling.pdf
The BIG question is what the reality and how it plays out as opposed to official policy and does this apply to DOCs and jails or just DOCs?

Posted by lois at 02:39 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2009

NY: Governor Paterson Promises Women Demonstrating in Front of His Office He Will Sign Anti-Shackling Bill

Governor to Save Jailed Mothers From Shackling During Labor
By Helena Zhu
Epoch Times Staff Aug 18, 2009

NEW YORK—Making a surprise appearance at a protest held outside his mansion, New York Governor David Paterson promised a group of activists on Monday that he would sign legislation banning the chaining of incarcerated women who are giving birth.

One of the legislation’s two sponsoring officials, Assemblyman Nick Perry (D-Brooklyn), started to push the bill in 2001 after reading a news article about a woman ready to give birth who had her legs shackled together. The key to open the cuffs was not found until minutes before birth, said Barbara Dominique, staff of the assemblyman.

“That’s such an unsafe condition to be in while you are giving birth. It’s horrible that New York, out of all of the states, [is allowing this to happen],” said Dominique.

Shackling imprisoned women during labor in hospitals has been going on ever since home birth was replaced by hospital birth in the 1900’s according to Serena Alfieri, associate director of policy of the Correctional Association of New York’s Women in Prison Project.

Up to now, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the American Correctional Association and four other states—California, Vermont, Illinois and New Mexico—have already adopted policies restricting the use of restraints on women giving birth.

The bill was passed in the New York State Assembly and State Senate in May, and now it is just waiting for the governor to sign.

The dozens of women at a rally outside of Governor Paterson’s office wore handcuffs to show the conditions jailed mothers-to-be go through. For some of them, it was a déjà vu of their own suffering.

Hazel Figueroa from Queens was jailed in Rikers Island for one year in 1998. At that time, she gave birth to her daughter.

“My experience is quite awful. Because living in jail and being pregnant is not … a nice experience,” she said.

She had to wait in the receiving room for hours before doctors arrived. While giving birth, she was chained.

“What woman is thinking to escape when she’s just in pain?”

State Senator Velmanette Montgomery (D-Brooklyn), another sponsor of this legislation, said that no woman—to her best knowledge—has tried to escape while giving birth in New York State.

Montgomery said that the passing of this legislation will eliminate the shackling of incarcerated women during labor altogether, bringing an end to this “tremendous risk.”

Another woman who went through such experience, Tina Reynolds, co-founder and executive director of Women on the Rise Telling Herstory (WORTH), was sentenced to 18 months in New York due to a drug crime 15 years ago.

While giving birth to her son in a hospital, she had one hand and one leg shackled to the stretcher although a female officer was present.

“I experienced the birth of my child. I just couldn’t believe the shackling was happening. And I was giving birth in front of a female officer who I didn’t know … I thought it was the worst, most oppressive, inhumane practice in the world,” said Reynolds.

After birth, the child accompanied her for nine months until she served her sentence. She had to breastfeed him while being chained as well. Before labor, she said that she was not informed what would happen to her baby after it was born.

Women like her could not complain, she said, since if they did, they would not be able to accompany their children in the nursery.

Her experience of giving birth during imprisonment was opposite of when she did it before jailing, which she described as “joyous” and “about the creation of life.”

Erica Knox from Brooklyn was also on Rikers Island, but in 1989. Unlike others, she was not shackled while giving birth, but immediately after. “They left me in a room alone. My water broke. I told them my water broke. They left me there for at least 30 minutes. I kept on telling them that the baby’s coming. So they put a sheet between my leg,” she said.

“As they were pushing me in, the baby was coming out right there. I was really going crazy. I was, I was scared, at first that I was by myself. I’ve never been by myself while having a baby.”

In the midst of recollecting the past, Governor Paterson showed up at the rally, bringing cheers to the crowd. He promised to sign the bill as soon as he receives the bill.

“What the bill is trying to stop was what we think is the inhumane treatment of people who are giving birth, even if they committed a crime, even if they are incarcerated. Because we also want to make sure of the safety of the child, who didn’t commit any crime,” he said.

His speech brought delights the all the advocates who have worked on this for a long time.

“Today is the day that all things change. And I’m just so happy,” said Reynolds.

Last Updated---Aug 19, 2009
photos at http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/21196/
This and other news about women organizing can be found at www.realcostofprisons.org/blog/

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

August 11, 2009

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

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

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

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

Dear Friends:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

August 07, 2009

Time Magazine: Reforming Crack-Cocaine Laws, but Leaving Injustice Intact?

Reforming Crack-Cocaine Laws, but Leaving Injustice Intact?
By Theo Emery / Washington Friday, Aug. 07, 2009

In early 2006, a young man named DeJarion Echols stood in a federal courtroom in Waco, Texas, and pleaded for leniency. After police found about 40 grams of crack cocaine, cash and an assault rifle in his bedroom, the promising athlete and father pleaded guilty to crack distribution and gun charges. "I made a bad choice" by dealing crack to pay for college, Echols, then 23, told U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. According to a court transcript, the judge declared in apparent frustration, "This is one of those situations where I'd like to see a congressman sitting before me." Then he did what federal law required: Smith sentenced Echols to two back-to-back 10-year prison sentences, one for each charge. Unless he gets a commutation, Echols will not go free till around 2026.

As Echols serves his 20 years, reformers of drug sentencing laws are closing in on a goal that was unthinkable even a few years ago: scrapping the federal sentencing structure established in 1986 that gives far harsher penalties for crack cocaine than for powder cocaine, resulting in prisons packed with low-level, predominantly African American offenders. The mechanism is known as the "100-to-1 drug ratio," which gives crack cocaine 100 times the weight of powder cocaine. Under the ratio, a person convicted of selling five grams of crack — about the weight of a teaspoon of salt — triggers the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine, roughly the weight of a loaf of bread.

Even if that ratio is abolished, as appears increasingly likely, it's not clear that it will benefit offenders like Echols, who are already behind bars. The fates of tens of thousands of prisoners serving long sentences could hang in the balance as policymakers and politicians grapple with whether changes to the nation's crack laws should be applied retroactively.

The issue of crack sentencing goes to the heart of the credibility and fairness of the federal judicial system. The Department of Justice has launched a top-to-bottom review of sentencing and corrections policy, and crack-cocaine policy is a "vitally important" part of that, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer told TIME, so much so that the Administration fast-tracked its position on cocaine parity. "The criminal-justice system must be fair, and it must be perceived as being fair," Breuer says. "The 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder is perhaps the single worst symbol of unfairness in the system. There really is no longer any basis for it."

But the Department of Justice has not taken a position on retroactivity, and Breuer says the issue is "being looked at hard." The working group expects to make recommendations to Attorney General Eric Holder within several months.

Reform advocates who have fought for an end to the 1980s crack sentencing laws are delighted that the stars have aligned for crack sentencing reform. At the same time, though, they say it would be a bitter disappointment if changes weren't retroactive. "It would be cruelly ironic not to make that change available to the very people whose cases led our lawmakers to make this decision," says Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which has advocated on Echols' behalf.

The 100-to-1 rule is enshrined in the get-tough Anti–Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was intended to bring down drug kingpins and choke off the flow of crack. Research since has shown that many assumptions underlying the laws were flawed, such as the belief that crack is more dangerous than powder cocaine, making its users more violent. And they have had unintended consequences: putting away low-level street dealers rather than the big-time traffickers, with startling racial disparities. (Read "Can Amphetamines Help Cure Cocaine Addiction?")

About 77,000 people have been sentenced for crack-related federal crimes since 1992, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets federal sentencing guidelines. In 2008, over 80% of offenders sentenced that year were black and 10% were white. Among powder-cocaine offenders, over 52% were Hispanic, about 30% were black and about 16% were white. Crack-cocaine offenders receive longer sentences: 115 months on average in 2008, compared to 91 months for powder-cocaine offenders.

President Obama pledged in his campaign to abolish the disparity between penalties for powder and crack cocaine. Attorney General Holder called it "simply wrong" in a speech in Memphis last month. In April, Ricardo H. Hinojosa, the Sentencing Commission's acting chair, said there is "no justification for the current statutory penalty scheme" for cocaine, a position the commission first took in 1995. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress now agree that crack sentencing rules need to be fixed; and this may be the year that Congress finally heeds the commission. A bill creating parity between crack and powder cleared a House subcommittee last week, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to release a bipartisan parity bill after the August recess.

The issue of retroactivity, though, is anyone's guess. It would require an act of Congress to apply the crack-powder parity to mandatory minimums retroactively. The House bill is silent on that issue, and the Senate bill is expected to be as well. That would mean another fight from advocates for a retroactivity amendment. Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based reform group, asks: "If we've been doing something that's unfair for 23 years now, don't we have an obligation to address that unfairness?"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915131,00.html

Posted by lois at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

August 02, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten years of solitary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigation showed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended isolation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explosive situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamms' first warden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cannon disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Tamms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 31, 2009

Rhode Island: Rhode Island Study Shows Probation/Parolee Electoral Participation

Rhode Island: Rhode Island Study Shows Probation/Parolee Electoral Participation

A new analysis released by the Family Life Center of Rhode Island demonstrates a high level of interest in the electoral process by persons on probation or parole. Following a 2006 ballot change in the state law, 6,330 probationers and parolees - representing more than a third of the 17,600 state total - registered to vote during the 2008 election cycle. Of these, 3,001 voted during that time.

The Family Life Center has since initiated a broad outreach campaign to inform the community of the reform and to register people with felony convictions. In addition, the Department of Corrections now acts as a voter registration agency and offers all inmates the opportunity to register following their discharge. The results of the outreach campaign in Rhode Island demonstrate that substantial numbers of people who have come through the criminal justice system have an interest in becoming involved in the electoral process.
More info here....http://www.ri-familylifecenter.org/

Posted by lois at 05:21 PM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2009

VA: Restoring the Rights of Persons with Felony Conviction. History and Restoration Procedures from RIHD

Restoring the Rights of Persons with Felony Conviction
In 2008, we Americans headed to the polls in record numbers to vote for our president. Nationally, this included many first-time voters with prior felony convictions.

On Nov. 3, 2009, Virginians will head to the polls to vote for governor and many statewide legislators. How far has Virginia come in restoring the rights of persons with felony convictions to enable them to vote this year?

Will you be able to vote and make a difference come November? Will a a record number of Virginians with a prior felony participate in the process, or will they continue to be denied and disenfranchised?

Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, proclaims that, prior to the Civil War, African-Americans were almost totally disenfranchised. Even after enactment of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to vote, many states continued to use various methods to prevent African-Americans from voting, including literacy tests, poll taxes, the disenfranchisement of former inmates, intimidation, threats and even violence!

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a new beginning for African-American citizens. For the first time, the federal government required states to comply with the 15th Amendment. However, lifetime disenfranchisement of former felons continues today in two states: Virginia and Kentucky!

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “The United States is the only democracy in which some people who have served their sentences can still lose their right to vote. Approximately 4.7 million people in the U.S. cannot vote because of a felony conviction.”

Of these 4.7 million people, the Commonwealth of Virginia accounts for 350,000. These convicted felons, most of whom were convicted of nonviolent offenses, are productive citizens, assets to society, are in our communities, have paid their debts to society, earned a second chance in almost all aspects of their life, yet remain disenfranchised for life. Virginians you should be outraged!

Currently in Virginia, all persons convicted of a felony, regardless if the felony was a nonviolent or violent offense and received five, 10, 20 or even 40 years ago, must apply through a lengthy process directly to the governor, who has the sole discretion whether to restore their rights. If the application is denied, the applicant must wait two years to reapply.

Many civil rights organizations and faith-based advocacy groups continue to work, both legislatively and through the governor, to remove barriers to voting in Virginia faced by people with felony convictions. During the 2009 General Assembly session, several bills were proposed for the automatic restoration of voting rights. Unfortunately, all “FAILED.”

Action Call by Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged (RIHD) and Prisoners and Families for Equal Rights and Justice (PAFERJ)

Contact your state legislators today in support of automatic restoration of civil rights for persons with a felony. Article One, Section Six of the Constitution of Virginia provides that “all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right to suffrage ….” Therefore, we ask that you contact the governor in support of doing away with the expensive bureaucracy of past administrations and increase the likelihood of successful reintegration for our returning neighbors by simply restoring the voting rights of felons upon their release from prison.

RIHD & PAFERJ provide filing assistance with the Restoration Voting and Civil Rights application every Tuesday and Thursday from 4-7 p.m (by appointment and walk-in) at Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church; 1720 Mechanicsville Turnpike; Richmond, Virginia 23223 with pro-bono public notary on premise. Other organizations such as the Virginia Organizing Project, Re-entry Initiative of Lynchburg and others provide similar services, both in Richmond and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Virginia Eligibility Requirements:

Non-violent/**Non-drug Felonies - Short From: Has it been 3 years since conviction, release, paid all fines and restitutions? If your felony convictions did not involve charges for violence or for drug manufacturing or distribution, you may fill out the short application for the restoration of your rights. **Simply "drug possession" is included in short form. To expedite application bring original or copy with government seal criminal record, receipt/proof of paid restitution & fines, parole release (applicable).

Violent / Drug Distribution Felonies - Long Form: Has it been 5 years since conviction, release, paid all fines and restitutions? If you have been convicted of a violent offense, a drug manufacturing or distribution offense, or an election law offense (voter fraud), you must use the longer form below to apply for restoration of rights. "Intent" drug manufacturing/distribution is considered a violent offense. Bring original or copies with government seal of criminal record, receipt/proof of paid restitution & fines, parole release. To expedite application process, no less than three(3) reference letters (e.g. employer, church, friends, community, volunteer work, etc. except family related by blood or marriage)

If you or anyone you know continues to be disenfranchised of their civil rights, need assistance in obtaining any of the required documents, and/or for service location in your area,
please contact us for assistance.

For additional information, schedule appointment, and how you can help, call or e-mail Lillie (Ms. K) Branch-Kennedy (RIHD) at (804) 562-2123; rihd23075@aol.com

www.rihd.org

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

July 25, 2009

House of Representatives on Ending the Syringe Exchange Federal Funding Ban

Good news and not such good news:
“One concern that we have is today’s vote left intact a provision in the bill that seeks to restrict federal funding to syringe exchange programs (SEPs) that operate at least 1,000 ft. away from day care centers, schools, universities, public pools, parks, playgrounds, video arcades or youth centers or an event sponsored by these organizations,” said Deputy Executive Director Ronald Johnson. “These restrictions cover everywhere; they will make it all but impossible for SEPs to receive federal funding in urban areas where they are perhaps most needed,” he said. He added, “We call on the Senate and House to remove these restrictions. "

WASHINGTON, July 24, 2009
From AIDS Action
AIDS Action Applauds the House of Representatives on Ending the Syringe Exchange Federal Funding Ban.
Historic Moment in HIV Prevention: AIDS Action Council applauds Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, the members of the Labor Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and the House of Representatives on removing the ban on the use of federal funds for syringe exchange programs (SEPs) from the Fiscal Year 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

“This is an important and long overdue change in the prevention of HIV/AIDS and viral hepatitis,” said Executive Director, Rebecca Haag. “This historic vote is the first time in 20 years that the federal government is on the verge of recognizing syringe exchange as an important, evidence-based tool in HIV prevention and the House is to be commended.” Each year, more than 8,000 people directly or indirectly are infected by HIV and another 12,000 people are directly or indirectly infected by hepatitis through injection drug use.

Syringe exchange programs are one of our most effective means of preventing HIV and viral hepatitis infections. SEPs are cost-effective, serve as a bridge to health care services for hard-to-reach populations, protect communities and law enforcement officials, and provide access to substance abuse treatment for injection drug users. Removal of the ban provides communities the freedom to use their federal HIV and hepatitis prevention funds on strategies that best fit their local needs, including syringe exchange programs.

AIDS Action Council applauds the House of Representatives for empowering communities and allowing them to arm themselves with all the tools necessary to fight their local epidemics. Today’s decision in the House to remove the ban opens the way for the Administration to ensure that this targeted prevention technique is available here in the U.S. and U.S. funded programs abroad.

“One concern that we have is today’s vote left intact a provision in the bill that seeks to restrict federal funding to syringe exchange programs (SEPs) that operate at least 1,000 ft. away from day care centers, schools, universities, public pools, parks, playgrounds, video arcades or youth centers or an event sponsored by these organizations,” said Deputy Executive Director Ronald Johnson. “These restrictions cover everywhere; they will make it all but impossible for SEPs to receive federal funding in urban areas where they are perhaps most needed,” he said. He added, “We call on the Senate and House to remove these restrictions. "
http://www.aidsaction.org/news-room-mainmenu-182/press-releases-mainmenu-342/45-press-releases-2009-/545-washington-july-24-2009

Posted by lois at 07:08 PM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2009

Book Review: Beyond Attica: The Untold Story of Women's Resistance Behind Bars

Beyond Attica: The Untold Story of Women's Resistance Behind Bars
By Hans Bennett, AlterNet. Posted July 21, 2009.

As the incarceration rate of U.S. women skyrockets, an important book shines new light on the struggles of women prisoners.

"When I was 15, my friends started going to jail," says Victoria Law, a native New Yorker. "Chinatown's gangs were recruiting in the high schools in Queens and, faced with the choice of stultifying days learning nothing in overcrowded classrooms or easy money, many of my friends had dropped out to join a gang."

"One by one," Law recalls, "they landed in Rikers Island, an entire island in New York City devoted to pretrial detainment for those who can not afford bail."

Law shares this and other recollections in her new book, Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women (PM Press). At 16, she herself decided to join a gang, but was arrested for the armed robbery that she committed for her initiation into the gang. "Because it was my first arrest -- and probably because 16-year-old Chinese girls who get straight As in school did not seem particularly menacing -- I was eventually let off with probation," she writes.

Before her release from jail, Law was held in the "Tombs" awaiting arraignment. While the adult women she met there had all been arrested for prostitution, she also met three teenagers arrested for unarmed assault. "Two of the girls were black lesbian lovers. In a scenario that would be repeated 13 years later in the case of the New Jersey Four, they had been out with friends when they encountered a cab driver who had tried to grab one of them. Her friends intervened, the cab driver called the police and the girls were arrested for assault." Law notes that "both of my cellmates were subsequently sent to Rikers Island."

These early experiences, coupled with her later discovery of radical politics, pushed Law "to think about who goes to prison and why." She got involved in several projects to support prisoners, which included helping to start Books Through Bars in New York City, sending free books to prisoners. In college, she "began researching current prisoner organizing and resistance," and upon discovering almost zero documentation of resistance from women prisoners, she began her own documentation and directly contacted women prisoners who were resisting. A college paper became a widely distributed pamphlet, and at the request of several women prisoners she'd corresponded with, Law helped to publish their writings in a zine called Tenacious: Art and Writings from Women in Prison. Law writes that the zine and pamphlet "heightened awareness not only about incarcerated women's issues, but also women's actions to challenge and change the injustices they faced on a daily basis."

"This book is the result of seven and a half years of reading, writing, listening, and supporting women in prison," Law says about Resistance Behind Bars, noting that each chapter in her book "focuses on an issue that women themselves have identified as important." The chapters include topics as diverse as health care, the relationship between mothers and daughters, sexual abuse, education, and resistance among women in immigration detention. Resistance Behind Bars paints a picture of women prisoners resisting a deeply flawed prison system, which Law hopes will help to empower both the women held in cages and those on the outside working to support them.

Who Goes To Prison?

Since 1970, the U.S. prison population has skyrocketed, from 300,000 to over 2.3 million. According to the U.S. Justice Department, this staggering increase has not resulted from a rise in crime. In fact, since 1993, the prison population has increased by over one million, but during this same period, both property offenses and serious violent crime have been steadily declining. The New York Times recently cited a 2008 report by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London documenting that the U.S. has more prisoners than any other country. Furthermore, with 751 out of 100,000 people, and one out of every 100 adults in prison or jail, the U.S. also has the highest incarceration rate in the world. With only five percent of the world's population, the U.S. has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

While women comprise only nine percent of the U.S. prison population, their numbers have been increasing at a faster rate than men. As Law documents, "between 1990 and 2000, the number of women in prison rose 108 percent, from 44,065 to 93,234. (The male prison population grew 77 percent during that same time period.) By the end of 2006, 112,498 women were behind bars."

Like with male incarceration rates, women behind bars are disproportionately low-income and people of color. Law writes that "only 40 percent of all incarcerated women had been employed full-time before incarceration. Of those, most had held low-paying jobs: a study of women under supervision (prison, jail, parole or probation) found that two-thirds had never held a job that paid more than $6.50 per hour. Approximately 37 percent earned less than $600 per month."

A 2007 Bureau of Justice study documented that 358 of every 100,000 Black women, 152 of every 100,000 Latinas, and 94 of every 100,000 white women are incarcerated. Explaining this racial discrepancy, Law argues that inner-city Black and Latino neighborhoods are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. She cites a 2005 U.S. Department of Justice study which concluded that Blacks and Latinos are "three times as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, threatened or subdued with force when stopped by the police."

The so-called "War on Drugs" has played a key role in the growth of the U.S. prison population. Law writes about the impact of New York State's Rockefeller Drug Laws passed in 1973, "which required a sentence of 15 years to life for anyone convicted of selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of a narcotic, regardless of circumstances or prior history. That year, only 400 women were imprisoned in New York State. As of January 1, 2001, there were 3,133. Over 50 percent had been convicted of a drug offense and 20 percent were convicted solely of possession. Other states passed similar laws, causing the number of women imprisoned nationwide for drug offenses to rise 888 percent from 1986 to 1996."

Distinguishing women prisoners from their male counterparts, Law cites a Bureau of Justice study which "found that women were three times more likely than men to have been physically or sexually abused prior to incarceration."

Women Prisoners Don't Resist?

The central thesis of Resistance Behind Bars is truly profound. In clear, non-academic language, Law argues that recent scholarship documenting and radically criticizing the increased incarceration rates and mistreatment of women prisoners "largely ignores what the women themselves do to change or protest these circumstances, thus reinforcing the belief that incarcerated women do not organize." Alongside academia, Law also harshly criticizes radical prison activists, arguing that "just as the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s downplayed the role of women in favor of highlighting male spokesmen and leaders, the prisoners' rights movement has focused and continues to focus on men to speak for the masses."

Law gives honorable mention to two books that documented women's resistance at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York State: Juanita Diaz-Cotto's Gender, Ethnicity, and the State (1996) and the collectively written Breaking the Walls of Silence: AIDS and Women in a New York State Maximum Security Prison (1998). Since these two books "no other book-length work has focused on incarcerated women's activism and resistance," writes Law. As a result, Law argues that women prisoners "lack a commonly known history of resistance. While male prisoners can draw on the examples of George Jackson, the Attica uprising and other well-publicized cases of prisoner activism, incarcerated women remain unaware of precedents relevant to them."

Epitomizing the scholarship that Law criticizes, author Virginia High Brislin wrote that "women inmates themselves have called very little attention to their situations," and "are hardly ever involved in violent encounters with officials (i.e. riots), nor do they initiate litigation as often as do males in prison."

To challenge Brislin's assertion, Law gives numerous examples of women rioting and initiating litigation, including the "August Rebellion" in 1974 at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York State. On July 2, 1974, prisoner Carol Crooks won a lawsuit against prison authorities, with the court "issuing a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the prison from placing women in segregation without 24-hour notice and a hearing of these charges," writes Law. In response, "five male guards beat Crooks and placed her in segregation. Her fellow prisoners protested by holding seven staff members hostage for two and a half hours. However, 'the August Rebellion' is virtually unknown today despite that fact that male state troopers and (male) guards from men's prisons were called to suppress the uprising, resulting in 25 women being injured and 24 women being transferred to Matteawan Complex for the Criminally Insane without the required commitment hearings."

Law also criticizes author Karlene Faith, who acknowledges that women resist, but who wrote that in the 1970s, women prisoners "were not as politicized as the men [prisoners], and they did not engage in the kinds of protest actions that aroused media attention." To challenge Faith's argument, Law cites several rebellions that received significant media attention, including one that the New York Times wrote two stories about. As Law recounts, "in 1975, women at the North Carolina Correctional Center for Women held a sit-down demonstration to demand better medical care, improved counseling services, and the closing of the prison laundry. When prison guards attempted to end the protest by herding the women into the gymnasium and beating them, the women fought back, using volleyball net poles, chunks of concrete and hoe handles to drive the guards out of the prison. Over 100 guards from other prisons were summoned to quell the rebellion."

In light of the many such stories documented in Resistance Behind Bars, Law argues that "instead of claiming that women in prison did not engage in riots and protest actions that captured media attention, scholars and researchers should examine why these acts of organizing fail to attract the same critical and scholarly attention as that given to similar male actions."

Resisting With Media-Activism

In the chapter "Grievances, Lawsuits, and the Power of the Media," Law observes that "gaining media attention often gains quicker results than filing lawsuits." Among the many organizing victories that were significantly aided by media attention, in 1999, Nightline focused on conditions at California's Valley State Prison for Women. Law explains that "after prisoner after prisoner told Nightline anchor Ted Koppel about being given a pelvic exam as 'part of the treatment' for any ailment, including stomach problems or diabetes, Koppel asked the prison's chief medical officer Dr. Anthony DiDomenico, for an explanation."

DiDomenico was apparently so confident that he would not be held accountable for his misconduct, that he answered Koppel by saying "I've heard inmates tell me they would deliberately like to be examined. It's the only male contact they get." After this interview was aired, DiDomenico was reassigned to a desk job, and as of 2001 he had been criminally indicted, along with a second doctor.

Demonstrating the power of this media coverage, Law notes that the "prisoner advocacy organization Legal Services for Prisoners with Children had been reporting the prisoners' complaints about medical staff's sexual misconduct to the CDC for four years with no result."

Along with agitating for coverage in the mainstream media, women prisoners have also created their own media projects. The chapter titled "Breaking The Silence: Incarcerated Women's Media" documents many important projects. Law explains that these projects are necessary because women prisoners' "voices and stories still remain unheard by both mainstream and activist-oriented media. Articles about both prison conditions and prisoners often portray the male prisoner experience, ignoring the different issues facing women in prison." Therefore, "women's acts of writing -- and publishing -- often serve a dual purpose: they challenge existing stereotypes and distortions of prisoners and prison life, framing and correcting prevailing (mis) perceptions. They also boost women's sense of self-worth and agency in a system designed to not only isolate and alienate its prisoners but also erase all traces of individuality."

Some activist-oriented publications have been receptive and have published prisoners' writings. From 1999 until its final issue in 2002, the radical feminist magazine Sojourner: A Women's Forum featured a section on women prisoner issues which included writings from the prisoners themselves. Law writes that this section, entitled "Inside/Outside" covered many topics, including "working conditions in women's facilities, the dehumanizing treatment of children visiting their mothers, and prisoner suicides.

Law spotlights many different projects. From 2002 to 2006, Perceptions was a monthly newspaper published by and for the women at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in New Jersey. Because of censorship from prison warden Charlotte Blackwell, Perceptions was forced to limit its criticism of the prison, but the women published what they could. For example, in one issue, women wrote about how they would run the prison differently if they were in charge. Law notes that "their fantasies revealed the absence of programming for older women and those in the maximum custody unit, emergency counseling and therapeutic interventions and opportunities for mother-child interactions. It also drew attention to the facility's overcrowding and increased potentials for violence and conflict among prisoners."

Tenacious, the zine published by Law, was initiated by women prisoners who sought the help of friends outside the prison to actually publish and distribute it. "Free from the need to seek administrative approval, incarcerated women wrote about the difficulties of parenting from prison, dangerously inadequate health care, sexual assault by prison staff and the scarcity of educational and vocational opportunities, especially in comparison to their male counterparts. Although circulation remained small, the women's stories provoked public response," writes Law.

"Prison officials do whatever they can to strip prisoners of their dignity and self-worth," stated Barrilee Bannister, one of the founders of Tenacious. "Writing is my way to escape the confines of prison and the debilitating ailments of prison life. It's me putting on boxing gloves and stepping into the rink of freedom of speech and opinion."

Arguing For Prison Abolition

When Victoria Law was first introduced to radical politics, shortly after her own stint behind bars, she "discovered groups and literature espousing prison abolition."

"These analyses -- coupled with what I had seen firsthand -- made sense, steering me to work towards the dismantling, rather than the reform, of the prison system." Law's subsequent research has only served to affirm her belief in the need for abolition. She states clearly that "this book should not be mistaken for a call for more humane or 'gender responsive' prisons."

Some readers may view Law's prison abolitionist politics as being abstract or overly theoretical. However, to support her abolitionist viewpoint, she makes the practical argument that prisons simply don't work to reduce crime or increase public safety. She writes that "incarceration has not decreased crime; instead, 'tough on crime' policies have led to the criminalization … of more activities, leading to higher rates of arrest, prosecution and incarceration while shifting money and resources away from other public entities, such as education, housing, health care, drug treatment, and other societal supports. The growing popularity of abolitionist thought can be seen in the expansion of organizations such as Critical Resistance, an organization fighting to end the need for a prison-industrial complex, and the formation of groups working to address issues of crime and victimization without relying on the police or prisons."

Towards the end of Resistance Behind Bars, Law quotes Angela Y. Davis, who is a leading activist intellectual of the prison abolitionist movement. In her recent book Are Prisons Obsolete?, Davis writes that "a major challenge of this movement is to do the work that will create more human, habitable environments for people in prison without bolstering the permanence of the prison system. How, then, do we accomplish this balancing act of passionately attending to the needs of prisoners -- calling for less violent conditions, an end to sexual assault, improved physical and mental health care, greater access to drug programs, better educational work opportunities, unionization of prison labor, more connections with families and communities, shorter or alternative sentencing -- and at the same time call for alternatives to sentencing altogether, no more prison construction, and abolitionist strategies that question the place of the prison in our future?"

As if answering Davis' question, Law concludes that while striving for prison abolition "we need to also reach in, make contact with those who have been isolated by prison walls and societal indifference and listen to those who are speaking out, like many of the women who have shared their stories within this book. Because abolishing prisons will not happen tomorrow, next week or even next year, we need to break through these barriers, communicate, work with and support women who are in resistance today."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/141474/beyond_attica:_the_untold_story_of_women%27s_resistance_behind_bars/?page=4

Posted by lois at 06:52 PM | Comments (0)

Editorial NY Times: Childbirth in Chains

If you haven't called Governor Paterson's office, please do. He still hasn't signed the Bill! You do not need to live in NY. The number is 518-474-8390. Please forward widely.

Editorial- New York Times
Childbirth in Chains
Published: July 20, 2009

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called several years ago for an end to the barbaric and medically hazardous practice of shackling female prisoners during labor. In addition to further frightening these vulnerable women, the practice of chaining their legs, wrists and even their abdomens makes treatment and delivery more difficult and places mother and child at greater risk of harm.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons must have had these facts in mind last fall when the bureau ended the routine use of restraints for women in labor and limited shackling to cases in which a woman presents a danger to herself, the baby or the staff. Five states have similar policies. New York would become the sixth — if Gov. David Paterson signs an antishackling bill that sailed through the Legislature this spring.

The bill has caused a debate about how many pregnant women are actually shackled in New York. But recent interviews of female inmates by the Correctional Association of New York, a nonprofit group that monitors prison conditions, suggests that the practice may be more common than corrections officials know. In any case, the bill would put an end to it, by establishing clear guidelines that carry the authority of law.

Modeled on federal prison policy and laws in other states, the New York bill would prohibit women from being shackled while being taken to the hospital for a delivery. A woman could be cuffed by one wrist in cases in which she presented a danger to herself, hospital staff or corrections workers. But it seems highly unlikely that a woman doubled over in labor pains would be able to attempt an escape or overcome corrections officers.

Governor Paterson, whose staff members have recently been quibbling with technicalities in the bill, should make it clear whether he thinks the measure needs minor changes or clarifications. Otherwise, he should sign the bill into law and bring New York into line with the federal government and the other states that have wisely acted to protect pregnant inmates and their children during labor.
A version of this article appeared in print on July 21, 2009, on page A20 of the New York edition.

Posted by lois at 02:39 PM | Comments (0)

July 17, 2009

MA: An Act to Reform CORI, Restore Economic Opportunity and Improve Public Safety H. #3523, S. #1608

From Boston Workers Alliance
An Act to Reform CORI, Restore Economic Opportunity and Improve Public Safety
H. #3523, S. #1608
Background

Growing access to criminal background information prevents hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents from obtaining work, housing and educational loans every year. Unregulated CORI practices lead employers to overlook qualified and motivated applicants from work. Meanwhile, ex-offenders who are unable to secure legal employment and housing are more likely to re-offend, and enter a costly cycle of re-incarceration. CORI reform in 2009 presents an immediate, cost-free strategy to reduce state expenses while improving public safety.

Summary of CORI Reform

Ban the Criminal History Question from Initial Job Applications

- An employer should only ask about a criminal record after reviewing an applicant and deciding that they are otherwise qualified for the position. Employers should consider an applicants’ resume, references and an interview before using criminal histories to screen out employees.

- Removing the criminal record question from initial job applications alters the timing of a criminal record inquiry, but does not limit an employer’s access to such information

- This law is modeled off of a CORI Reform Ordinance unanimously passed by the Boston City Council in 2005, and subsequently replicated in cities such as Cambridge, Worcester, Chicago, San Francisco and Austin. More recently, Massachusetts removed the CORI question through Executive Order for state jobs and health and human service vendors, and Minnesota became the first state to pass a “ban the box” statute for all public jobs.

Allows those who have not re-offended to seal old misdemeanor cases after 3 years and old felony records after 7 years

- Currently, a person’s felony record is accessible for 15 years and a misdemeanor is open for 10 years, which prevents people who want to be productive members of society to move on and work

- Countless longitudinal studies have shown that if an ex-offender stays crime free for 5-6 years, the likelihood of his/her re-offending drops to statistically non-significant levels

- The court system sets a precedent by requiring jury duty for those with felony convictions over 7 years in the past

Automatically remove not guilty and dismissed cases from the CORI

- Job applicants should not be punished for cases in which there was no finding of guilt

- Our judicial system maintains innocence until proof of guilt. Those who are exonerated by the courts should not forced to endure discrimination by employers and other gatekeepers
www.BostonWorkersAlliance.org

Posted by lois at 06:27 PM | Comments (0)

NAACP CALLS FOR END TO PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING AT NATIONAL CONVENTION

NAACP CALLS FOR END TO PRISON-BASED GERRYMANDERING AT NATIONAL CONVENTION
by Peter Wagner, July 17, 2009
[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2009/07/17/naacp/ ]

On Tuesday, the delegates to the NAACP's 100th annual convention
approved a resolution calling for an end to prison-based
gerrymandering:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP, on principle, decries
the enumeration of prisoners as local residents as violation of
our nation's fundamental one person one vote ethos of
representational democracy, harkening back to the disgraceful
three fifths era of constitutionally sanctioned slavery; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP calls on the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census to enumerate
prisoners within census blocks where domiciled at their time of
arrest; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NAACP units call upon their
Congressional representatives to effect such a permanent change
to the Census Bureau enumeration procedures.

Posted by lois at 04:09 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2009

NY Times: About New York: Giving Life, Wearing Shackles and Chains,SEEKING CHANGE A protest in Manhattan over shackling of women in labor.

Congratulations to Tina Reynolds and Stacey Thompson and all of the other women on their excellent organizing work.
Remember to call Gov. Paterson's office to say you want him to sign the bill!
Lois

About New York: Giving Life, Wearing Shackles and Chains
SEEKING CHANGE A protest in Manhattan over shackling of inmates in labor.
excellent picture at the URL at the bottom of this article.
By JIM DWYER-NY Times
Published: Sunday, July 10, 2009

One day last November, the first shudders of childbirth woke Venita Pinckney before dawn. She was well into her ninth month of pregnancy. She was also incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, a state prison.

Before she left for the hospital, Ms. Pinckney said, a corrections officer wrapped a chain twice around her waist and handcuffed her to it. Then he covered the handcuffs with a locked black box to further limit her range of motion. Finally, her ankles were shackled.

“You can’t walk like a normal human being,” said Ms. Pinckney, 37. “When you’re pregnant, you have a hard time keeping your balance to begin with.”

At least once a week, somewhere in one of New York’s prisons or jails, a pregnant women goes into labor. Nearly all of them, including Ms. Pinckney, are behind bars for drug offenses. Even so, they are often as severely restrained in the final hours of pregnancy as the most nimble and dangerous of criminals. While their bodies heave toward childbirth, they become walking, clanking jail cells.

“I told the officer he’s not supposed to shackle me,” Ms. Pinckney said last week. “He said he was just following procedure.”

From just about every wing of state government, there is agreement that such restraints are needless and risky. The state department of corrections formally limited their use nine years ago.

Yet the practice has persisted, a triumph of prison procedure and custom over the safety, comfort and dignity of the pregnant woman and of the child who is about to be born. “You’ve just got to put your legs up to push,” said Erica Knox, 42, who was brought to Elmhurst Hospital Center from Rikers Island when she went into labor. Her legs were not restrained as she delivered her son.

“But right after I pushed him out, the guard shackled me to the bed rail,” Ms. Knox said. “I had to push the placenta out with the shackles on. That was the worst.”

On May 20, both houses of the Legislature — with broad support from Democrats and Republicans — passed a bill that would bar the shackling of women during labor. It would permit the use of handcuffs in “extraordinary circumstances” to protect the woman or others around her. The bill was sponsored in the Senate by Velmanette Montgomery and in the Assembly by N. Nick Perry, both Brooklyn Democrats. It is now being reviewed by the governor’s office, a spokesman for Gov. David A. Paterson said on Friday.

Last week, Ms. Pinckney and other former prisoners stood outside the governor’s office on Third Avenue in Manhattan, chanting for him to sign the bill.

The new legislation would cover not only state prisons, but jails that serve all 62 counties of New York. Those county jails are not subject to the state’s existing policy that discourages the use of shackles and waist chains on women in labor.

Melissa DeFort, 23, who was in Bedford Hills earlier this year for violating parole in a drug case, said it was absurd to think that heavily pregnant women, dressed in prison scrubs, would try to escape. “What am I going to do, open the door of the car and run out?” Ms. DeFort said. “You have on the greens and heavy boots.”

On one hospital visit, she said, she remained shackled in an examining room while a doctor and nurse pleaded with the guards to unlock her. “They were saying, she’s on the fifth floor of a hospital, she’s seven months pregnant, and you guys are standing out there with guns,” Ms. DeFort said. “Finally, the officers radioed Bedford and asked what they should do, and they were told to do what the doctors asked.”

In 2002, Jeanna M. Graves, early in a three-year term on a drug conviction and pregnant with twins while in Bedford Hills , needed an emergency Caesarean section. Ms. Graves said that in the hospital, she was cuffed to the gurney by the corrections officers. The doctors gave her an epidural anesthetic, which blocks sensation in the abdomen and around the pelvis.

“I was cuffed through the entire C-section,” Ms. Graves said.

Tina Reynolds, 50, gave birth 15 years ago while she was serving time at Bedford Hills, shackled, she said, at an arm and a leg. Now the director of Women on the Rise Telling Herstory, an organization of formerly incarcerated women, Ms. Reynolds helped organized the rally last week with the Women in Prison Project of the Correctional Association of New York.

“All children want to find about the day they were born,” Ms. Reynolds said. “You want it to be an expression of love, not of prohibition and trauma and restraint. The child didn’t do anything.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/nyregion/12about.html?_r=1

Posted by lois at 02:13 PM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2009

Review of The Real Cost of Prisons Comix in Feminist Review

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

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

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

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

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

Review by Jeanne Vaccaro

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

July 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)