Archives for November 2013

The combination of low crime rates and lockup quotas built into private prison contracts have caused taxpayers to pay for empty prison beds, according to Tulsa World.
Nearly 65 percent of the 62 private prison contracts that were analyzed include occupancy guarantees causing taxpayers to be forced to pay for empty beds if the lock-up quota is not met, the report finds.
“What corrections should not be is a turnkey for profit machine,’’ said Justin Jones, former Oklahoma Department Director. “That’s exactly what we’ve turned them into when we guarantee occupancy, with no requirement to produce results.’’
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia have occupancy guarantees, which demand the highest requirements, with quotas between 95 percent and 100 percent for the required occupancy.
Cimarron in Cushing, Davis in Holdenville and the Lawton Correctional Facility, three of the Oklahoma prisons included in the data have a 98 percent occupancy guarantee provision, Lawton’s operated by the GEO group—Davis and Cimarron are run by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).
CCA, the largest for-profit program company in the country, sent a letter to 48 state governors offering to buy their public prisons. CCA offered a 20-year contract guaranteeing, 90 percent occupancy for the contract period. No state accepted the CCA offer, according to Shar Habibi, research and policy director for In the Public Interest (IPI).
IPI recommends governments ban “lockup-quota’’ language from contracts with private prison providers so the taxpayers’ interest is protected.
“They have gamed the system and tied the hand of the policy makers,’’ said Habibi. “We urge lawmakers nationwide to end this practice.”
The Center for Responsive Politics reported that the CCA spent $17.4 million in lobbying expenditures from 2002 through 2012, while GEO spent only $2.5 million from 2004-2012.
In addition, CCA spent $1.9 million in political contributions from 2003 to 2012 and the GEO group spent $12.9 million in the same period. Both operate and own multiple prisons in Oklahoma.

Two former North Carolina prisoners were paid more than $12 million to settle lawsuits they brought against the state for wrongful convictions, according to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation.
Floyd Brown and Greg Taylor, spent a total of 31 years in prison for crimes they did not commit, News & Observer of Raleigh, N.C. reported.
Brown was confined in a psychiatric hospital for 14 years based on the false testimony by an agent of the State Bureau of Investigation. Brown received $7.85 million in compensation. (He also reached an undisclosed settlement with Anson County, which had investigated his case.)
Greg Taylor reached a settlement of $4.625 million for the wrongful conviction of a murder he did not commit. Taylor, who was convicted in 1993, spent 17 years in prison before a three-judge panel declared him innocent. The three-judge panel is an independent judicial commission focused on wrongful convictions. It is the first judicial panel in the United States charged with adjudicating wrongful convictions.
In addition to these two wrongful convictions, in 2009 North Carolina settled a case with Alan Gell, who spent nine years on death row for a murder he did not commit.

The revelation of the release of 878 “most violent” convicts directly from solitary confinement in Texas state prisons onto the street without receiving any rehabilitation caused shock waves at a capitol hearing.
An Austin website, www.statesman.com, reported that although Texas has received national recognition for its innovative prison treatment and rehabilitation programs, it provided almost none for its toughest convicts who have spent years in solitary confinement.
According to the report, prison officials at the state capitol hearing acknowledged that 878 convicts were released last year directly from administrative segregation onto the street.
As many as 8,100 convicts are in administrative segregation in Texas’ 111 state prisons. Convicts in administrative segregation spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells. Barring trouble, they get out one hour a day for recreation and to shower, prisons officials stated at a capitol hearing.
“So these people were too dangerous to be in general population in a prison, but they are being released directly into our neighborhoods with no supervision?” asked State Senator John Whitmire, Chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. “That’s scary, we need to review the process.”
Appearing shocked, members of the Senate committee pushed prison officials to come up with a plan to provide programs for the toughest convicts.
Brad Livingston, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said Texas has never provided much in the way of programs for convicts in the highest security classifications. He added, “Sixty percent are confirmed members of prison and street criminal gangs.”
Livingston and Rick Thaler, the agency’s assistant director over prisons, said the toughest convicts are difficult to provide programs for safely. They cannot be included in regular treatment and rehabilitation programs offered to the state’s other imprisoned felons “because we can’t endanger the offenders in general population,” Thaler said.
At this, Senator Whitmire asked, “But you can let them discharge into the street when they finish their sentence, straight from spending every day for 15 years locked up alone in a small cell. Why not give them some life-skills or some faith-based programs or something that can prepare them for when they get out, rather than just turning them loose?”
Livingston said that in July, officials started offering an education and life-skills programs to 65 volunteers at the Estelle High Security Unit outside Huntsville.
Several senators questioned whether Texas should consider modifying its policy and offer programs for felons in administrative segregation­­­­­, especially for those who are due for release within a year.
Senator Whitmore asked, “Do you want them coming out with no supervision at all, or to be paroled with intensive supervision for a time – where they can be tested for drugs and alcohol, and we can keep a close eye on them?”
Prisoner advocates and justice groups echoed that sentiment, arguing that years of isolation do nothing but make prisoners more anti-social and violent and can spur mental health problems.

Unconstitutional standards at a Mississippi prison have spurred legal action.
Although private corporations actually run the prison, MDOC is responsible for making sure that conditions meet constitutional standards.

Understaffed

The East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF) is a violent and dangerously understaffed prison with a large number of attempted suicides and other acts by prisoners to hurt themselves, according to a lawsuit filed by the Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The legal complaint details 83 pages of abuse by the prison.
Prisoners at EMCF allege they routinely are denied adequate medical and mental care and are subjected to on-going acts of violence. Additionally, they say they are subjected to extreme force, filthy, dangerous conditions, as well as insufficient nutrition, and inhumane solitary confinement.
Gabriel Eber of the ACLU National Prison Project said that the lawsuit was filed after a lengthy investigation.

Assessments

Eber indicated after an assessment made by two correctional health care experts and many attempts to work with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). However, MDOC failed or refused to improve conditions, prompting the lawsuit.
Despite the lawsuit, the Mississippi Department of Corrections issued a press release stating, “The fact that MDOC has settled prior litigation with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) shows its willingness to sit at the table to listen, to do what is right, based on the facts.”
 

The centerpiece of the state’s prison reduction effort is Assembly Bill 109, also known as “Realignment,” which shifts some inmates from prisons to county jails. Proponents of the law insist the goal of realignment is to reduce recidivism among the state’s prison population. Opponents worry that realignment might actually prove counterproductive in this regard. Critics question whether the legislation is a “shell game,” that threatens public safety.
In an April, report for the Federal Sentencing Reporter, Aaron J. Rappoport surveyed the research of a wide variety of criminal justice experts to assess how California’s realignment program is working after three years. His sources included: sentencing experts Judge J. Richard Couzens and Prosecutor Lisa Rodriguez, San Francisco Chief Probation Officer Wendy Still, Los Angeles Sheriff Leroy D. Baca and Commander Gerald K. Cooper, and policy experts Kathryn Jett and Joan Hancock.
One concern cited by the report is that sheriffs with packed local jails may be compelled to order the early release of some inmates. Another concern is that the early release of prisoners may increase the risk of recidivism.
Some detractors worried that county probation departments lack the ability to meet their added supervisory obligations under realignment. The law requires the department to supervise not only offenders released from jail under mandatory supervision, but also offenders released from prison on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS).
Rappoport said one way to understand realignment is to view the criminal justice system as a balance between two competing values. One is the public interest in promoting public safety and fiscal prudence. The other involves the interest of criminal offenders themselves. Some observers have argued California’s sentencing and correctional system has shown too little concern for the well-being or rehabilitation of offenders.
Realignment was designed in part to help achieve a balance between the two goals, and to reduce the state’s prison population in order to comply with a federal court’s inmate population reduction order.
The realignment legislation implemented three core changes. The first changes the location of incarceration; the second, the sentencing rules applicable to certain low-risk offenders; and the third, the structure of post-release supervision.
California sentenced most felons to state prison. However, under realignment, the responsibility for supervising and incarceration changes location. Thousands of additional felony offenders are now serving sentences in county jails with the responsibility for supervising them post-release in the hands of the state’s 58 counties.
Rappoport said some critics question whether the legislation will actually produce fewer inmates. The policy did not release inmates. Instead it reduced the prison population by transferring inmates to county jails. In that sense, critics contend, realignment is simply a shell game.
The report pointed out that many local facilities are already severely overcrowded. They are not equipped to handle long-term prisoners or provide the educational and drug treatment programs that prisons are currently re-fitting to do. County jails have few outdoor areas and less visiting space and they often lack medical facilities capable of managing serious or long-term medical conditions.
Realignment does not guarantee the conditions of incarceration will improve—or that the total number incarcerated will decrease. Its success depends on how it is implemented.
Counties are due to receive nearly $2 billion dollars over the first two years of realignment to carry out their new responsibilities. They have three potential options for using their new resources: building additional jails to alleviate some overcrowding (an option that continues the emphasis on incarceration).
A second option is to improve existing jails to provide services for long-term inmates. Some of Rappoport’s sources conclude this option is shortsighted if it is the only response to realignment, since it will also maintain the state’s reliance on incarceration as the answer to California’s crime problems.
The final option is making use of “the split sentence” for non-violent offenders. This effectively shortens the sentences of these offenders, and thus reduces the jail population. According to Rappoport, “the non-violent offender will serve only a portion of his sentence in county jail. The remaining portion will then be served in the community under what is called mandatory supervision, under the authority of the county probation department.
Prior to realignment, when judges gave out long sentences, the state paid the cost of imprisonment. That’s no longer the case with non-violent offenders. With jail overcrowding at the local level and county finances pressed, county judges may feel pressured to shorten expensive custodial sentences. The split sentence offers one way to do that. But according to Rappaport, that is a viable option only if county officials take steps to develop appropriate community services, treatment centers, halfway houses and other alternative sanctions to deal with these kinds of offenders.
Since realignment legislation went into effect appropriately 23 percent of those sentenced to county jails are split sentences, according to a mid-2012 study done by the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC). These early results highlight another concern cited by Rappoport—that realignment policy may ultimately result in significant sentencing disparities.
The report concludes for realignment to be more than a shell game, judges will need to make use of the split sentence option for a significant number of non-violent offenders. Jails will have to renew efforts to handle the more serious offenders and make treatment available to address the underlying needs of jail inmates. And efforts must be made to ensure that realignment does not generate new and troubling disparities in the way low-level offenders are sentenced and treated.
“Ultimately,” Rappoport wrote, “time may be the critical factor determining Realignment’s success. In many jurisdictions, time will be needed for programs to come on line and become effective, and for successful strategies to propagate. But patience is not a common trait in the criminal justice field. If crime rates start to rise, it will be easy to demagogue on the issue and claim that Realignment is to blame.”

Participation in the Restorative Justice Symposium at San Quentin was at an all-time high and even included a Marin County Assistant District Attorney as a guest speaker.
Over 109 inmates attended this 12th event, along with 55 outside guests.
Restorative Justice is a new way of thinking about dealing with crime. It focuses on healing the victim and offender instead of punishment. “Our mantra is hurt people hurt people, but healed people heal people,” said sponsor Jean Ramirez.
It was brought to San Quentin by former inmate, Leonard Rubio, who has paroled and is still active in the movement. “He’s president of the state’s Restorative Justice Group,” informed Ramirez.
The Sept. 21 symposium consisted of several speakers, both outside guests and transformed inmates. Assistant District Attorney Stephanie Hulsey and Don Carney, Director of the Marin County YMCA Youth Court, where Restorative Justice is used. It was the first time an active ADA came into the prison to participate.
Hulsey of Monterey County spoke to the audience.
“I can’t go back and make a new start, but I can make a new end. Nobody should be put in a little box. You inmates are ambassadors for goodness, redemption, on the outside,” she said.

“Our mantra is hurt people hurt people,

but healed people heal people”

Prevention is one of her passions, and she is helping in the area of truancy. She recognizes that offenders are also victims. She knows that her job is to seek justice not just to convict, but to help everyone seek a new end. 85 to 90 percent of juvenile cases do not go to trial but use rehabilitation and restorative justice. “If you don’t solve the problem, what’s the point?” she added.
“I don’t have the street cred you guys have. The juveniles will listen to you. We need you out there,” Hulsey told Troy “Kogan” Williams.
Williams is inside leader for Restorative Justice. He, along with Dwight Krizman keep the program organized. Williams also is the founder of the San Quentin Radio program. “All shareholders have to come to the table so we can all talk and listen objectively, even if they despise us, otherwise nothing will change,” said Williams.
Carney has worked in the fields of juvenile and social justice for over 40 years. He works with difficult juveniles using restorative ideas. In youth court, other youngsters act as the jury and decide the offender’s punishment. Fellow juveniles even take on the roles of defense attorneys and prosecutors. Using Restorative Justice, the number of juvenile convictions has gone down from 120 to less than 40.
Restorative Justice is starting to grow in acceptance. It is currently “being pitched to all 50 state courts, and it’s part of a law that now requires restorative justice to be attempted before any suspension and expulsions,” Carney told the crowd.
Inmate speaker Darnel Washington gave a summary of his crime and his journey to restorative justice. “We need to become one big web of connections, working together so there will be no more victims,” said Washington, who was convicted of murder..
The event also included “circles” where outside guests and inmates were divided into groups of about seven each. There, all were given a chance to answer questions, like “What steps can you take to bring positive light to yourself and others?” Everyone was given a chance to share and the answers were insightful, moving and brought many guests to tears.
“The students, staff and faculty I brought in were inspired, moved and deeply impacted by the level of depth, intelligence, kindness and character that we witnessed,” said Monique LeSarre doctor of psychology from the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco. “I left even more inspired to continue to intervene against poverty, systematic racism and to treat the traumas in our communities early, before the cycle of violence starts to spin,” she added.
The numbers of inmates waiting to join the movement is growing. Between symposiums, the men, along with a few sponsors, meet every Thursday. Currently there is a waiting list of 100 inmates long. “We are working on adding Wednesdays, “ said Krizman.
The symposium ended like every Restorative Justice meeting, with their pledge:
We believe… that violence is not a solution to any problem
…that every person is endowed with a sacred dignity.
…that every person is capable of changing, healing & being restored.
 
I pledge to respect the dignity of every person.
…to overcome violence with love and compassion.
…to accompany and support anyone affected by crime on their healing journey.
…to be an instrument of restoration. Of forgiveness and reconciliation.