San Quentin News

Written By Incarcerated - Advancing Social Justice

Governor Gavin Newsom reversed 46 parole grants

by

It’s still too early to tell if Governor Gavin Newsom marches to his own drum— or if his tenure coincides with Governor Brown’s agendas, reported Anita Chabria and Taryn Luna for the L.A. Times.

Since taking office Gov. Newsom has stopped 46 paroles for murderers. This marks a steep increase from the actions of former Gov. Jerry Brown, who only reversed 28 parole grants for murderers in 2018. Newsom is on pace to match Gov. Brown’s peak of 133 rever- sals in 2014, report Chabria and Luna.

This stands in stark contrast to Gov. Newsom’s controversial decision to halt executions, despite the will of California voters who rejected the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty in 2016.

Gov. Newsom also sought review by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) of 33 parole grants given to those convicted of a serious felony such as a sex crime.

Trenton Veches was one of the 33 cases reviewed. Veches was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to two concurrent life terms for multiple counts of child molestation. Veches nevertheless won parole, re- port Chabria and Luna.

Gov. Newsom’s parole interventions have many questioning his policies and whether he’s trying to keep serious offenders in prison or just being cautious in lieu of his political future.

Veches’ attorney, Charles Carbone, wonders if Gov. Newsom’s actions represent a new policy or merely concern due to criminal justice reforms like Proposition 57.

In 2016, legislative changes, such as Proposition 57, and legal rulings added many new categories of crime to the list of those eligible for re- lease. Attorney Michael Ro- mano, who heads the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School, says, “There is an incredible backlog and bottleneck” when it comes to parole hearings, and Proposition 57 alone could add an- other 4,000 hearings to the BPH’s current case load.

One of the parole grants that Gov. Newsom reversed was for Jesus Cecena, 57, who killed Officer Archie Buggs in 1978. Cecena, who was 17 years old at the time, was sentenced to life with- out the possibility of parole. In 1982 the sentence was reduced to seven years to life. In Gov. Newsom’s decision he wrote, “Despite his many years of incarceration, Mr. Cecena has not sufficiently explained his callous actions on the night of the crime.”

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, 15 of the 33 cases Gov. Newsom sought for reconsideration in- volved inmates with current or past sex offenses.

Only Gov. Newsom knows if he will follow Gov. Brown’s posture on parole or establish a stricter stance. Criminal justice reform advocates await indications of a clear philosophy. The optimism raised by Gov. Brown, however, gave inmates hope, and that hope motivated inmates to seek out rehabilitative programs and groups.

Thống Đốc Newsom Ngưng Hoản Việc Tạm Tha

by

Vẫn còn quá sớm để biết được nếu Thống Đốc Gavin Newsom sẽ làm theo chủ ý riêng—hoặc là nhiệm kỳ của ông ta trùng hợp với nghị trình của cựu Thống Đốc Brown, được tường trình bởi Anita Chabria và Taryn Luna cho tờ báo LA Times.

Từ khi nhậm chức, Thống Đốc Newsom đã ngưng hoản sự tạm tha cho 46 người phạm tội giết người. Chuyện này đánh dấu sự gia tăng cao so với hành động của cựu Thống Đốc Brown, người chỉ có thâu hồi lại sự tạm tha cho 28 người phạm tội giết người trong năm 2018. Newsom đi với tốc độ ngang hàng với cựu Thống Đốc Brown về việc lấy lại 133 sự tạm tha vào năm 2014, báo cáo bởi Chabria và Luna.

Lập trường này trái ngược với quyết định ngưng án xử tử của Thống Đốc Newsom, mặc dù cử tri Cali không chấp thuận bãi bỏ án tử hình trong năm 2016.

Thống Đốc Newsom cũng xét lại 33 vụ tạm tha cho những người phạm tội nghiêm trọng chẳng hạn như tội có liên quan đến tình dục.

Trenton Veches là một trong 33 vụ bị xét lại. Veches bị kết tội vào năm 2003 và bị tuyên án chung thân cho nhiều tội lạm dụng tình dục với trẻ em. Tuy nhiên Veches vẫn được hứa tạm tha, báo cáo bởi Chabria và Luna.

Sự can thiệp của Thống Đốc Newsom làm cho nhiều người đặt câu hỏi về chính sách của ông ta và không biết ông ta đang cố gắng giữ những người phạm trọng tội trong tù hay là chỉ thận trọng cho tương lai chính trị của ông ta.

Luật sư của Veches, Charles Carbone, tự hỏi không biết là hành động của Thống Đốc Newsom tiêu biểu cho chính sáchmớihaychỉlàloâuvề những cải cách trong hệ thống công lý như là Proposition 57.

Trong năm 2016, những thay đổi về pháp luật, chẳng hạn như Proposition 57, và những phán quyết theo pháp luật đã cộng thêm nhiều tội mới vào danh sách được thả sớm. Luật sư Michael Romano, người đứng đầu Three Strike Project tại Standford Law School nói rằng, “Hiện tại tình trạng trì trệ không tin được” khi nói đến parole hearings, và chỉ riêng Proposition 57 có thể cộng thêm 4,000 vụ vào danh sách.

Một trong những sự tạm tha mà Thống Đốc Newsom ngăn chặn là cho Jesus Cecena, 57 tuổi, người đã cố sát cảnh sát viên Archie Buggs vào năm 1978 trong lúc anh ta 17 tuổi và bị phán án chung thân. Trong năm 1982, án được giảm xuống từ 7 năm cho đến chung thân. Trong sự quyết định, Thống Đốc Newsom viết rằng “Mặc dù sau nhiều năm giam cầm, ông Cecena không có giải thích đầy đủ về hành động nhẫn tâm của mình trong đêm phạm tội.”

Căn cứ theo bộ sữa chữa và cải tạo của tiểu bang Cali, 15 trong 33 vụ mà Thống Đốc Newsom xét lại có liên quan với tù nhân phạm tội về tình dục.

Chỉ có Thống Đốc Newsom mới biết được nếu ông ta sẽ đi theo đường lối của cựu Thống Đốc Brown về việc tạm tha cho tù nhân hoặc là thiết kế một lập trường khó hơn. Những thành viên chủ trương thay đổi hệ thống công lý chờ đợi sự biểu lộ lập trường của Thống Đốc Newsom. Dù sao thì sự lạc quan của cựu Thống Đốc Brown đã cho tù nhân niềm hi vọng, và niềm hi vọng đó đã thúc đẩy tù nhân tham gia vào các trương trình cải tạo.

—Dịch giả-Hiếu Thái

Jóvenes encarcelados encaran discriminación en sentencias

by

Las herramientas para evaluar – el riesgo que representan los ofensores fueron diseñadas para disminuir prejuicio a la hora de dictar una sentencia, sin embargo podrían estar causando discriminación contra los infractores juveniles, reporta Wendy Sawyer del Prison Policy Initiative.

Esta evaluación toma en consideración muchos factores que pueden incrementar el riesgo de estas personas, los cuales incluyen antecedentes criminales y la edad. Los jueces utilizan estas herramientas para dictar sentencia. Las audiencias de libertad condicional confían en ellas para determinar la elegibilidad de los infractores.

Megan T. Stevenson y Christopher Slobogin descubrieron que “los ofensores de 18 años obtienen calificaciones que en promedio son dos veces más altas que los ofensores de 40 años”.

Los jóvenes a menudo reciben un calificación que refleja “alto riesgo” sin tomar en consideración la diferencia entre su desarrollo en relación a los adultos.

Stevenson y Slobogin encontraron que muchos jueces no conocían todos los factores que fueron considerados en las evaluaciones de los jóvenes y a menudo clasificaron de alto riesgo a las personas sin una explicación sobre cómo llegaron a esa conclusión.

Ese desconocimiento crea serias implicaciones legales y éticas y también ocasiona que los jueces cometan la misma clase de errores que estas herramientas deberían prevenir.

La juventud es una “espada de doble filo”, apuntan Stevenson y Slobogin. Los infractores juveniles son catalogados menos culpables, pero también son considera- dos de alto riesgo para cometer actos de violencia. A lo largo de la nación, los jueces a menudo atribuyen a los ofensores juveniles menor culpabilidad al sentenciarlos. Sin embargo, los métodos que se utilizan para determinar el nivel de riego no consideran este aspecto.

Stevenson y Slobogin analizaron el COMPAS Violent Recidivism Score (VRRS), una de las principales herramientas de evaluación. Los resultados indican que “la edad constituye aproximadamente el 60% del resultado de la examinación”.

El estudio examinó otros siete algoritmos de la evaluación y descubrió que cada uno de ellos considera la juventud igual o más importante que los antecedentes criminales al determinar el riesgo de los infractores jóvenes. Esto ocasiona que el juez perciba el carácter del ofensor de una manera injusta, lo cual influye la sentencia impuesta.

Una encuesta reciente a los jueces de Virginia, reveló que únicamente el 29% tenían “conocimiento pleno” de las herramientas que estaban utilizando, mientras el 22% no tenían “conocimiento” o únicamente “un poco de conocimiento”. En Virginia, los resultados de la evaluación del riesgo de los ofensores vienen con una recomendación de sentencia, reportó Sawyer.

Las evaluaciones para determinar el riesgo se complican aún más por los factores agravantes y mitigantes, tales como trastornos por el abuso de sustancias, enfermedades mentales y desventajas socioeconómicas.

Los jueces y las comisiones de libertad condicional pueden ejercer discreción al realizar recomendaciones, pero como Stevenson y Slobogin señalan, no puedes contrarrestar la influencia negativa que la etiqueta de “alto riesgo” tendrá en los ofensores.

Some states seeking input on wrong parole decisions

by

Some states are still seek- ing input from the wrong people on parole decisions a Prison Policy Initiative report maintains.

The report says the wrong people are prosecutors and crime victims.

In California, prosecutors and victims must be notified when a person is being considered for parole. Yet the only information they can provide to parole commissioners is about the crime itself and who that person was, not the individual’s rehabilitative efforts.

Victims and prosecutors should have a right to be heard but the information they provide is not helpful in determining if the person has been rehabilitated, writes Jorge Renaud in the Oct. 25, 2018 report.

This is important given a 2016 survey commissioned by the Alliance on Safety and Justice. The survey indicated that “60 percent of victims preferred shorter prison sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation to longer prison sentences,” Renaud reported.

The report also showed that victims were “three times more likely to prefer” accountability through options other than prison, like “rehabilitation, mental health, drug treatment and community supervision.” They also believed that prison did more to create criminals than to rehabilitate them.

Renaud argues it is “counterintuitive” to seek the opinions of prosecutors and victims during parole hearings, given their goal of putting offenders behind bars. Yet some criminal justice experts still endorse this antiquated process. Many reformers believe that parole decisions should be left to professionals who know how to identify transformation, psychological growth and increased maturity.

The American Law Institute has recommended a “second-look” provision to the Penal Code to review the cases of incarcerated individuals who have spent “at least 15 years in prison,” reports Renaud. Still, the institute also recommends notifying prosecutors and victims of these proceedings, undermining the reform effort.

“Prosecutorial overreach” is partially responsible for mass incarceration, reformers believe. Restorative justice, at the other end of the spectrum, offers a progressive approach that allows survivors of violence to heal, by confronting, meeting and talking with those who have wounded them.

Risk assessment tools designed against youth offenders

by

Risk assessment tools designed to decrease prejudice in sentencing may be causing discrimination toward youth offenders, reports Wendy Sawyer for the Prison Policy Initiative.

These risk assessment tools score people based on many factors that can add to risk, including criminal history and age. Judges use them when sentencing, and parole boards rely on them to determine parole suitability.

“Eighteen-year-old defendants have risk scores that are, on average, twice as high as 40-year-old defendants,” law professors Megan T. Stevenson and Christopher Slobogin found.

Juveniles are often given a score of “high-risk,” with no regard to their developmental difference from adults. 

In a recent academic paper by Stevenson and Slobogin, they determined that many judges did not know all the factors that went into these risk assessment algorithms and often receive classifications of risk without an explanation about what led to the determination. 

This raises serious ethical and legal implications when judges who use these assessment tools don’t fully understand them. They’re also causing judges to make the same sort of discriminatory errors that the tools are supposed to prevent. 

Youth is a “double-edged sword,” according to Stevenson and Slobogin, as youth offenders are seen as less culpable, but they are also seen as having a higher risk of violence. Judges across the nation often consider the diminished culpability of juvenile defendants when sentencing them, but risk assessment tools don’t.

Stevenson and Slobogin analyzed the COMPAS Violent Recidivism Risk Score (VRRS), one of the leading risk assessment tools. They found that “roughly 60 percent of the risk score it produces is attributable to age.” 

The study examined seven other risk assessment algorithms and found that each of them considers youth to be equal or more important than criminal history in determining risk. This causes a judge’s perception of the defendant’s character to be unfairly affected, which also impacts sentencing.

In a recent survey of Virginia judges, only 29 percent of them were found to be “very familiar” with the risk assessment tool they were using, while 22 percent were either “unfamiliar” or only “slightly familiar” with it. In Virginia, risk assessment scores come with sentencing recommendations, Sawyer reports.

Risk assessments are further complicated by both mitigating and aggravating factors such as substance use disorders, mental illness and socioeconomic disadvantages.

Judges and parole boards can exercise discretion when making determinations, but, as Stevenson and Slobogin point out, you can’t undo the negative influence that a “high-risk” label will have .

Amnesty International urges death penalty repeal

by

“Two wrongs don’t make a right. The death penalty is no way to impart justice,” says Erika Guevara Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.
In 2016, the US Supreme Court in Hurst v. Florida ruled that Florida’s capital sentencing law was unconstitutional. Yet, despite the ruling, Florida still has the second-largest death row in the nation and is fourth in the number of executions since 1976.
Amnesty International wants Florida to abolish their death penalty but it’s an uphill battle.
A new report released by Amnesty International, which focuses on three groups of death row inmates, shows that youth offenders and those with serious mental and intellectual disabilities are being taken advantage of by Florida’s capital sentencing laws.
The report calls into question the validity of executing those with serious mental illness, who are unfairly being labeled the “worst of the worst.” The report shows that prisoners with an intellectual disability, young adults with a mental maturity lower than that of an 18 year old, and those with a background of extreme deprivation and abuse, are at risk.

Amnesty’s goal is to convince Florida’s governor and his cabinet to commute the death sentences of all prisoners on death row.
Another problem the report reveals is how race influences who gets executed. Since 1976, not a single White person has been executed for killing a Black person. Whereas almost one fifth of the executions in this same time period involved Black defendants convicted of killing White victims.
Amnesty’s opposition to Florida’s death penalty is unconditional and absolute. Amnesty also wants Florida’s judges and juries to be made aware of a defendant’s mental health status and age before imposing the sentence of death.
Despite Amnesty’s urging, Florida remains a staunch believer in the death penalty. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Florida’s legislation has revised its death penalty statute so executions could resume. In fact, Florida’s Supreme Court has even made the retroactive effect of Hurst only available to a limited group of cases,
cutting off almost half of the 400 people on Florida’s death row from a new sentencing hearing.
Mathew Marshall is one such person. He was 24 when he was convicted of murder in 1988. Although the jury unanimously voted to sentence him to life in prison, the judge overruled the decision and sentenced him to death. “The USA must stop resorting to the ultimate cru- el, inhuman and degrading punishment, and join the 142 countries that are abolitionist in law or practice today,” says Erika Guevara Rosas for Amnesty International.

Servicemen sentences overturned

by

Two servicemen on military Death Row had their sentences overturned this summer, reports the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). U.S. Air Force veteran Andrew Witt and Vietnam War veteran Robert Fisher both had attorneys who failed to present mitigating evidence of mental health issues and trauma in their initial trials.
Witt was sentenced in 2005 for murdering an airman and his wife. After a three-week capital resentencing trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces imposed a life sentence, according to DPIC, which cited the La Crosse Tribune.
Fisher, who had received a Purple Heart from President Lyndon B. Johnson, was convicted of the 1980 murder of his girlfriend. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania overturned his death sentence and granted a new trial.
In both cases, attorneys failed to present evidence that their clients suffered from head trauma or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD can cause serious psychological after-affects for years after a soldier returns from combat, according to DPIC.
In Witt’s case, the attorney failed to present mitigating evidence that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury just four months before the murders. Witt’s death sentence was the first one handed out to an airman since 1992.
In Fisher’s first trial, his attorney failed to present the mitigating evidence of trauma and other mental health issues Fisher experienced due to his service in Vietnam.
Twelve veterans have had their death sentences reduced to life in prison, while four veterans in military prisons are still on the U.S. military death row.

Dr. Downey overcomes hurdles

Approximately 10 Counties Responsible For a Quarter of U.S. Executions

More inmates taking meds for mental health issues


 

Trump touts support of prison reform

by

Lincoln Memorial


President Donald Trump says he is open to passing a new compromise proposal that would combine a prison reform bill with sentencing reform provisions, reports Alexander Bolton for The Hill.
“We passed the First Step Act through the House, and we’re working with the Senate to pass that into law. And I think we’ll be able to do it,” Trump said at a meeting with inner city pastors.
Democrats, however, cannot see Trump embracing criminal justice reform just yet due to his tough-on-crime election platform. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) seems more optimistic: “I think we’ve made great progress so it doesn’t have to be broken up … There seems to be an interest on the part of the White House now to keeping the bills together.” The goal is to merge the prison reform bill — the First Step Act — with four sentencing reforms from the Senate’s Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which has the support of co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
In order to gain political common ground, the reform would only apply to new sentences and not retroactively to people already in jail.
“The question is how little sentencing reform we can put in there without losing the Democrats, and how much we can put in there without losing more than a handful of Republicans,” said one Senate observer.

President Trump


Senator Grassley presented the compromise to Trump along with senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).
If passed, the reforms would lower mandatory minimum life sentences for those with prior nonviolent drug convictions to 25 years and reduce the current 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for similar offenses to 15 years. It would also apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which has a retroactive effect on the sentence disparity between previous cocaine- and crack-related crimes.
Another aspect of the sentencing reform seeks to free judges from handing out excessively long sentences to nonviolent drug offenders. Known as the “stacking enhancement,” the requirement forced judges to treat convictions that involve multiple charges as prior offenses, which then opens defendants up to the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme.
The last reform being discussed will expand exceptions to the application of mandatory-minimum sentences to a wider array of people with criminal records.
In 1980, the federal prison system housed around 25,000 inmates; now there are more than 205,000. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost to taxpayers has grown from $330 million to $7.5 billion over this same time period.
“The president sees that our prison system is not perfect. That’s why he wants to improve it and why he’s been considering some appropriate commutations,” a Senior White House official said.
According to one White House official, prison and sentencing reform has strong conservative support coming from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union and evangelical voters.

PPI’s “Correctional Control: Incarceration and Supervision by State” is the first report to aggregate data on all types of correctional control nationwide.

Trump’s federal staff cuts hurt

Van Jones: A Life With Ups and Downs

After 22 years Antoine Brown is a free man

Santa Clara County D.A. Attends Forum With S.Q. Inmates

Black incarceration on the decline


 

Suit alleges GEO operates ‘deadliest immigration center’

by

Eight Central American refugees have filed a federal lawsuit against the GEO Group, and the city of Adelanto in Riverside, reports Robert Kahn for Courthouse News Service.
The lawsuit alleges that the GEO Group operates the “deadliest immigration center in the country,” and subjected persons locked up to inhumane treatment and abuses, such as assault and battery, pepper-spray attacks, intentional scalding, and denial of medical care and access to an attorney.
The suit claims assaults began June 12, 2017, after the plaintiffs started a hunger strike to protest against their conditions of confinement. Those conditions included a lack of clean drinking water, nearly inedible food, and issuance of “dirty and unwashed” underwear, the story reports.
According to Khan, plaintiff Omar Rivera Martinez, an asylum-seeker from El Salvador, alleged that GEO guards slammed his face into a wall, which fractured his nose, knocked out a tooth, a dental crown and a 14-tooth gold mouthpiece that lined his bottom teeth. A year after the attack, Martinez said he still hasn’t received the surgery a doctor ordered to repair his fractured nose.
The lawsuit alleges all eight plaintiffs were pepper-sprayed and then put into solitary confinement for 10 days, after the June 12 assaults. Martinez said that when he was released from solitary confinement, he was sent to the same “high-security ward” that housed the gang members “that murdered his family members and caused him to flee his home country.”
Another plaintiff who fled from El Salvador was an investigative journalist who received death threats after he “exposed the connections between his local government, the police and the violent MS-13 gang.” [A gang that President Trump recently described as “animals,” who are illegally entering the United States.]
Amid the 26-page U.S. District Court lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that most of the Adelanto’s inhabitants are law-abiding foreign nationals who were merely seeking safety and refuge. Many of the abuses at Adelanto were documented by Human Rights Watch, which noted that many detainees had committed suicide in the early months of 2017, due to the deplorable conditions.
Since the lawsuit was filed, one of the plaintiffs told Kahn he has been granted political asylum.

San Quentin News & Wall City Merchandise

Prisoners Allege Private Prison Gave Control to Gangs


https://sanquentinnews.com/private-prison-corporations-seek-tough-laws-for-immigrants/

Sanctuary cities maybe safer for White people

by

Jail Cell

Jail Cell

A recent study examining sanctuary city policy in the United States found that White people living in urban sanctuary cities and counties are safer than those living elsewhere.

“…immigration offenses now account for about half of all federal prosecutions.”  THE NEW YORK TIMES Dec 22, 2017

Published in December by Mike Males, a senior research fellow at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), the study’s conclusion stands in stark contrast to claims made by President Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice that these areas “breed crime” and that crimes by undocumented immigrants have cost “countless innocent American lives.”

ICE reported “24,476 of the 185,507 inmates in the federal Bureau of Prisons system were not citizens…” THE NEW YORK TIMES Dec. 22, 2017

These claims paved the way for the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” to pass the House of Representatives in June. The bill would take away federal grant opportunities from cities and states that refuse to provide assistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“Drug-overdose deaths drove a decline in U.S. life expectancy in 2016 for the second year in a row…”  THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Dec. 21, 2017

The CJCJ study used 2015 data on violent deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to compare numbers for all violent deaths, homicides, gun deaths and illicit drug overdoses, and split them up by race, tallying one column for the deaths of White residents and one for residents of color. Statistics on cities and counties with sanctuary status were obtained from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and ICE through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2016.

The study indicates that White residents who live in sanctuary cities are 62 percent less likely to die from gun violence and 26 percent less likely to die from a drug overdose than their counterparts living in non-sanctuary cities. Residents of color also have lower violent death rates in sanctuary counties.

Despite all this, in a 2017 McClatchy-Marist poll, only 45 percent of White respondents said they believed “sanctuary cities should exist,” as compared to 68 percent of Latinos, and 59 percent of African Americans.

Study shows government uses distorted data to justify policies

Immigrant rights groups express concern about sanctuary city raids

Domestic Violence 15 Percent of Violent Crime

Translate »