Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest effort to end federal supervision of mental health services available to state prisoners received a harsh rebuke by judges who said the state’s behavior in supporting the mental health needs of its prisoners was “unprofessional and unethical.”
In a motion filed April 5, United States District Court judge Lawrence K. Karlton expressed concern over two state reports about ending oversight of the mental health procedures and concluded that the mental health care in California prisons is sub-par.
“For years the mental health care provided by California’s prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and has failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs,” the court wrote. “Needless suffering and death have been well-documented.”
Yet, state officials contend that they have provided timely access to mental health care and are not “deliberately indifferent to the serious needs” of prisoners in need of mental health care.
The court said it was disturbed by the state’s action in hiring experts who conducted interviews with prisoners and used the information “gleaned from them” to bolster the claim oversight was unnecessary. More disturbing, the court said, was that interviews were conducted outside the presence of the prisoners’ lawyers.
Despite the state’s descriptions that the interviews were “simply occasional” and “unintended by-products of the inspections,” the court found prisoners were interviewed with serious mental disorders to gather supportive evidence for the state’s cases.
The court evaluated mental health services delivered to prisoners from May through mid-September 2012. A court-appointed monitor visited 23 prisons and assessed the mental health services. Document-based reviews were conducted of the other 10 prisons in California.
Among other deficiencies, the court found that the state’s mental health care delivery system did not re-evaluate and update suicide prevention policies and practices, and officials failed to ensure that seriously mentally ill prisoners were properly identified, referred, and transferred to receive higher levels of care.
For more than a decade, a disproportionately high number of prisoners have committed suicide in California’s prison system, the court found.
“Inadequate staffing has plagued the delivery of mental health care”
The suicide rate in state prisons in 2006 was about 80 percent higher than the national average for prison populations, and about 72 percent of suicides could have been prevented because they involved some degree of inadequate assessment, treatment or intervention, according to the court finding.
A previous report, conducted in 2011 by the court-appointed monitor, found that most prisoners who later committed suicide were not referred to higher levels of care when deemed clinically appropriate, were not evaluated or examined in a timely manner, or did not receive adequate emergency responses, among other findings.
According to the court-appointed monitor’s most recent report, because prison officials have not yet fully implemented a remedial suicide prevention program, an ongoing constitutional violation remains.
Additionally, the court reported in the motion that mental health staff were managing too large of caseloads to be effective. A prison psychiatrist reported they were “doing about 50 percent of what we should be doing to be effective [for individual prisoners].”
“Inadequate staffing has plagued the delivery of mental health care,” the court said in its finding.
The chronic understaffing and high job vacancy rates in mental health staff positions are also evidence of ongoing violations, according to the court. By the end of November 2012, the state’s prison mental healthcare program had a 29 percent staffing vacancy.
Archives for May 2013
A Negative Lifestyle Changes for the Better
At the age of 15, Fabian Vasquez came to the United States from Mexico for what he hoped would be a better life. But by age 20, he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life for second-degree murder.
Vasquez spent 15 years in prison before the parole board determined he was no longer a danger to public safety and ordered his release. After being freed, he was deported to Mexico. He said he now wants his story to be an example for everyone as to how they should avoid a life of drugs.
When Vasquez was five years old, his father left Patzcuaro Michoacán in Mexico and came to the United States to try to earn money for his family. Ten years later, Vasquez and his family joined his father in California.
He attended Channel Islands High School in Oxnard, Calif. and then Amos Alonzo Stagg High School in Stockton and at both places encountered problems connecting with other students because of his trouble with English.
At age17, Vasquez began his first job as a part-time busboy in a restaurant to help his family. He said that was where he learned to work hard like his father who worked in the fields. When agriculture was out of season, his father made money in construction and janitorial work cleaning floors in Walgreen stores.
Because of his deficiencies in English, Vasquez did not graduate from high school. So, he found work and obtained his first and only illegal identification card. He began going to night clubs, but did not drink too much because of the ethics his father taught him.
Vasquez said that one day he did not come home and felt guilty when he lied to his father about where he had been. However, after some time, the nightlife scene led him to begin selling drugs, and the bad feelings about lying to his father went away as the money flowed in.
Vasquez sold drugs as a way to earn extra money; half of his paycheck went to his father, as he explained is the custom for Mexicanos who live in their parents’ homes.
Selling cocaine made Vasquez a popular person in the club scene. People began to notice and respect Vasquez because of how he conducted himself, which led him to meet more and more people involved in the drug trade.
As he made more money, Vasquez went to buy a new car, and was told that because of his line of work, his car should not be flashy as to not attract attention from authorities.
In January of 1998, he decided to begin buying and selling his own drugs and develop his own clientele. Eventually, he was doing so well with money that he bought a fancy new car and began transporting large amounts of cocaine – everything he was told not to do.
In February, he quit his job and planned to settle down with his new girlfriend. But on March 11, 1998, Vasquez, his girlfriend and a male friend were all arrested for the murder of Martin Ortega, a man who had owed Vasquez money.
Vasquez said his male friend was given a sentence of 50 years to life, and in an attempt to receive a lighter sentence, he immediately revealed everything that had happened. Six months later — on September 25 1998 — all three were sentenced to 15 years to life.
However, even after the judge had delivered his sentence, Vasquez was allowed to stay in the local jail for a month because his father was diagnosed with a tumor in his lower back and was told that he probably would not survive. His father made it, but Vasquez was devastated that the operation had put his dad in a wheelchair for life.
Vasquez was sent to Lancaster State Prison where he said he was always on lock down and that there were no programs, and that he didn’t want anything to do with them anyway. All he thought about was the wrong he had done, and he quietly struggled with how he went from having everything to getting a life sentence.
At the time, he believed that with the no-parole policy of then Governor Gray Davis that he would spend the rest of his life in prison.
In 2000, he was transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison, and began attending AA meetings only because he wanted them to start a Spanish AA. But in the process, Vasquez began hearing stories that were similar to his.
He soon started to see how others benefited from the programs they were involved in, so he learned English, math and took anger management, breaking barriers, and even a correspondence Bible course. He started to identify faults in his character that also made him aware of the gravity of his crime.
In 2002, just when he was starting to grasp the importance of these programs, Vasquez was transferred to Folsom State Prison. When the inmates were not on lockdown, Vasquez participated in group programs. When they were on lockdown, he and his cellmate took a correspondence course called “Crimminon.” He said it made him realize the impact of what his victim’s family was going through for the first time.
In 2004, he was transferred to Corcoran State Prison, which offered very few programs and had a lot of violence. Vasquez said that when the inmates were not on lock down he attended the 12-step AA program in Spanish and met with a group of prisoners who wanted to help themselves; it was with these men he started looking at what programs would help him.
In March 2011, Vasquez was transferred to San Quentin State Prison. He said he could not believe the freedom he was given; because he was used to being around violence, it took him four months just to adjust. He decided he wanted to continue participating in programs, and did so with the assistance of tutors, particularly a teacher named Mr. Shimmel. Vasquez fondly remembers Shimmel saying to him, “I will help you finish what you tried to do at Corcoran.”
“He is a good teacher that really takes an interest in helping prisoners. I wish every prison had teachers like him,” Vasquez said.
Ten months later, Vasquez took the GED and passed. Immediately, he got into the college program with Patten University and continued with AA, and completed the Green Life Program, which he said helped him understand the importance of preserving our planet.
In October 2012, Vasquez appeared before the parole board for the second time. He said his commitment to the programs made it easy for him to communicate to the board how he had changed, and the board commended him for his transformation. After five hours in the boardroom, he was found suitable for parole.
However, Vasquez was deported back to Mexico in March of 2013. He said he wants to tell his story because he wants other Mexicanos to learn English and take the programs seriously. He said that you must learn to forgive yourself first, because only then can you understand the impact you have made to your victims families and communities.
“When you learn to be truthful you will not fail. Don’t just do the programs for the board, do it for yourself,” he said.
Delaware’s ‘Justice Reinvestment’ Improves Criminal Justice System
Delaware is making significant improvements to how its criminal justice system operates after the state Legislature approved major changes called “Justice Reinvestment,” a research organization reports.
The improvements employ data-driven approaches to criminal justice policy designed to cut corrections spending and reinvest savings into policies that show an increase in public safety, and hold offenders accountable.
Gov. Jack Markell established the Delaware Justice Reinvestment Task Force in the summer of 2011 to conduct a comprehensive examination of the factors contributing to the size of the corrections population, both pretrial and sentenced individuals.
The task force found that the majority of the prison population was made up of individuals waiting in county jails.
A policy-outline was developed to address the factors increasing the in prison population.
The factors pointed to a large number of “probationers” spending time in prison, and “Delaware prisoners served long sentences with limited opportunity to earn reductions in their sentences,” even when they had made significant steps toward rehabilitation.
In analyzing the data, Vera Institute of Justice looked at “who was coming to prison, why were they committed, how much time (did) they receive, and what sort of participation they were involved with” www.vera.org/pubs/justice-reinvestment-delaware-model.
VIJ aided the task force by carrying out wide-range examinations and a thorough review of the procedures and practices at state criminal justice agencies.
The task force learned that three of the main factors were “a large pretrial population, violations of probation, and, long lengths of stay for the incarcerated population.”
Because the (Delaware) DOC has custody of both pretrial and sentenced populations, the VIJ study, after examining core elements of pretrial risk assessments, determined that 14 percent of 2010 detainees could be candidates for release rather than imprisonment while waiting for trial.
“This lower-risk group excludes those who might pose a risk of flight or re-arrest,” VIJ study revealed.
“It demonstrated that there was a clear opportunity in the pretrial arena to reduce the prison population by releasing more people on recognizance or with supervision without jeopardizing public safety.”
The task force made recommendations to reach subsequent goals: “Concentrate detention resources on high-risk defendants, focus supervision and prison resources on high-risk people, hold offenders accountable, reduce barriers to reentry, and protect and support victims of crime.”
They also ensured that limited justice resources were utilized to decrease recidivism and improve public safety.
Based on these findings, VIJ helped the task force develop a policy outline to address “drivers of the corrections population” and ensure that limited justice resources are used to decrease recidivism and improve public safety.
The policy recommendations evolved into Senate bill 226.
The bill served to “make available objective risk and need assessment for judges’ use in sentencing, support improved community supervision practices, and create incentives for those who are incarcerated and under supervision to complete evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism,” according to the report. The legislative changes were also designed help judges make informed decisions about pretrial releases.
The legislative changes had strong bipartisan support and led to a near-unanimous passage. It was signed into law, August 2012 by Gov Markell.
The new legislation is expected to reduce the number of people jailed before trial, provide better rehabilitation programs in prisons and improve the monitoring of former prisoners.
The changes are having positive impacts; however, much more remains to be done, according to VIJ’s study. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance sponsored the project.
Delaware’s justice system is a cohesive one, the report states. It is one of a few judicial systems where the state’s prison system has custody of both pretrial and sentenced populations.
The state’s effort is germane not only to other states, but also to local jurisdictions, which are normally responsible for jail populations.
Delaware’s arrest rate for violent crime was 1 in 322, compared with 1 in 529 for the U.S. as a whole.
“The state was ranked fourth in America for its violent crime rate,” stated the VIJ. “This would be cause for alarm even if Delaware’s prisons were not overcrowded.”
While other jurisdictions mull over how best to spend slim public safety dollars, Delaware’s understanding offers a supportive example of what can be achieved through close consideration of information and social science, according to VIJ. All four of Delaware’s prisons are over design capacity even through the prison’s intake has been relatively stable.
However, the state’s department of corrections reversed its five-year trend in 2008 of increasing expenditures and began trimming operating costs.
The study showed that “this had a limited impact on overall correctional spending, without reductions in its prison population; Delaware could not spend less on corrections and still protect public safety.”
Prior to getting VIJ involved, Delaware’s policy makers did not have access to opportune, reliable data regarding its criminal justice system. The state had not measured recidivism—the rates at which those exiting prison commit new crimes.
Without knowing how much crime was committed by repeat offenders, it was not possible to know how much of an effect recidivism was having on high rates of violent crime, and how much to target that population.
The new legislation covers evidence-based practices and targets what actually works by identifying data investigation results such as; implementing pretrial risk assessment; responding to violations of supervision appropriately, and addressing needs of the correctional population to reduce recidivism.
VIJ is assisting the Department of Correction, Justice of the Peace Courts, Statistical Analysis Center, Criminal Justice Council, and Administrative Office of the Courts in effectively implementing the new legislation.
VIJ explains, “There are challenges ahead, but Delaware’s experience… can serve as an example of how to invest resources wisely for better public safety outcomes for both states and counties.”
This cost-saving legislation can result in smaller jail populations, reduce rates of recidivism, and it aims to reduce victimization, increase safety, reduce the long-term prison population.
Three-Judge Panel Pushes Brown on Population
Gov. Jerry Brown’s effort to shun a federally imposed population cap on California’s prisons was met with clear-cut directives by a three-judge panel.
The judges ordered Brown and prison officials to provide a plan outlining what measures are necessary for the state to meet and maintain a federally imposed population cap of 137.5 percent of design capacity on its prison facilities.
The court gave the governor and prison officials until May 2 to submit a “list of all prison population reduction measures identified or discussed as possible remedies” to met the population cap imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.
The three-judge court criticized the state lawyers for “simply seeking to re-litigate the 137.5 percent question” by attempting to have the court modify the cap to 145 percent. The state’s attempt to challenging a legal conclusion is not a permissible basis for modifying the population cap, the three-judge court stated in the May 8 decision. California prisons were operating at 149.7 percent of designed capacity as of April 3, according to prison officials’ numbers.
The cap was ordered after the Prison Law Office filed lawsuits against the state for overcrowded conditions and poor mental health care.
The court ruled California’s prisons are overcrowded because there isn’t enough staff and space “to provide constitutionally adequate medical health care and mental health care.”
The court further noted that “given the criminogenic nature of overcrowded prisons, substantial evidence supported the conclusion ‘that a less-crowded prison system would in fact benefit public safety and the proper operation of the criminal justice system.’”
The three-judge court suggested several methods the state could use to meet the cap: “(1) early release through the expansion of good time credits; (2) diversion of technical parole violators; (3) diversion of low-risk offenders with short sentences; (4) expansion of evidence-based rehabilitative programming in prisons or communities; and (5) sentencing reform and other potential population reduction measures.”
The court recognized “despite the fact that 14 percent of California’s misnamed ‘Lifers’ population—which consists of over 30,000 inmates—are over 55 years old, defendants (the state) have taken no meaningful action to release elderly low-risk prisoners in this category.”
Since the prison population is approximate 119,000 and the prisons are capped at 110,000 the court concluded approximately 4,500 elderly prisoners would be released if the state took this action, accounting for about half needed to meet the cap.
The state’s “greatest failure” was “with respect to…the expansion of good time credits,” the court recognized.
If the state “were to adopt the policies of other jurisdictions and increase the length of goodtime credits to 4-6 months and award credits to inmates regardless of their offense or strike level, these changes would, on their own, reduce the prison population by far more than the amount necessary to comply with the 137.5 percent population cap,” the court claimed.
The three-judge court stated how to comply with the order was up to state officials, but confirmed that complying with the cap was in the May 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision, capping the prison population. The three-judge court additionally noted the state had four years to comply with the order, considering the lengthy appeals process.
The state adopted AB 109, more commonly known as Realignment, in October 2011 as its way of meeting the cap. The three-judge court noted, “It soon became apparent, however, that Realignment was not sufficient on its own to achieve the 137.5 percent benchmark by June 2013 or to meet the ultimate population cap at any time thereafter, in the absence of additional actions by defendants.”
In a previous hearing, the court extended the June 2013 benchmark to December in order to allow the state to develop a feasible plan to meet the cap.
The court determined the state’s failure to take all necessary steps to comply with the cap required an order demanding that the state “develop a system to identify prisoners who are unlikely to reoffend or who might otherwise be candidates for early release, to the extent that they have not already done so.”
If the state fails to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent design capacity in a timely manner, the court process will nevertheless permit compliance with the order through the release of low-risk prisoners, the ruling states. The court gave the state until July 19 to complete “this identification system.”
The prisoners’ lawyers filed papers in the court claiming the state “already had risk instruments by which they could identify low-risk prisoners for release and that implementing a good time credit program was quite straightforward.” Moreover, the prisoner’s lawyers noted, the state “made no effort to seek the needed legislation” on good time credits or sentencing reform.
This footnote to the case was acknowledged by the three-judge court:
Former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Jeffery Beard testified on behalf of California prisoners at the 2009 trial. Since that testimony, Beard has been appointed as the California director of prisons. He has since revised his position on the crowding issue.
The 71-page decision concludes: “Having been granted a six-month extension, defendants have no further excuse for non-compliance. If defendants do not take all steps necessary to comply with this court’s June 30, 2011 order, as amended by this court’s Jan. 29, 2013 order, including complying with the order filed in conjunction with this opinion, they will without further delay be subject to finds of contempt, individually and collectively.”
The Effects of California’s 3 Strikes Law
Benny Elmore cannot forget the $1.16 box of donuts that got him sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.
K Mart security officials say cameras showed Elmore picking up the donuts with the intent of stealing them. Store employees rushed Elmore, subdued him and a struggle ensued. Because of this confrontation, what might have been a misdemeanor became a robbery.“I do not want to die in prison for the theft of a $1.16 box of donuts,” said Elmore, 65, but indeed he might because his conviction exposed him to the California Three Strikes Law.
Elmore is not alone. Some estimates have been made that thousands of Three Strike California prisoners are facing life sentences for non-violent crimes that can only be described as stupid, even comic, according to a recent Rolling Stone article titled “The Stupidest Law Ever,” by political writer Matt Taibbi.
Last November, voters passed Proposition 36, a reform measure designed to free some of California’s Three Strike offenders. It has begun slowly to take hold, but at the same time, the new law left thousands of other prisoners asking, “When is it going to be my turn?”
Proposition 36, according to estimates, might affect up to 2,800 felons. As of early May CDCR released figures showing about 500 or 16 percent of these eligible offenders have been re-sentenced since last November.
Almost anyone convicted of a non-serious or non-violent third strike theoretically is eligible to apply for re-sentencing.
The only exclusion to this criterion is a prisoner who was previously convicted of a sexually violent crime, lewd act with a minor, murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault on a peace officer with a machine gun, or possession of a weapon of mass destruction.
Many Three Strikers have never been convicted of the specific crimes that would automatically exclude them, but they do have a non-violent current strike that can best be described as marginal, but in the interpretation of the district attorney and the court, it was enough to result in a life sentence.
All it takes is for a crime to be classified as “serious” under the California Penal Code for the prisoner to be stuck with a lifelong third strike.
Crimes making the “serious” list most commonly are burglary and robbery, even if no victim was harmed.
Robbery is a felony, but it varies in severity. Nevertheless, the Three Strikes Law led some district attorneys to prosecute apparently petty crimes under the severest interpretation.
According to a Stanford University study titled, Wobblers & Criminal Justice In California A Study Into Prosecutorial Discretion, “ As the chief law enforcement official in the county, the DA has a duty to act as a zealous advocate for the interests of the State in enforcing the law.”
Julius “Kimya” Humphrey Sr.’s undoing was not donuts, but an automobile part.
Humphrey was imprisoned under Three Strikes for the theft of a car battery. This was the fourth sentence he had served, but he has been picked up on 21 parole violations before the battery incident.
Humphrey says he regrets and is ashamed of being locked up 25 times. After being convicted of his Third Strike, he went back to the cell and told himself, “This is it. Society doesn’t even want anything to do with me.”
Humphrey said he decided to change his ways after he received his life sentence. He attends self-help programs and college classes now.
Humphrey is one of the fortunate ones. He qualifies for re-sentencing under Proposition 36, but he doesn’t think the new law is broad enough.
“Some of the guys who aren’t affected by Proposition 36 have never hurt anyone.” He adds, “I have violence in my past and I’m going home, but some guys are excluded for breaking into someone’s house, and that just ain’t fair.”
Larry Lechuga, 57, is an example of a prisoner serving life under the Three Strikes Law for first-degree burglary without any violence.
Unassuming and humble, Lechuga looks akin to a homeless man down on his luck. He has been classified as mentally slow and received Social Security Insurance for his mental disabilities.
Almost nine years ago, Lechuga was on parole for burglary, the only crime he had been convicted of at that time. He had a bad drinking problem, and as a result, he had been kicked out of the halfway house where he had been living.
Fearing his parole officer was going to violate his parole for leaving the halfway house, Lechuga said he took to the streets of Sacramento.
One night after drinking, Lechuga went looking for a friend’s house where he had been promised he could sleep in the garage.
Lechuga went to what he thought was his friend’s house, and walked in the back door of the garage. Mistakenly, Lechuga chose the wrong door. He encountered an ex-Marine in the garage he entered.
Lechuga fled, fearing he was going back to prison. He was captured by the resident and brought back to the garage under citizen’s arrest.
“I didn’t touch a thing, I just opened the wrong door by mistake,” Lachuga said. It was costly: a 45-year-to-life sentence.
Had Lechuga been found guilty of illegal entry, he would not have faced Three Strikes.
Taibbi writes, “District attorneys were terrified of the political consequences of not seeking the max for every possible third strike (even when the cases were ‘wobblers,’ what lawyers call a crime that could be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending upon the circumstances, like petty theft), while judges were legally bound to impose maximum sentences whether they agreed with them or not.”
Both Elmore and Lechuga could conceivably have been charged with misdemeanors, but they weren’t.
When Proposition 184 – the Three Strikes Law – was approved by California voters, it was touted as a law to get violent criminals off the streets.
The law cast a wide net, though, and ended up netting many offenders that have never hurt anyone.
Proposition 36 was meant to remedy the problem, but there are still plenty of offenders that are non-violent that will not see any relief from the new law.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, as of March 2012, there are about 9,000 three strikers. Almost one-third of these three strikers stand a chance of getting out under Proposition 36, but that leaves many non-violent Three Strikers still doing life.
“I admit I was wrong, but I don’t think the time fits the crime,” Lechuga says.
What Some S.Q. Prisoners Think of Cinco de Mayo
The World Almanac reports there are cultural celebrations and awareness months throughout the year. February is Black History Month, March is Irish-American Heritage Month, May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, September is National Hispanic Heritage Month, October is Diversity Awareness Month, and November is National American Indian Heritage Month.
May 5th of every year features celebrations involving Mexican food, music, and culture in the U.S. and Mexico. But what exactly is being celebrated?
As the “Asked On The Line” column celebrates its two-year anniversary, it revisits the first question it posed to the mainline population at San Quentin in May 2011, when the column began: What is Cinco de Mayo? What do you think Cinco de Mayo celebrates or commemorates?
“Asked On The Line” asked the 19 men who participated in the Mother’s Day piece, what they think Cinco de Mayo celebrates. Eleven did not know what is celebrated on that day. “I don’t know. Revolution? Independence?” said Eduardo DelaPena. “I don’t know what it is,” said Kenyatta Leal. “But I know it’s not Mexican Independence Day.” Joe Demerson said, “I think they attribute that day to some sort of independence day.”
Others came to the conclusion that it was some sort of Mexican Heritage celebration or commemoration of some significant event. Trent Capell said, “Mexicans celebrate their liberation from something having to do with the Spanish.” Ke Lam said, “I think they celebrate their heritage.” Eddie Griffin said, “I had a cultural awareness group. I think the 5th of May represents some hurdle that the people of Mexico crossed or attained. I don’t know. A battle or event? Something significant.”
Five of the men were familiar with what Cinco de Mayo celebrates. Juan Arballo, Jose Camacho, Jose Linares, and Arturo Avalos all said it was for the “Battle of Puebla”. Robert Falstisco got it right when he said, “I think they (Mexicans) celebrate a victory over the French. It was a battle that they won.”
Mother’s Day Remembrance
The men on the mainline know and remember their mothers well.
“Asked on the Line” conducted random informal interviews with 19 mainliners about the character and personality traits of their mothers and asked: “What character or personality trait did you love most about your mom? Which trait do you both share? If you could give your mother absolutely anything, what would it be?”
Eduardo Delapena loves his mother’s perseverance, Juan Arballo loves his mother’s discipline, Jose Camacho loves his mother’s strength, and Trent Capell loves that his mother is nurturing. Aladdin Pangilinan said, “I love that my mother was passionate about being a mom. She loved us very much and taught us to have compassion for others.”
As for personality or character traits they shared with mothers, Arturo Avalos said he and his mother are kind, Robert Faltisco and his mom are both sensitive, Kenyatta and his mom are very private, and Joe Demerson and his mom care about people. Ke Lam said, “One thing about me and my mom is that we are both hella stubborn!”
Jose Linares would give his mom a hug and a kiss, James Burrell would give his mother a million dollars, and Kenyatta Leal would give her his presence. “That is what she wants the most,” said Leal. Vaughn Miles said, “I would give my mom her dream home, built from the ground up, wherever she wants.” Eddie Griffin said, “She already has my unconditional love, but if I could provide it, I would give her a happy and productive life.” Ke Lam said, “My mom lost both her mom and dad. If I could, I would bring her parents back.”
An ‘OG’s’ Perspective
The Struggle We Have With Personal Choices
It’s hard to live in a whore house and not become a trick. Even for the most “virtuous” among us, it would probably be hard to resist the temptation. If you stay inside that house long enough, day in and day out, what might originally have been offensive or immoral or unethical to you becomes normal. Eventually you will find yourself checking your watch and counting your money too.
The same idea goes for living as a prisoner. It’s hard for someone to live in a prison and not be influenced by prevailing attitudes and behaviors contained in such a rigidly regulated environment. It’s also difficult to have the moral courage to stand on principles, resist peer pressure, and maneuver around prison politics. However, it’s not impossible.
For example, Malcolm X (Al Hajj Malik Shabazz) and Nelson Mandela—two of the most iconic prisoners of our time—were able to turn their negative situation into something positive. Despite their conditions, Malcolm and Mandela cultivated self-motivation, rearranged their priorities, elevated their consciousness, and became committed warriors of social justice. This is an example we also can follow.
Malcolm X, self-proclaimed pimp and street-hustler, sentenced to prison, decided to challenge and change those self-destructive views and values defined by his past. He didn’t like what he saw in himself, society and world. Thus he decided to question the status quo and change the man he was. He challenged himself to study, discover and teach the truth and meaning of his experiences.
And Nelson Mandela, despite his capture, political prosecution, and years of isolation at notorious Robben Island, refused to give up, give in and give out. Finally, Mandela negotiated his release and became the first Black president of a democratic South Africa. He once triumphantly remarked, “In my country, we go to prison first and then become president!”
“To be free is not merely to cast off one’s
chains, but to live in a way that respects
and enhances the freedom of others” –
Nelson Mandela
Keep in mind, that this is certainly not an “OG” argument for “conformity” or for more prisons; nor is it in any way suggesting that Malcolm and Mandela believed that prison is an ideal place for obtaining a good education. Rather, this is a question and a quest for prisoners to understand how these two determined men, sentenced to prison for completely different reasons, overcame and transcended their surroundings.
Malcolm X once wrote, “in the hectic pace of the world today, there is no time for meditation or for deep thought. A prisoner has the time he can put to good use. I’d put prison second to college as a best place for a man to go if he needs to do some thinking…If he’s motivated, in prison he can change his life.”
Mandela also wrote, “prison itself is a tremendous education in the need for patience and perseverance. It is above all a test of one’s commitment.”
Malcolm and Mandela didn’t allow prison to defeat them but to motivate them. They channeled their time and energy into something educational and beneficial. We all know that prison is essentially a form of institutional violence and not a very humanizing place to be. But, even though prison is bad, the question is how can it be used as a place for good?
It can be argued that both Malcolm and Mandela assumed their generational responsibility by passing the “historical baton” to the younger generation. In addition, it is important to understand that the historical baton is not something you just pass on for the sake of passing it on. There’s a legacy actually behind it. The legacy is concrete. It’s not just about stories told. It’s about the legacy living within the next generation.
At the heart of this process called human history, there’s an obligation for each generation to learn from the previous, incorporate their own experiences, and be responsible for passing the baton on to the next. Our struggle is not simply against ignorance but also against illusion. And the struggle against illusion is the greater battle. For ignorance is simply the absence of knowledge, but illusion is the assumption of knowledge even in its absence. One of our responsibilities and obligations as OG’s is to identify and dispel those illusions.
In order for generations to flow towards the future in health and wisdom in this process, there needs to be a clear space for this essential transmission from one generation to the next. That space is necessary and needs to be created and utilized and protected. This is critical for both the younger and older generations to name and remember what is important and meaningful and not to be subject to circumstances or conditions that would make them believe lies about themselves or weaken the ties for family, identity, and community.
So, whether we’re talking about whore houses, prisons or “hoods,” we are not compelled to submit or surrender to the dictates of those conditions. Although we all have choices, those choices are based on our conditions. Choices arise and are presented to us in a given context. And that context can either impede or inspire human possibility. But ultimately, it is up to us whether we choose to surrender to our circumstances or struggle to overcome them. It is up to us to decide if we want to be tricks or free.
*I’ve started receiving answers from March’s “OG” column. Responses will be published in June’s issue.
Pelican Bay Segregated Housing Units Reported as ‘Torturous’
Conditions at Pelican Bay’s Segregated Housing Units are tortuous, according to men interviewed for KQED by reporter Michael Montgomery.
More than 1,000 SHU prisoners at Pelican Bay spend 22 ½ hours a day in a windowless 8-by-10 foot cell in the bunker-like facility, report states.
Each day, prisoners are given 90 minutes of exercise time in a small yard that has 25-foot walls and a view of the sky.
Civil rights groups say long-term isolation amounts to torture, while prison officials say SHU units are necessary and conditions are humane.
More than 500 state prisoners have been committed to SHU terms for 10 years or longer, the report states. Seventy-eight have been in the SHU more than 20 years.
San Quentin prisoner Dan Sanders has done a SHU term.
When asked if he considered the conditions tortuous, he said, “Yes.”
Pelican Bay SHU prisoner Jeremy Beasley was interviewed for the KQED report. Montgomery was Beasley’s first visitor since 1994. “I’ve seen guys lose their minds back here,” Beasley said.
A coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit last year stating prolonged SHU terms are harsh, inhumane and debilitating – prisoners are denied telephone calls, contact visits and vocational, recreational and educational programming.
Prolonged torment of confinement has produced harmful and predictable psychological deterioration, according to the lawsuit.
Corrections officials maintain that SHU conditions are humane, and that prisoners are “segregated” but not “isolated,” and the purpose of keeping prisoners in SHU is to protect other inmates, staff and the public from men that have been linked to violent prison gangs.
Since last October, officials have reviewed 144 SHU cases and determined 75 should be immediately transferred to mainline prisons.
New Class Teaching Diabetics
A new diabetes class began at San Quentin’s H-unit in February. “So far the results are promising,” said Nurse Appleton.
After relocating to San Quentin in 2009, Nurse Appleton was looking for ways to help prisoners improve and manage their health. “We diagnose prisoners with a medical condition but don’t educate them on how to manage it,” she said.
Nurses monitor and administer insulin treatment to prisoners while they are incarcerated, but once paroled they are given a 30-day supply so they could treat themselves.
Last year, a prisoner asked Nurse Appleton about the possibility of starting a diabetes class in H-unit.
Nurses Appleton and Pedersen decided to start a trial class by using two prisoners trained in diabetes management by Dr. E. Tootell, Chief Medical Officer of San Quentin. “I wanted to combine my love of teaching with my love of humanity,” Appleton said.
For the first class, Nurse Appleton selected 10 prisoners who had poor track records for diabetes management or had an upcoming parole date.
“I feel good about the response we have been getting,” Nurse Appleton said. “The inmates are enthusiastic and are helping each other.”
The group consisted of diverse ethnicities. They received new glucose meters to monitor the glucose levels. At other prisons, these glucose meters are considered contraband, but at San Quentin, they are authorized after prisoners complete three weeks of the diabetes program.
At Pelican Bay, “there was very little humanity,” Nurse Appleton said. Prisoners at San Quentin are “more generous and caring,” she concluded.
“I feel fortunate to work and teach in San Quentin,” Nurse Appleton said. “I feel that education is power and expect to see further good results from the program.”