San Quentin News

Written By Incarcerated - Advancing Social Justice

California Pays Millions To House Foreign Prisoners

by

The California budget is burdened by the cost of imprisoning foreign nationals, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign an executive order March 1, which will mandate turning over foreign national state parolees to the federal government, thus removing them from the state parole system.

FOREIGN NATIONALS

According to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office, California is housing at least, 10,000 foreign nationals in its prison system. The cost of housing an inmate in a state prison is approximated at near $49,000 per year according to Jeanne Woodford, former acting secretary of corrections. In addition, it costs the state another $14,000 a year for health care costs, which makes the total cost of keeping 10,000 foreign prisoners in state custody approximately $630 million per year.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The federal government used to pick up half of the cost due to their interest in offender deportation. George W. Bush removed the funding by an executive order because California doesn’t honor the exchange treaty most of the time, according to corrections officials.
The governor’s figure on how many foreign prisoners are in California prisons is disputable, because, Section 1 of Stats.1992, (A.B.2519), which provides the legislature’s findings that: as of March 31, 1994, there were 13,558 persons in the Department of Corrections facilities that were subject to United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) holds  potentially an additional 5,415 persons in these facilities were also subject to INS holds. Based on these numbers, it is estimated that the real number of foreign nationals in the California’s prison system is twice as much as the governor’s figure. The issue, if considered by the legislature during the state budget crisis may end up saving the State $1.2 billion a year.

CALIFORNIA LAW

California Penal Code Section §2912, “Foreign Prisoner Transfer Program,” provides for notification to foreign born inmates concerning eligibility to serve term of imprisonment in their nation of citizenship. Subsection (b)(1) & (2) mandates that The Board of Prison Terms shall actively encourage each eligible foreign national inmate to apply for return to his or her nation of citizenship, and that the Board shall adopt the model program developed by the State of Texas for encouraging participation in the federal repatriation program. None of these laws as of yet have been set into action, and none were considered by the legislatures during the last state budget negotiations.

WAITING TO GO

“I have been filing requests for prisoner transfer to my native Kosovo for nearly 10 years, but received no response from the Parole Board. Now, after 27 years I’m found suitable for parole and the governor did not object, I‘m only waiting for ICE to pick me up to go all the way home. As far as I’m concerned, these laws are created only to be applied to some people, not to everyone,” says a former state prisoner, Ali Pertsoni, 56, a citizen of Kosovo.
Another foreign national lifer inmate says, “I even signed a waiver challenging deportation in federal court in order to expedite my return to my homeland now that I exceeded my minimum eligibility for parole. It seams neither the Board nor the prison counselor knew any of these procedures, one of my former counselors never heard of the Prisoner Transfer Treaty. I obtained the form from other inmates who have similar interest.”
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s yearly report to the Legislature doesn’t include any statistic regarding foreign nationals in the custody of the state. There are a number of inmates who meet the minimum eligibility of parole (MEPD) and many are seeking repatriation.
 

The U.S. Justice System, Moving Towards 18th Century

by

A punitive justice system and social disparity bequeath U.S

with the largest incarceration in the history of the world

 According to the National Criminal Justice Commission, the U.S. has engaged in the largest imprisonment buildup of any country in the history of the world. Americans in prisons and jails have quadrupled to 2.3 million. Minority groups rate of incarceration increased tenfold. African Americans are incarcerated at a rate six times that of whites.

According to Bruce Western’s study on Reentry, communities with few resources are facing additional social pressures by absorbing 700,000 returning prisoners each year. This disparity exists because African Americans are inclined to be arrested at higher rates than whites due to a police practice of racial profiling, and due to media depiction of African Americans and minorities in gangsters’ images.
“Basic human equality is associated with full membership in a community,” says the British sociologist, T.H. Marshall. Bruce Western writes, “The penal system was used to manage many of the byproducts of persistent poverty: untreated drug addiction and mental illness, homelessness, chronic idleness among young men, and social disorder. It was the management of these social problems, which fueled incarceration rates for drug users, public-order offenders, and parole violators.” This analysis may explain the shift in American attitude from a moderate social conscious society to fearful and vengeful.
“It’s an unjust system that one person gets life in prison for stealing a pizza, while a Wall Street Ponzi defrauds investors of $50 billion, ends up with a slap on the wrist,” says L. McBroom.
The Council on Crime in America presented a study that tends to vindicate the rising cost of victimized citizens. It claims that direct costs to victims which occurred six months or more after the crime is more important than the fiscal cost of incarceration.
Fear has been used as a tool in enacting politically motivated laws. Supporting such a theory, columnist Ben Wattenberg writes, “A thug in prison can’t shoot your sister.”
Nixon launched the war on crime with a plan to criminalize anti-Vietnam War demonstrators.
Reagan’s war-on-drugs justified U.S. black-ops in Central America. Politicizing the U.S. Supreme Court ignited mandatory minimum prison sentences and gave birth to Three Strikes Laws in many states.
Clintion’s  Anti Terrorist, and Prison Litigation Reform Acts launched the largest prison construction projects in U.S. history.
Post 9/11, fear of foreign terrorism was a key in enacting the Patriot Act Legislation, notwithstanding, calls for imprisoning forever any terror-suspect  without trial. A reminder of 18th century France where French citizens who were deemed abhorrent to the crown was arrested by secret warrants called lettres-de-cachet and imprisoned indefinitely in the Bastille fortress in Paris.
The climbing costs of maintaining the penal industry has strained many states’ budgets and diverted funds from schools and social programs to penal maintenance.
In New Mexico, prisoners rioted due to overcrowding and poor nutrition; it costed the state $38 million to clean up and repair the problem.
Overcrowding in Alabama state prisons led to the release of 222 inmates under federal court order on July 25, 1981. Similar action took place in Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, Illinois and New York.
In California, the correction’s budget reached $7.6 billion. During 2006’s visit to San Quentin, a law enforcement German Delegation noted that California’s Correctional budget is more than the annual gross domestic products of five  African nations combined: Mali, Niger, Chad, Togo and Sierra Leone .
With 33 prisons operating over 200 percent over normal capacity, the cost of inmate medical care increased from $345 million in 1995 to $2.2 billion in 2007.  The federal court had to place the prison’s health care system under federal receivership.  California is facing ongoing federal litigation about overcrowding.
The National Crime Victimization Survey, released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed violent crime in the United States is up 5.6 percent. These facts indicate that mass imprisonment and a punitive justice system did not deter offenders or protect society from harm, because “…that method failed to address the core of the social disparity,” says Bruce Western.
 
 

Warden Ayers Says Farewell To San Quentin

by

After a long career in the U.S. military and 38 years in California corrections, Robert L. Ayers Jr., 61, is leaving his Command post as the 33rd warden of San Quentin State Prison.
When Ayers became the warden, many inmates and staff had mixed expectations. His critics would point to his Pelican Bay era while acting warden, but his supporter point to his heroism in rescuing an elderly fisherman, which earned Ayers a Medal of Valor.
Slowly, assurance and enthusiasm replaced the skepticism. Inmates and staff came to find him approachable and his administration has marked an era of encouragement to grow. Good ideas grew as micromanagement diminished, vague rules gave way to sensible and workable practice. Volunteers found a listener in the warden. Programs arose that were never heard off in San Quentin, like the Inmate Film Program endowment by the Discovery Channel, Victim Offenders and Stand-Up.
The warden is a striking figure as he walks unescorted around the prison, dapper in a Panama hat, civilian coat and tie.
As one of the lifer inmates puts it, “When you approach the warden with a question, he would shake your hand and look you in the eyes and give you full attention.”
“Even to the last days in office, he defies the term ‘Lame Duck,’ and gives full attention to the establishment of the San Quentin Museum. I shall miss him.” says Don DeNevi, the new director of the San Quentin Museum.
“If there was a Hall of Fame for wardens, Robert L. Ayers Jr. would be inducted on the first go-around. His overall knowledge and experience in managing prison operations is astounding. Staff that have had the opportunity to work side-by-side with him have benefited greatly. As a leader, he instills pride, integrity and has a great sense of vision,” says John Curzon, associate warden.
Following is a Q&A interview with Warden Ayers:
Q: There is common knowledge that you have a military background.  Would you provide the readers with a brief history.
A: I entered the U.S. Army in 1966 from Infantry 2nd Ranger Battalion. After my discharge, I accepted a direct commission to first lieutenant, Infantry. For the remainder of my Reserve career, I was 91st Division, 7th PSYOP Battalion, and 104th Division, until my final assignment as commander, 1st Battalion, 415th Infantry, 104th Division after which I entered the Retired Reserve and completely retired from United States Army in 2007.
Q: Why did you choose to come back from retirement? Why San Quentin?
A: After my retirement in 2000, I continued to do some work with the department. I simply wasn’t ready to completely quit working. In 2005, the CDCR asked if I would be the interim warden at Lancaster State Prison (LAC) for 60 to 90 days. That experience reminded me that it really was fun being a warden. Sometimes vexing, sometimes exasperating but mostly fun. At the end of my tenure with LAC, I was asked if I would consider re-instating to be the warden at San Quentin. I knew SQ was experiencing difficulties  everything from keeping a warden to operational, personnel and litigation issues. Having spent my first 18 years in the department at SQ, I thought it would be a good “parting shot” to do whatever I could to help restore some dignity to SQ.
Q: What is your view on the rehabilitation efforts emphasized by CDCR?
A: San Quentin is widely known as the “program prison.” Because of its location, history and name there is no shortage of people wanting to come into SQ and help. Many of the program activities are evidence-based, scientifically designed processes intended to address behavioral, social or ideological issues which make it difficult for many men to stay out of prison. I was disappointed that SQ was not selected as a rollout institution for CDCR’s efforts. I know there are significant resources in CDCR trying to put together comprehensive, state of the art, evidence-based program models. I also know a couple of sites (not San Quentin) have been selected to pioneer these models. When (if) they were ever started, I would hope to see an enhancement to public safety. If we can do something with incarcerated people to reduce their proclivity to, upon their release, create new victims then we have done something positive in furtherance of public safety.
Q: With the financial crisis facing the state, in what stage does SQ currently stand on revamping the Prison Health Care System?
A: The receiver’s efforts are taking two slightly different tacks: 1. San Quentin and 2. Everywhere else. At San Quentin, building and staffing augmentation continue and are providing solid healthcare infrastructure. By the close of 2009 I expect San Quentin healthcare staff will be able to address 90percent of inmates’ healthcare issues on site. If attained, that will be an unqualified success for San Quentin and its inmate population.
Q: Some of your critics believe that you maintain a liberal policy advocated before your administration. What is the major difference in San Quentin before Warden Ayers, and after, as a matter of legacy?
A: I don’t know about “liberal policy.” I go back to what I said earlier about public safety. About 80 percent of the incarcerated people eventually go back to our communities. Do we want them to return with the same values and thought processes they had when they went to prison? I believe we should do everything we can with incarcerated people to deter them from re-victimizing society (creating new victims) upon their release. THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY. If that makes me liberal, I guess I am guilty. The question of before and during is simple. San Quentin had built a reputation of being what I described as the epicenter of anarchy. Peoplestaff, inmates, volunteers pretty much did whatever they wanted. If a policy or procedure was inconvenient or unpopular, people just ignored it. Consistency was a relatively unknown practice. Those who did care about following policy and procedure had largely given up as they believed they were a minority. My goal was simple: get people to follow the rules  policy and procedures. And fairness becomes a stable element in the core of our day.
Q: There were many self-help programs born in San Quentin during your administration. Would you highlight some of these programs and the measure of their success?
A: I think most of these programs have been here all along. Our efforts were geared to structuring them into a cohesive and interdependent platform. The most striking example of this is the Stand Up program in H Unit. San Quentin staff has done this on its own. With such significant success there is still much to achieve. Equally important has been our attempts to engage local communities in these efforts. By building a continuum between the institution and the community to which a parolee returns, we strengthen a parolee’s ability to succeed and ensure a positive impact on public safety.
Q: What do you see new for Death Row in San Quentin?
A: The funding has been approved. The building plans have been finalized. The plans have gone out to contractors for bids. The tentative groundbreaking is set for early spring 2009.
Q: Many of the prisoners fear a major overhaul coming to educational and self-help programs once you depart. What assurance can you provide them?
A: None. As of this date, Nov. 17, 2008, I have no idea (honestly!!!!!) who the next Warden will be. However, I would expect the new warden to be wise enough to study the terrain carefully before setting off in any direction.
Q: How did you manage to work with the federal receiver in light of constant tug-of-war between the receiver and the state, especially with many healthcare construction projects at stake in San Quentin?
A: We had and have a common goal: improving healthcare delivery systems in a correctional environment. We haven’t always succeeded in that regard but we have always been able to come back around to our starting point and get back on track.
Q: Is this a departure to another field, or trip to where the fish are biting, and what advice do you have the next warden, and to the prisoners?
A: I suspect I will do something in or around corrections. I am only sure that it won’t be as a warden! I will take my time and see where I can be most useful. Advice for the new warden? If it’s a sound policy or procedure follow it consistently. If it’s a bad policy or procedure, change it. Don’t ignore it. Advice for prisoners? Do your own time. It’s that simple. We have far too many inmates who think it’s their business to get into other people’s business and judge them or tell them how to behave. A bit less of that would do well for EVERYONE’S sense of well-being.
Robert Ayers Jr. may say that he doesn’t have a legacy, it’s just all “common sense.” But Robert Ayers Jr., will, among other things, be remembered as the man who brought the San Quentin News to life after two decades absence.
 
 

Prisoners Conduct Mock Election

by

In a well organized peaceful civil-dissent to state law that prohibits state prisoners and parolees from voting in local municipalities and national elections, San Quentin inmates conducted a mock election on Sat.,Oct. 25 which marked the beginning of absentee voting in California.
The ballot contained the presidential candidates, Obama-Biden (Democrat), McCain-Palin (Republican), Nader-Gonzales (Independent) and McKinney-Clemente (Green Party). It also included five state propositions from the Nov. 4 election, Prop. 5—The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (Nora), Prop. 6—The Safe Neighborhood Act, Prop. 7—Renewable Fuel Sources. Prop. 8—Protect Marriage Act, and Prop. 9—Victim’s Rights and Protection Act.
Classrooms became voting stations and community volunteers became poll-workers and election monitors. Inmates lined-up for voting, each presenting his prison  I.D. with picture identification at the check-in table where a volunteer and an inmate marks his name in the official print-out provided by the administration.
“Just to make sure nobody votes twice,” says Red, 57, an inmate with a big smile.  “I voted against Prop—8, because I don’t think they should amend the constitution. I voted against Prop— 9, because It’s a vengeful bill,” says Red.
Scott, 47, an inmate standing by the voting classroom conducting an exit-poll said, “I’m doing this to see how close our thinking process aligns with the outside community. It shows, even though we are not allowed to vote, that we are still involved and pay attention to the issues affecting our community.”
Mike Dunne, a community volunteer in S.Q. Film Makers Project, followed by a handful of inmates with expensive TV cameras, believes in rehabilitation instead of incarceration. “This idea of conducting voting here at S. Q. at the start of the absentee voting in California is an idea and a project by the inmates themselves. It has historic implications. It’s voting of the un-counted. It’s training for the inmates to follow the issues and to form  independent decisions based upon what is real, and objectively caring rather than subjective interests,” says Dunne.
According to Dunne, the ballots will be tabulated and sealed until Nov. 4. Similar voting will take place for inmates in H-Unit. Today’s designated for the 743 inmates of North Block.  The check-in records reflect that 66 percent of the population voted in this mock election.
“In Europe over 75 percent of eligible voters do vote. I know how it feels to be disenfranchised. I’m one of the disenfranchised. I can’t vote because I’m not a citizen. This election is about the men here. There are too many issues at stake in this election.  I would like them to have hope by connecting to common issues,” says Doris, a German citizen and a graduate of San Francisco State University with a degree in psychology.  Doris, who refers to S.Q. inmates as “the men,” believes that Prop. 9 is catastrophic. “We ought to direct our social education toward building society of citizens rather than of consumers,” said Doris, before paying full attention to the entire baseball team, arriving in their team uniforms to vote. Someone said, “They may run-out of ballots.” Another inmate shouted “Florida, Florida!” Laughter and comments before Doris responded, “We have the ballot template, and if we need more we will get copies.”
Kathleen, a seventh-grade teacher who teaches English to S.Q. inmates participating in Patten University, believes that a great number of the inmates are more aware of the socio-economic issues than many people on the outside. She finds most of the inmates knowledgeable, engaging and seeking redemption by trying to learn more.  “This election gives them a sense of hope that someone really cares,” says Kathleen, who is not a democrat but does intend to vote for Obama, “because he gives hope to many.”
When asked if this mock election would make any difference, she responded with deep earnestness, “There is a man who came and voted, and after he was done he said, ’I don’t feel like a criminal right now.’  The fact (that) people don’t understand that people can change is a crime,” says Kathleen.
In Switzerland, the government faces pandemic drug addictions. They don’t consider it a criminal problem, but they consider it a health problem that requires a health solution.
The advocates of the Swiss solution say that decriminalizing similar problems in the U.S. would enlarge the problem, that sending adolescents and adults to prison for drug use would expand the power of a corporate vigil-justice driven by a rich lobby. Others advocate Prop—5 as a solution.
 

Translate »