San Quentin News

Written By Incarcerated - Advancing Social Justice

Courts may be better than parole board at determining parolee risk

by

Gavel court decisions


When a court orders the release of a lifer on parole, statistics show the parolee does not return to prison. But when the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) releases a lifer, some wind up back behind bars.
Why this discrepancy exists remains a mystery, but it is confirmed by recently released statistics from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/


Some inmates serving life sentences and who were later denied release by the state parole board eventually took their cases to court and successfully gained their release. These lifers released by court order have a zero percent rate of recidivism.
Two reports on recidivism published late last year by CDCR reveal that inmates released by court order in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13 never returned to prison.
In two 90-plus page reports, are CDCR records that indicate the parole board isn’t as knowledgable as the courts when it comes to predicting a lifer’s behavior once the prisoner departs on parole.

The report for 2011-12 fiscal year said, “Of the 349 lifers released by the BPH, 3.2 percent (11 offenders) were convicted of a new crime during the three-year follow-up period. None of the 10 lifers who were released by court order were convicted of a new crime during the three-year follow-up period.”
The overall CDCR recidivism rate for all prisoners released during the same time period was 54.3 percent, according to the report.
The report for the follow- ing fiscal year said, “Of the 478 offenders released by the BPH, 4.2 percent (20 offenders) were convicted of a new crime during the three-year follow-up period. Of the 14 offenders released by other means (e.g., court order), none were convicted of a new crime during the three-year follow-up period.”
The overall recidivism rate for that year was 46.1 percent. California defines recidivism as “conviction of a new felony or misdemeanor committed within three years of release from custody or committed within three years of placement on supervision for a previous criminal conviction,” according to both reports. “Generally, offenders sentenced to an indeterminate term (a life sentence) are released only after the (state parole board) has found them suitable for parole or the court orders their release,” the CDCR reported.
Under the California Public Records Act, the San Quentin News requested CDCR numbers on lifers released by court order in the last 20 years after they challenged state parole board denials. The News also requested the difference in recidivism rates between the two groups.
The CDCR said it has components of the information, but it would have to “create lists and computer programs to extract the information,” which would be costly and labor intensive.
Because lifers released on parole in California have such a low recidivism rate, the News requested data on lifers who were returned to custody in the last 20 years. CDCR reported that, until recently, it “made no distinction in its tracking between people released after a suit- ability grant, governor’s reversal and then court intervention, etc. They were all lumped together as BPH grants (of parole).”
However, in 2016, the BPH requested the department’s Office of Research to include recidivism data on inmates who fall into the “other releases” category. Included in this group would be some prisoners initially denied parole by the board on the basis of criteria which a judge later rejected, and the court ordered their release.
Information was extracted from CDCR’s Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS), to identify inmates released in both fiscal years “to determine which released offenders returned to state prison during the three-year follow-up period,” the report for the 2012-13 fiscal year stated.
The CDCR reported that it “presents the 2017 Outcome Evaluation Report, part of an annual series, which examines arrest, conviction, and return-to-prison rates for offenders released from CDCR adult institutions during a given fiscal year.”
“My hope is that this information will provide new insights to policy-makers and correctional stakeholders that will be useful in moving the state forward with regard to efforts that increase public safety through the reduction of recidivism,” said CDCR Secretary Scott Kernan in a memo last year.
The Indeterminate Sentencing Law was established in 1917 under Penal Code Section 1168. It allowed judges to determine a range of time to serve in prison for those convicted of a felony. Those convicted for the same crimes could spend different lengths of time in prison, depending on several factors, such as a prisoner’s individual conduct while incarcerated.
When the minimum length of sentence was completed, inmates went before a parole board that determined their release date. In 1977, the In- determinate Sentence Law was replaced by the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) under Penal Code Section 1170.
After the enactment of the DSL, only lifers and third-strikers are considered “indeterminately” sentenced, because the BPH determines their release date.
Overall, recidivism in California’s prison system has dropped. For example, CDCR numbers for fiscal year 2002-2003 show 103,934 inmates released from state custody. In the three-year follow-up period, 68,810 were returned to custody, bringing the state’s recidivism rate to 66.2 percent.

State’s sex offender registry has low recidivism rate


 

S.Q. College Program Reduces Recidivism

Time to Reshape Your Narrative

San Quentin News & Wall City Merchandise

Como expresar remordimiento

by

Sugerencias de como mostrar remordimiento.
Cuando se trata de expresar remordimiento muchos de nosotros, (lifers), fallamos en la manera que lo expresamos ante la Junta de Audiencias de la Prisión (el Board of Prison Hearings [BPH]) y en lo que en realidad los comisionados quieren escuchar. Aunque verdaderamente sintamos remordimiento.
Por lo tanto muchos reclusos deben de hacer una introspección personal de su[s] crimen [es]. Esta examinación debe incluir: asumir responsabilidad, mostrar remordimiento y hacer enmiendas.
Responsabilidad significa más que una simple palabra. Por ejemplo, “asumo responsabilidad por mis acciones.” Lo que importa a los comisaonados del BPH son detalles por lo que asumimos responsabilidad. ¿De qué soy responsable? ¿Qué hicimos específicamente, (refiriéndose al crimen)? ¿En contra de quien cometimos el crimen? ¿Cuándo? ¿Cómo? ¿Por qué?
Una manera de expresar remordimiento es mediante recordar la escena de nuestro crimen. Por ejemplo: escribir o mentalmente recordar que fue lo que paso el día que cometimos nuestro crimen. Es importante no dejar de lado ningún detalle para que podamos entender completa- mente por qué vamos a tomar responsabilidad, que fue lo que hicimos específicamente, en contra de quien come- timos el crimen, cuando, como, y por qué.
E. González es un reo que recientemente fue encontrado elegible para salir libre y comentó, “diariamente meditaba a cerca de mi crimen y eventualmente fui recreando las imágenes de lo que paso el día que maté. Esto me abrió la mente en tener más en cuenta el daño causado debido a mi irresponsabilidad de haberme emborrachado y como consecuencia prive de la vida a una persona inocente. Esto me ayudó mucho cuando estuve frente al panel del BPH me fue más fácil expresar un verdadero arrepentimiento ya que lo había vivido día a día por los últimos cinco años.”
El arrepentimiento es meramente la acción de arrepentirse. Tener tristeza por las acciones cometidas en contra de otra persona, y tener conocimiento completo de la experiencia emocional, mental y espiritual que infligimos contra nuestras víctimas.
Vayamos un poco más a fondo de únicamente sentirse mal o sentir vergüenza por nuestras acciones. ¿Por qué nos sentimos mal, tenemos vergüenza, o culpabilidad? La manera más simple es mostrar simpatía por los sentimientos de otros. ¿Qué fue lo que hicimos para sentir vergüenza? ¿Qué causa estos malos sentimientos?
Algo que podemos hacer es ponerse en el lugar de la persona(s) a quien(es) hicimos daño. Esto nos puede dar una nueva perspectiva cómo se siente(n) esa(s) persona(s), y tener más entendimiento del daño y trauma que le(s) causamos.
Según el currículo de VOEG (Victim/Offender Education Group),”El arrepentimiento del ofensor esta arraigado en su capacidad de sentir empatía [por los demás].”
Hacer enmiendas es simplemente reparar o compensar por el mal que hemos causado. Hay tres formas de hacer enmiendas por el daño que causamos. Enmiendas directas, indirectas, y viviendo una vida diferente a la que estábamos viviendo cu- ando cometimos nuestro(s) crimen(es).
Las enmiendas directas re- quieren que nos disculpemos directamente con las personas a las que les hicimos daño y que de alguna manera reparemos el daño causado. Esto puede incluir pagar lo que robamos, y pagar por los daños que nuestras victimas incurrieron debido a nuestras acciones.
Las enmiendas indirectas son aquellas que podemos hacer cuando no podemos reparar el daño causado di- rectamente o nos es imposible repararlo. Las enmiendas indirectas se demuestran por ejemplo donando a instituciones caritativas, convertirse en un donador de órganos, o haciendo donaciones anónimas a instituciones que se encargan de dar ayuda a personas víctimas del crimen.
Si no podemos hacer enmiendas directas o indirectas, podemos vivir una vida diferente a la que llevábamos cuando cometimos nuestros crímenes. Por ejemplo vivir una vida sobria, si es que nuestros crímenes tienen que ver con drogas o alcohol. No seguir robando, no usar la violencia en ninguna circunstancia, mantenerse fuera de las pandillas, no cometer más crímenes, y siempre buscar la oportunidad de ayudar a otros que estén pasando por situaciones similares a las que pasamos.
Estos son únicamente sugerencias de lo que podemos hacer ya que siempre podemos buscar otras alternativas para tratar de reparar el daño que causamos.

Migración Asistencia a con-nacionales Mexicanos deportados

Un legado de Comunicación Noviolenta

‘Somos ciudadanos de esta tierra – de estas tierras’

San Quentin News & Wall City Merchandise

CCWP advocates mount a fight to end LWOP

by

Courtesy of CCWP

Some of the 36 people serving Life Without the Possibility of Parole at CIW


Advocates are mounting a fight to end the other death penalty—life without the possibility of parole.
These “hidden death sentences” mean prisoners must live the rest of their lives in “prisons with extraordinarily high suicide rates, with substandard medical, dental, and mental health care and with scant rehabilitative programs. Prisons rife with gang violence, racism, and despair,” said Kenneth Hartman in a Truthout article.
Hartman was recently released from a life without possibility of parole sentence by the California Parole Board, which approves or disapproves commutations.
A sentence of life without the possibility of parole, known as LWOP, translates to staying in prison until you die and, some argue, wastes resources.
“It is not ‘tough’ to imprison people long past their proclivity—or even physical ability—to commit crime; to the contrary, it is a poor use of resources that could be put toward prevention.”
Ashley Nellis, senior research analyst at The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit research and advocacy center, said this in Still Life: America’s Increasing Use of Life and Long-Term Sentences (2016).

LWOP terms have quadrupled since 1992 despite a historically low crime rate and falling prison populations, according to research.
Evidence shows Blacks receive such sentences dis- proportionately. Blacks make up two-thirds or more of the LWOP population in Alabama, Illinois, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey and South Carolina. Also, half of all LWOPs are held in Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Louisiana and the Federal prison system, according to Truthout.
Moreover, in 2016, 53,290 or 1 in 28 incarcerated people were serving LWOP sentences.
The push to end LWOP sentences has increased.
“There has definitely been more advocacy on LWOP in the past five years,” Pennsylvania activist Ellen Melchiondo told Truthout.
Melchiondo was responding to United States Supreme Court rulings against juveniles receiving LWOP sentences, outcries about the cost for taking care of incarcerated seniors, and more engagement in fighting against LWOP sentences.
Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that “sentencing juveniles convicted of non-homicidal crimes to life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional,” and stated no juvenile could receive a life without parole sentence for any homicide without consideration of his or her age, according to Truthout.

“States can remedy the un- constitutionality of mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences by permitting parole hearings rather than resentencing the approximately 2,100 people whose life sentences were issued mandatorily,” said a 2017 Sentencing Project report cited in the Truthout article.
Additionally, the Coalition to Abolish Death by Incarceration, which includes several other organizations, has gained media attention with its rallies against LWOP in Pennsylvania.
California Governor Jerry Brown has reduced at least 42 LWOP sentences to 25 years to life with the possibility of parole. Lizzy Stewart, mother of an inmate, garnered 57,000 sig- natures to get her son’s LWOP sentence commuted in California, according to Truthout.
Back in 1913, a life sentence in the federal system was 15 years, according to Marie Gottschalk in a Prison Legal News article.
In 1972, the United States Supreme Court abolished the death penalty and many states responded with LWOP sentences, according to the Prison Legal News article cited in Truthout.
The Supreme Court ruling in 1976 reinstated the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Thereafter, a sentence of life without the penalty of parole became the normal default.
Hartman, who had an LWOP sentence until a commutation led to his release, points out that those who seek to abolish the death penalty shouldn’t settle for LWOP in its place.

“They believe we should trade the death penalty for [life without parole],” Hartman said. He believes a reduction to a LWOP sentence does nothing but change the method of execution to death by incarceration.
Hartman, freed in December 2017, and organizations continue to advocate against LWOP. Hartman released an anthology written by people serving LWOP called, “Too Cruel, Not Unusual Enough.” He’s handed the book out to key people like policymakers, judges and death penalty abolitionists, according to the Truthout article.
Courtesy of CCWP

California Coalition for Women Prisoners delegation that deliver the letter signed by over 100 organizations calling on Gov. Brown to end LWOP


On Aug. 6, over 100 people from organizations throughout the state, including the California Collation for Women Prisoners (CCWP) and Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB), showed up at Governor Brown’s office and asked for commutations of all 5,000 people in California serving LWOP. The group included formerly incarcerated people, family members of those serving LWOP, and other people from the several different organizations, many wearing black t-shirts that read: “Drop LWOP.”
“This is clearly a growing campaign/movement—it was beautiful, powerful and filled with emotion,” Pam Fadem of CCWP said about the trip to the state’s capitol.

Formerly incarcerated author, Donna Hylton

182 women serving life without parole

California’s next governor faces executions

San Quentin News & Wall City Merchandise

After 22 years Antoine Brown is a free man

by

After receiving a commu­tation of his sentence from Gov. Jerry Brown, Antoine Brown became the latest Kid CAT member to be found suitable for parole.
“During his 22 years of incarceration, Mr. Brown has demonstrated a clear com­mitment to his rehabilita­tion,” Governor Brown stated in his Dec. 23, 2017, commu­tation of Antoine Brown.

HRW Senior Advocate Children’s Rights, Elizabeth M. Calvin and Antoine Brown in SQ’s Protestant Chapel

HRW Senior Advocate Children’s Rights, Elizabeth M. Calvin and Antoine Brown in SQ’s Protestant Chapel


“Mr. Brown committed a senseless crime, but he has shown a clear rejection of violence and gang activity for many years. In light of his age at the time of his crime, his positive conduct in prison, and his determination to con­tinue giving back to society if released, Mr. Brown de­serves an earlier opportunity to make his case to the Board of Parole Hearings so they can determine whether he is ready to be released from prison,” the governor added.
On April 20, Brown was found suitable for parole.
“I committed a crime that took the life of an innocent man and attempted to kill two other people it is only by the grace of Allah, Governor Brown, and the Board of Parole Hearings  that I am given another opportunity,” says Brown, 40, who was serving 36 years-to-life for first-de­gree murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
“I am so grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate my change and for them to believe in me,” he adds.
Born and raised in South Central Los Angeles by his single mother and stepfather, Brown is the second of four kids.
“Growing up, my house­hold was peaceful. We went camping, fishing, and I had a great relationship with my stepfather,” Brown says.
The happy dynamic of the family changed when Brown’s parents were on the verge of splitting when he was 14.
“The love and attention I had was gone, and I thought it was my fault that they were going to split,” he says.
To cope, Brown turned to the streets.
“I went outside the house to find that love and belong­ing by joining a gang,” Brown says, during an interview.
“Soon I started ditching school, carrying a gun and getting into fights.”
At 15, Brown dropped out of school.
“I started hanging out in the neighborhood, selling drugs, gang banging and go­ing to parties. That’s all I did,” Brown says.
A day after learning his girlfriend was pregnant, Brown was informed that a fellow gang member had been shot at, and he took it upon himself to retaliate.
“When I heard my friend had been shot at, I didn’t even think about my unborn son. I was only thinking about building my reputation and proving my loyalty to my gang,” Brown says.
Twenty minutes after com­mitting murder in a retalia­tion, Brown was arrested.
“During the whole time in jail, my mind was on getting out. I didn’t even think about the consequences of my ac­tions or the victims’ feel­ings,” he says.
Brown’s son was born while he was in Juvenile Hall in 1996.
After a year and a half, Brown was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
“When I got convicted, I felt devastated knowing that there was a possibility that I will never go home to be with my son, who I’ve never held,” Brown says.
The fear of prison daunted Brown. “When I first came to prison, I had a lot of miscon­ceptions and was willing to do anything to survive. How­ever, it wasn’t like what I saw on TV. I was very fortunate to have older guys to guide me in the right direction.”
Brown received his GED in 2000.
He attributes his total transformation to his time in San Quentin. “The programs they had here, like VOEG  and No More Tears, helped me gain the insight necessary for me to understand the im­pact I’ve had on my victims because of my actions.”
While in San Quentin, Brown became the co-founder of Kid CAT .
“We wanted to create a program that would shed light on youth offender is­sues,” Brown says. “To see how it has now given back to the homeless and to help at-risk youth has been amazing to see.”
Brown has many accom­plishments, but they didn’t come without any speed bumps.
“In 2013, I received a dis­ciplinary write-up for a cell­phone,” Brown says. “I felt really ashamed and a hypo­crite for letting so many people down who believed in me. I knew if I was ever to get out of prison and set an example for my son, I need­ed to change my behavior.”
“Two years ago, my son was arrested, and it served as another wake up call be­cause he reminded me of myself.”
In 21 years, Brown has only met his son six times in person.
“The relationship I have with my son today is great, thanks to the mother of my son,” he says.
“My only hope now is to be a father to my son and be there to support him and en­sure that he feels loved.”
Upon parole, Brown wants to work with at-risk youths in juvenile halls. Brown paroled on Sept. 2018.

Lam Paroled After 22 Years

New Advocate Group Targets Parole Board


 

Sueños Que Se Desvanecen Libertad Condicional

by

“Me siento muy decepcionado con el sistema de mi país,” comentó Joe Ibarra de 85 años de edad, al San Quentin News. 

Ibarra es originario de Harlingen,Texas,  pero sus padres son Mexicanos. Ibarra señaló las dificultades que enfrentan los reclusos de edad avanzada en las prisiones de California.

  “Soy uno de los pintos más viejos en el sistema,” añadió.   

Ibarra, junto con Ramón Pineda y Antonio Mancilla, de 74 y 76 años de edad respectivamente, han purgado más de un siglo en prisión por homicidio en segundo grado.

Una entrevista realizada en San Quentin a presos de la tercera edad, reveló que algunas de las limitantes más comunes para que estos presos sean encontrados elegibles ante la Comisión de Libertad Condicional (BPH—Board of Parole Hearings) son: la falta de perspicacia acerca del crimen, el carecer de apoyo familiar como resultado del fallecimiento de la familia inmediata y enfermedades que hoy los aquejan.

El BPH le ha negado su libertad condicional a Ibarra en 15 ocasiones por falta de entendimiento más profundo de su crimen. “Me piden que haga más programas, pero ya no se me pega nada, se me olvidan las cosas.” Como prueba de su gradual pérdida de memoria, Ibarra comentó con lágrimas en los ojos, “Después de 38 años en prisión a veces ni a mi familia reconozco. Mi hermano me visitó después de largo tiempo sin vernos y no lo pude reconocer hasta que se terminó la visita. Se fue con el corazón roto.”

“Half of the state’s foster-care population is made up of children with opioid-addicted parents,” reports Bloomberg according to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican.  BUSINESSWEEK.com Oct. 9, 2017

Al igual que Ibarra, existen cientos de reclusos que debido a su avanzada edad les es imposible aprender o retener información educativa que incremente sus posibilidades de obtener una fecha de salida.   

Otro de los factores que limita a este grupo de prisioneros a obtener su libertad condicional es la falta de apoyo familiar y comunitario requerido por el BPH. “Durante los primeros años hice todo lo que estaba a mi alcance para obtener mi libertad, mientras contaba con el apoyo de mi familia. Sin embargo, eso no fue posible y con el paso de los años empecé a desilusionarme,” dijo Pineda. 

En el año 2017, el BPH le negó 5 años. “Esta última vez me pidieron cartas de apoyo de mi familia. Me siento atorado en este lugar. Me es imposible conseguir el apoyo que me piden.  Mi familia ya estaba avanzada en edad cuando torcí y ya han fallecido. Me siento frustrado porque de no cumplir prácticamente nunca podré salir de este lugar.  Me piden algo que nunca podre darles,” comentó con visible frustración Pineda, originario de Sinaloa, México, y quien lleva 38 años en prisión.

Para empeorar su situación, la BPH requiere a presos como Pineda purgando una sentencia de vida comprobar por escrito un lugar de residencia (conocido en EE.UU como casa de transición) en su país de origen. Desafortunadamente, el no contar con alguna carta de éstas instituciones limitan aún más sus posibilidades de algún día obtener su libertad condicional. “Solicite una carta de aceptación a varias casas de transición y nunca recibí una respuesta,” enfatizó Pineda.

Además, con el paso de los años la salud física de Pineda se ha ido deteriorando. “Pienso que sería muy difícil pagar por mis necesidades médicas, como mi insulina y medicamento para mis reumas”.  Pineda también mencionó, “hay días en que me pongo a reflexionar y pienso que sería mejor no salir de este lugar. Ahora solo saldría a dar lástima y a sufrir, aquí por lo menos me dan atención médica”.

Por su parte, Mancilla lleva 33 años en la prisión y le han negado siete veces la libertad condicional.  A diferencia de Pineda, Mancilla cuenta con el apoyo familiar. En su pueblo natal, Colima, México, trabajo como chofer de camiones de carga y tractorista. Sin embargo, no tiene un documento que avale estas habilidades. Hoy “Me piden que les lleve una vocacional, pero como no tengo mi GED no puedo entrar a los talleres vocacionales. Se me hace difícil obtener mi GED por mis 76 años de edad, el idioma inglés y mi estado de salud física. Me enferme de cáncer en el estómago y deje de asistir a la escuela. Todavía, estoy bajo tratamiento.”

Después de ser diagnosticado con cáncer estomacal, Mancilla explicó, “se me ha vuelto muy difícil y muy cansado estar en la tabla y hablar de mi crimen. Me siento muy mal, el estrés emocional me debilita físicamente.  Esta es una de las razones por las cuales he renunciado al derecho de estar presente durante mis últimas tres audiencias.”

Mancilla anhela poder salir de la prisión, reunirse con su familia, y volver a trabajar como chofer y tractorista. Sin embargo, su enfermedad le impide asistir a clases para obtener su GED y poder ser aceptado en alguna vocacional.

Por su parte, Pineda comentó, “Cuando tenía a la familia viva me interesaba salir y hacia lo que me pedían. Tenía la ilusión de ver a mis padres y cuidarlos. Hoy ya perdí la esperanza de salir libre.”

Ibarra tristemente externó, “cuando me encontraron elegible mi familia y amigos me compraron ropa y mucha comida para hacerme una fiesta. Yo regale todas mis pertenencias pensando que ya me iban a soltar. Pero el Gobernador me quitó la fecha de salida.” Frustrado, Ibarra añadió, “Fue como si me hubieran roto una promesa. Como si se me hubiera acabado el mundo. Como un perro cuando le quitan el hueso.”

Jorge Heredia and Marco Villa Contributed to this story

Deportation Crimes Explained

Un legado de Comunicación Noviolenta


https://sanquentinnews.com/fiesta-latina-en-la-graduacion-de-trip-en-espanol/

Restoring a community through healing dialogue

by

More than two dozen survivors of crime crossed the heavily riveted steel doors at San Quentin to face prisoners convicted of serious crimes, including murder. One of the key conclusions was that a healing dialogue is needed to improve communication between survivors and perpetrators.

The event was held Oct. 27-28 in the Protestant Chapel. Participants included prisoners, crime victims and families of victims, prosecutors and criminal justice organizations.

Dina Phillips has experienced the effects on both sides of crime.

“Over 22 years ago my world was shaken — not that there was any stability before, but this was far worse. I lost my niece when she was only 2 months old and my 16-year-old brother was sent to prison,” Phillips said.

“I chose to hold on to my feelings and avoided any talk about that part of my life. That was a very sensitive and broken part of my heart and soul that I did not allow anyone to see due to the fear of being criticized.”

For about two years Phillips shut everyone out of her life, because she believed no one would understand her pain, until she got in contact with the director of Healing Dialogue and Action.

“Never in a million years would I imagine that there were so many people out there who cared to hear my story without judgment,” Phillips said. “Healing Dialogue and Action, Human Rights Watch, ARC (Anti-Recidivism Collation), Restore Justice and all the men from San Quentin, you are all part of my healing journey.”

It wasn’t the first time inside San Quentin for Noelle Swan Gilbert. She’d been to the event in 2016.

Although Gilbert knew the prisoners were nervous, she felt confident because the men “(had) been doing the hard work of working in themselves while doing time.”

Gilbert knew most of them were also survivors of crimes.

“They are brave men to confront their pasts and to accept responsibility for their crimes,” Gilbert said. “It’s more than most people outside prison have the courage to do.”

With teary eyes, Anouthinh Pangthong told the room of nearly 150 people, “I am grateful to San Quentin State Prison’s administration for all the self-help programming it offers, because these programs helped me do the introspective work about my childhood to connect the dots as to how and why I once was so destructive, causing an innocent person’s life to be lost to street gang violence.”

Pangthong acknowledged that he cannot change the harm he caused, but “I can change how I respond today by being of service to my community,” adding, “This is why I am here today as my promise to you and those I hurt that I will spend the rest of my life promoting non-violence.”

Pangthong paused to contain his emotions and ended by sharing that after 21 years behind bars, he was found suitable for parole.

Next, all of the symposium participants formed seven small circle groups.

The circles provided space for each person to talk about or listen to the heart-wrenching stories about what it’s like to be an offender or survivor of crime.

A survivor said, “Throughout the process since the murder of my daughter and granddaughter, my family and I were never asked about our needs. I felt unsupported and utilized by the prosecution office. We longed for emotional support. Instead we felt pressured to secure the longest conviction possible against the person who killed my loved ones, as if this was going to help my family and me find the peace we so desperately needed.

“So my wife and I took this healing dialogue symposium opportunity to see what this process had to offer us to continue finding closure in our lives.”

To paint a picture of their dearly departed, the survivors shared the personalities of those loved ones they’ve lost to violence. They talked about loving their loved ones, their goals in life and their favorite thing to do during family gatherings.

Survivor Nora Agredano later revealed, “As I sat down with the wonderful men from San Quentin and told my story, they listened with intensity, and they were very concerned with my well-being. They took the time to make sure I was OK for the rest of the day.

“I listened to each man’s story and what brought them to this place with intensity. I listen (to) how far each of the men has come to reach a place where they see what damage they had done and their desire to give back to society. Each man has worked so hard to achieve the wonderful man they now have become. I am so proud to call them my friends.”

Despite the fact that survivors and inmates were complete strangers, the inmates poured out their raw emotions without restrains.

Eusebio Gonzalez shared his childhood background.

“I never met my father, and my mother left me for her boyfriend when I was 4 years old, leaving me behind with my grandparents. I haven’t seen her since,” Gonzalez said. “At 14 years old my grandparents sent me away to live with relatives here in the U.S, where I was never sent to school.

“Growing up I witnessed my grandfather and uncles drink alcohol to mask their feelings and emotions. I followed their steps and embraced their belief system that men control alcohol-use and not the other way around.”

Mariah Lucas later reflected by saying, “I feel like as victims and survivors we are oftentimes set aside when it comes to the criminal justice system – our cares, our needs, and our voices don’t matter to anyone. However, going into the prison and sharing my experiences with other victims and with men who have created victimization and being able to come to a mutual conclusion that we need more action, I felt validated and heard.”

Lucas added, “During the symposium we also came to a mutual agreement that we need a path that we can travel together to remove the block that society has put on the victim-offender relationship so that we can come together and create a more unified journey of healing, and we can destroy the current belief that these sides should stay away from each other.

“Moving forward we cannot look at people as criminals and as victims. We need to look at them as healers, people who want to work together to create a common peace, one we all long for, one we all dream for. At the San Quentin symposium, we were given that opportunity to make those dreams a reality.”

Survivor Jody Ketcheside reflected on the event, “As homicide survivors, we are often asked to share our stories. Sometimes it’s in an effort to educate, sometimes to help legislators understand the challenges and wishes of survivors. Sometimes it’s to connect with the men inside, bringing understanding and healing for all of us, and sometimes it is to create positive change in a system that so desperately needs it.”

The next morning everybody embraced each other with kindness, empathy and loving care. 

The best part of the day occurred when small groups reconvened after brainstorming how to best meet the survivors’ needs. A spokesperson was chosen from each small group to report about their suggestions. Astonishingly, the number one suggestion was to begin a healing dialogue —providing communication between the survivors and perpetrators.    

Clare Senchyna reflected, “On the second day the inmates in my circle expressed that they hoped us survivors were OK after the day previous, as they feared our trauma might have been re-triggered. I told them how I was reflecting on driving to San Quentin that morning how much lighter I felt, that participating in the circle the day previous had given me that gift, that I know I have every right to feel hate and anger and rage at the person who killed my only child. But that in itself is such a heavy burden to bear, and by spending the previous day with them, that burden was lifted a bit.

“I participated in these circles to help me continue to live, to ease the demons that visited after my son was killed. It has been one of the most therapeutic ways to find peace. Who would have thought? To be in a circle with those who have committed homicide and those who have been on the receiving end, and at moments realizing we could all have been in each other’s shoes. We are all imperfect humans sharing our common humanity. We don’t have that opportunity  much in the everyday world.”

Ketcheside also reflected, “Out of that brainstorming session came ideas for helping incarcerated people access victim services, helping survivors access information to ease their concerns with regard to parole, and an opportunity for so many survivors to be able to talk about how most of us don’t want prisons that are run punitively and our concern with the justice process from the start of the court proceedings.

“In this healing dialogue I was able to express my feelings on how survivors are treated in court and how we are coached to hate the defendant and how unsettling that was for me while I was trying to make sense out of something so senseless. We can’t learn from each other if we are afraid of each other.”

Gilbert reflected, “I was incredibly moved by the conversations we had within my smaller circle. We established an almost immediate trust with one another, perhaps because of our shared experiences or maybe because of the way the day was scheduled. We were able to let our stories unfold in a natural, more organic way, rather than start with the crime. It allowed us to lead with the human side of our stories, which helps us get to know each other as people first.” 

The event not only impacted the lives of the survivors who attended but also the lives of their absent family members.

One of the survivors, whose son was murdered two years prior to the symposium event, commented that she was skeptical coming into San Quentin. Nonetheless, at the end of the first day, she had changed her mind, saying, “Before coming into this meeting I thought about inmates as being monsters. After hearing your stories, I was able to see your humanity and repentance for the crimes you’ve committed. I was able to feel your emotions which helped me change my perception about inmates.”

At the end of the first day, she shared her experience with one of her daughters who had advised her against coming into San Quentin.

“After I told my daughter about such a powerful experience I had, she was intrigued and would like to take part of this healing dialogue process next time the opportunity arises.”

Gilbert shared that the symposiums are an important step for the outsiders and public safety officials, “to understand that survivors and people who have committed a violent crime are connected by pain. Pain is pain. We need to acknowledge this to start healing and to be a better support system for survivors of violent crime. There is pain on both sides of a crime, and it reaches beyond the immediate families for years, and pain doesn’t end with a prison sentence.”

Suddenly, the survivors and convicted men merged as one in an epic hug with their eyes full of tears while the rest of the attendees witnessed in awe the power of healing in its full splendor.

NOTE:

At the event were: Javier Stauring, executive director, Healing Dialogue and Action; Rebecca Weiker, program director, Healing Dialogue and Action; Nolice Edwards, chief, Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services; CDCR, Jennifer Shaffer executive officer, Board of Parole Hearings; Elizabeth Calvin, attorney, Human Rights Watch; Assemblyman Mark Stone; Heather Warnken, U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs;  Alexandra Mallick, executive director, Restore Justice; Heidi Rummel, USC law professor; Kate Chatfield, USF law professor and policy director at Restore Justice; Deputy Consul General Guillermo Reyes, San Francisco’s Mexican Consulate, and several Bay Area district attorneys.

First annual “victim awareness event” at CIW


https://sanquentinnews.com/javier-stuaring-brings-victims-offenders-together/

San Quentin’s big transition as non-designated facility


https://sanquentinnews.com/kid-cat-symposium-highlights-value-of-rehabilitation/

Commutation granted to John Vaden

by

After serving 15 years of a 19-year-to-life term for second-degree murder, John Vaden received an exceptionally rare commutation from California Gov. Jerry Brown.

In reaching his decision in April, the governor wrote, “Mr. Vaden’s crime has profoundly impacted (his victim’s family members), several of whom wrote to me to oppose clemency and express their enduring pain…

“Nevertheless, after carefully weighing this matter, I have concluded that Mr. Vaden has earned the chance to make his case before the Board of Parole Hearings so they can determine whether he is ready to be released from prison.

“In making this decision, I have given great weight to the recommendation of the warden of San Quentin, and the fact that Mr. Vaden—sent to an adult prison for a crime he committed as a 16-year-old—has resisted the powerful intimidation and pervasive pressures of criminal gangs that unfortunately wield power in our prisons. On the contrary, Mr. Vaden has availed himself of every opportunity to improve himself,” the governor added.

The governor also cited Vaden’s accomplishments, which included staying disciplinary-free, obtaining his GED, four vocational skills, and participating in multiple self-help groups.

Acknowledging the gift that he has been given, Vaden said, “This means the world to me because I get another chance at life and being a contributing member of society, as opposed to taking from it.

“I don’t believe that I deserved a commutation. I believe that it was an act of mercy by God through the governor and the Board of Parole Hearings.

“Mercy means withholding something I do deserve; I deserve being in prison for the rest of my life for senselessly taking another person’s life.”

In his plea for commutation, Vaden wrote, “I am no longer that 16-year-old boy who was not only rebellious and disrespectful toward authority figures but who struggled with low self-esteem, insecurities and peer pressure.”

Born and raised in South Sacramento, Vaden was the sixth of 12 children.

“Despite living in a crime-ridden neighborhood, I grew up very sheltered and in a religious household,” Vaden said.

“I was 10 years old when my father left us,” he said. “I lost my sense of security, and being the oldest boy in my family, I felt that it was my role to step up to take care of my family. So I sought male role models from my sisters’ boyfriends, who were gang members; they filled the void that my father left.”

Vaden’s life quickly spiraled out of control.

“I became disrespectful and bitter toward my mom. I also began acting out in school, until I was expelled in the eighth grade,” Vaden said.

“At 14, I joined a gang and began using and selling hardcore drugs like PCP and cocaine in the neighborhood.”

This trend would continue until one night, Vaden shot and killed a man during a botched drug transaction.

After his arrest, Vaden fought his case for more than a year before pleading guilty to second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 19 years-to-life at the age of 17.

Unlike most young offenders, who fall prey to peer pressure, Vaden made a decision to change his life early on.

“When I first came to juvenile hall at 16, I was wild, I was getting into fights, disrespecting staff and not following directions,” Vaden said. “After a year into my incarceration, I had a conversation with my grandma to turn my life over to Christ. That’s when my transformation started.”

Despite his commitment to change, it was not without its difficulty. At 17, when Vaden was sent to California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, he got a glimpse of what prison would hold for him.

“It was intimidating and overwhelming being in an adult prison,” Vaden said. “On my first week, I witnessed an assault. I saw multiple officers repeatedly beating and pepper spray a guy for three minutes while the guy was assaulting another inmate. It was a rude awakening.”

Through 15 years of his incarceration, Vaden attributes being disciplinary-free and focused to his relationship with God.

“My faith in Christ kept me out of trouble. I also surrounded myself with like-minded individuals, and I started to define myself by the principle of the Bible,” Vaden said. 

On Sept. 20 the Board of Prison Hearings found Vaden suitable for parole.

“After I got found suitable, I realized that there were no winners. It was hard to be happy or excited when I just got done sitting face-to-face with the horrific impact I had on my victim’s family,” Vaden said.

Upon parole, Vaden said he plans on utilizing what he has learned from his prison experience to help his community by mentoring young people.

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

Norway’s Halden prison ranked most humane

New Advocate Group Targets Parole Board

Higher age, fewer write-ups boost parole chances

by

Recent legal and regulatory changes have vastly improved the likelihood of an inmate being granted parole.

During the past decades of California’s “tough on crime” era it seemed like a soccer game. No one ever seemed to score a parole grant. It was not just the parole board “referees” calling it close. If you were breathing, it seemed like you were issued a red card and ejected from the match.

Sacramento, California
State’s Capitol

There is now a real chance of being found suitable for parole. In addition, we have a governor who is much less likely to revoke the board’s finding of suitability if you score a grant.Though there are no guarantees for getting a date, there are certain factors that can significantly improve your odds of being found suitable for parole, according to a Stanford University report published in the April 2016 Federal Sentencing Reporter (Stanford Report). The report reviewed 754 hearings.

The Stanford Report brings “Money Ball” style statistical reasoning to parole hearing outcomes. It uses statistics and probability to measure over 150 different factors and estimate how much weight the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) gives each particular factor.

PREPARING FOR THE BOARD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT SINCE INCARCERATION

Most lifers find preparing for the Board very stressful. In the November 2014 Prison University Project Newsletter’s “What It’s Like Preparing for the Board of Parole Hearings,” Kim (All-Amin) McAdoo said it represents “the most important event of my life since being incarcerated. It is an opportunity where I can possibly regain my freedom.”

As there is no record of the actual final private deliberations of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, the Stanford team identified 12 subjects and 152 separate variables in each transcript: basic information, background, crime, prior history, prison progress, exit plans, psychological report, District Attorney’s statement, inmate’s testimony, victim testimony, program participation and reasons for the Board’s decision.

With a 2015 grant rate near 30 percent, a better understanding of the BPH decision-making process becomes all the more relevant for those facing an indeterminate life sentence.

SIGNIFICANT FACTORS

Of the demographic variables  (race, sex, age, etc.), only age had a significant impact. The older an inmate is at a BPH hearing, the better their chances. For each extra 10 years of age, an inmate is 1.3 to 5 times more likely to earn a parole grant, according to the report. 

Age at crime commission, however, has a negative impact. For example, committing your crime at 30 instead of 20 reduced the likelihood of a parole grant by half.

Consistent with multiple studies, the Stanford Report “found no significant effects of an inmate’s race [or gender]” on either parole grant or denials.

Both positive and negative behavior in prison impacts parole grants. Participating in substance abuse programming has a positive impact. “Surprisingly, participation in other types of programs, which included educational and vocational programming, was not” significantly correlated to obtaining a grant, according to the report.

Negative behavior was measured by the number of # 128 (minor) and # 115 (major) rules violations an inmate had. The more # 115s you have, the lower the odds of earning a parole grant. “An increase of ten # 115s divided an inmate’s odds in half” the report said. 

Psychiatric evaluations were significant in suitability decisions. “An inmate who receives only scores of ‘low’ (with regard to risk of violence) is more than twice as likely to receive a grant, compared to an inmate who receives at least one score that is not ’low,’” the report discovered.

Conduct at the parole hearing itself may impact getting a date. The Stanford Report found three categories of factors that impacted an inmate’s odds of release: 1. Hearing characteristics; 2. Inmate testimony; and 3. Whether other people were present at the hearing.

Regardless of hearing start time (morning or afternoon), there was no difference in being granted parole. Inmates were almost as likely to be granted parole at the first hearing of the day as at subsequent hearings.

Inmate responses to questions demonstrated that if you have participated in a 12-step program, participants should know those steps. Those who failed a specific question (like being asked “What is step four?”), were only one-fifth as likely to be granted parole as those who answered correctly.

The fact that victims or victims’ next of kin attend about 10 percent of hearings, however, did not significantly impact hearing results.

District Attorneys (DA) attend a majority of hearings, typically to oppose release. Both DA non-attendance and the DA’s support of release improved the likelihood of a grant.

The term “insight” best defines the various intangibles that can impact a hearing. “One of the challenges that many of us inmates face at the board hearing is articulating insight,” McAdoo said.  “One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned is being both accountable and responsible.”

As someone who works with lifers every day, the Executive Director of the Prison University Project (PUP) at San Quentin, Jody Lewen, expressed the concept of “insight” in the April 2016 PUP Newsletter, Vol. 22, No.1, April 2016:

“One of the great ironies of San Quentin is how many people living there have developed a level of emotional mindfulness and sense of personal accountability that is rarely seen outside of prison. Many people have worked so hard, over years, to understand themselves, to take responsibility for harm that they have caused. Perhaps it is in part precisely that highly attuned sense of personal responsibility that can make the parole review process even more overwhelming.”

PUP was a 2015 recipient of the National Humanities Medal.

A copy of the above-mentioned Stanford Report is available to current students through the Prison University Project co-located in the education building.

https://sanquentinnews.com/study-explores-how-lifers-get-better-deal-from-parole-boards/

New Advocate Group Targets Parole Board


Boatwright

Study explores lifers going before the parole board

by

California is releasing more lifers on parole, according to a Stanford University report.

Between 2008 and 2015, the parole grant rate increased from 8 to 25 percent for those who appeared before the Parole Board in 2015.

“Parole has been viewed increasingly as a means of managing the state prison population,” according to the April 2016 Federal Sentencing Reporter (Stanford Report).   

This has not always been the case. Between 1980 and 2008, the grant rate for lifers was virtually zero. Not only were there few grants, California’s reliance on indeterminate life sentences differs significantly from other states. 

While California has approximately 35,000 lifers, Texas is in second place with fewer than 9,000. More than 30 percent of California’s prison population is serving indeterminate life sentences, followed by Utah (29.2 percent) and Nevada (21.5 percent).

The Stanford Report authors acknowledge that “the number is enormous, representing not only a significant percentage of California prisoners, but a substantial portion of the nation’s lifers.”

The developing trend toward parole grants and release decisions is due to the courts, legislation and Gov. Jerry Brown. 

CA Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2008 (In re Lawrence and In re Shaputis) that said an inmate could not be denied parole based solely on the outrageousness of the crime committed. Rather, the assessment must be based on the “current dangerousness” of the inmate.

These rulings were counter-balanced with the passage of Proposition 9, Marsy’s Law, in November 2008. Prior to 2008, the default denial length was one year. Marsy’s Law changed parole denials’ default length to 15 years, which could only be reduced where there was “clear and convincing evidence that safety considerations did not require longer incarceration.”

Even after the passage of Marsy’s Law, the parole grant rate continued to increase. The 2011 U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Plata ruling that California’s overcrowded prisons violate the Eighth Amendment has forced the state to take numerous actions to reduce prison population.

With lifers as a significant portion of California’s inmate population, Governor Brown led a restart of the parole process. Brown appointed Jennifer Shaffer as the executive officer of the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) in 2011.

Shaffer has overseen both administrative changes and new professional development training resulting in an increase in grant rates to over 25 percent in 2015. These suitability findings are overturned rarely under Brown. Since 2011, Brown has reversed fewer than 20 percent of the rising number of BPH grants.

The Stanford Report brings Money Ball-style statistical reasoning to understanding the BPH decision-making process. The next article in this series will present a crude statistical model for predicting outcomes.

The model is based on knowledge — meaning anything that increases your ability to predict an outcome. It will help you make better predictions than trusting your cell-mate. In the Stanford Report, the statistical model has over 150 different factors and it determines how much weight to give each particular factor.

A copy of the above-mentioned Stanford Report is available through the Prison University Project (PUP) to all PUP students.

Higher age, fewer write-ups boost parole chances

Prison reform could free 30,000 inmates says CSJ


http://sanquentinnews.com/tasty-graduation-for-the-first-class-of-sq-chefs/
Boatwright

How lifers get better parole board deal

by

Justicia rota

Justicia rota

For decades, lifers were rarely found suitable for parole. Now more than 20 percent are being paroled.

Why? Thanks to changes at the legal, executive, as well as an initiative petition and administrative levels.

Many more prisoners will now have access to parole because of the passage of Proposition 57 in November 2016. It will likely allow thousands more inmates to go before the parole board.

That’s great news for the men in San Quentin who yearn to go home. Now they just need to understand how to take advantage of the changes.

In this first of three articles, which are based on a ground-breaking Stanford University study published in the April 2016 Federal Sentencing Reporter (Stanford Report), we’ll see how the system works.

Today about 35,000 individuals are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole in California’s prison system. These “indeterminate” life sentences used to be called “life means life” by the incarcerated because few were ever found suitable. The reasons for their “unsuitability” were unclear to the denied. That is because the Board of Parole Hearings’ (BPH) decision-making process and suitability determinations “are largely invisible to the public eye,” according to the Stanford Report.

Fewer than 50 state employees handle the caseload equal to one-third of U.S. inmates serving indeterminate terms.  There are 12 governor-appointed commissioners and 30-plus civil service deputy commissioners. One commissioner and one deputy commissioner preside over each lifer parole hearing.

Before each hearing, the prison prepares a board packet for the BPH hearing participants. This packet includes key documents from the inmate’s central file (C-File), a summary of the applicant’s crime, criminal record, psychological evaluations, post-conviction progress report, and any prior parole decisions.

A lifer inmate’s initial suitability hearing takes place one year before the minimum eligible release date.

Sacramento, California
State’s Capitol

There were virtually no parole grants resulting in release prior to two 2008 California Supreme Court rulings. Between 1979 and 2007, less than three percent of all BPH hearings resulted in an inmate being found suitable for parole. The vast majority of these were then reversed by the sitting California governor, according to the Stanford Report.

There were few parole grants even though a BPH hearing begins with a legal presumption that an inmate is suitable for release unless “consideration of the public safety requires a lengthier period of incarceration” (California Penal Code 401(b)).

The process has the board consider 15 factors listed in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Tit. 15, 2402(a).  Six factors relate to unsuitability for release. They are exceptionally callous life crime, violent history, psychological problems, institutional misbehavior, previous record of violence or sadistic sexual offenses, and the presence or absence of exit plans. The remaining nine demonstrate suitability. They include evidence of remorse, absence of a juvenile record, and stable social history.

The grant rate for lifer inmates has risen dramatically from eight percent in 2008 to 30 percent in 2015.   The increase occurred because the BPH granted more “suitable for parole” rulings.  While the governor revoked a fifth of these, there were still close to 25 percent of those who had a parole hearing in 2015 and earned their freedom.

In future articles, we will consider trends in parole and suitability decisions, and variables that have a statistically significant impact on odds of release.

A copy of the above-mentioned Stanford Report is available through Prison University Project.

Higher age, fewer write-ups boost parole chances


http://sanquentinnews.com/game-theory/
http://sanquentinnews.com/tasty-graduation-for-the-first-class-of-sq-chefs/
Boatwright

Translate »