29. July 2009 by Rev Young.

Colorado established a Juvenile Clemency Board 2 years ago and encouraged those offenders who had been sentenced to LWOP or long prison sentences to apply.  This was to answer the fact that Colorado reduced the length of sentence a juvenile offender could receive to 40 years but did not make this new law retroactive. 

Dietrick Mitchell applied for clemency.  He had received a sentence of LWOP for an accident that resulted in the death of another juvenile.  Dietrick was driving the car in an intoxicated state, hit a pedestrian and then left the scene of the accident.  He later turned himself in at the encouragement of his aunt.  One of the criteria for granting clemency is sentence disparity.  In researching cases that matched the circumstances in Dietrick’s case, we found that most juvenile offenders were sentenced to juvenile facilities and were treated and released within 10 to 15 years.  Adult cases were even more striking.  A case two years ago of a 40 year old man who committed the same crime, received a sentence of 8 years.  Dietrick’s request for clemency was denied.  Dietrick has served 15 years for his crime in an adult prison facility.  Where is justice?  Our hearts go out to Dietrick’s and his family.  Read on…….

Juvenile Clemency Betrayed

Colorado’s KCFR program, Colorado Matters interviewed people (the link is an audio segment) and broadcast it piece that KCFR describes as follows:

As Colorado’s much-touted Juvenile Clemency Board approaches its second anniversary, critics say it has fallen far short of expectations. Ryan Warner speaks with Mary Ellen Johnson of the Pendulum Foundation, which advocates for juvenile offenders; thenboard chairwoman Jeanne Smith, who is also head of the Division of Criminal Justice.

Jeanne Smith’s interview made clear that the Juvenile Clemency Board will not live up to the expectations that went into its establishment. In her view,clemency is basically a way of offering people “extra credit” for extraordinary post-conviction conduct and compassionate release to the ill, but has almost no role in addressing concerns that prosecutors abused their discretion, or that sentences within the scope of law at the time that they were imposed could be nonetheless unjust as applied.

Mary Ellen Johnson offered up the example of someone who was sentenced to life without parole for a fatal hit and run that happened while the driver was ajuvenile. The Juvenile Clemency Board found these circumstances to be insufficient and inappropriate for a grant of clemency and has rejected this application. The Juvenile Clemency Board has also categorically ruled out consideration of the fact that sentences imposes on particular juveniles could not be imposed prospectively. Not one juvenile has been recommended forclemency by the Board.

Some background here is relevant. The Juvenile Clemency Board was created by Governor Bill Ritter (a Democrat) in the wake of the debate of a legislative decision to abolish juvenile life without parole. The District Attorney’s association, of which Governor Ritter was once a member, argued strenuously that the legislature should not modify already imposed sentences retroactively, because that was the prerogative of the Governor who hasclemency and pardon powers. 

The Governor took the side of the District Attorney’s association but won over legislators who had sought retroactive application of the new maximum sentence for juveniles. The Governor won over legislators on the brink, however, by announcing that he would carefully examine the justice of existing sentences through a Juvenile Clemency Board created by executive order to review these cases. 

The Governor’s implied promise had been that in the sort of cases where a judge would appropriately have denied a district attorney permission to charge a child as an adult, and the juvenile was less culpable than stereotypical life without parole defendants, that the Governor would reduce their harsh sentences, after reviewing the cases in detail through the Juvenile ClemencyBoard.

The exact line wasn’t drawn and was left to the Governor. But, the expectation was that, in general, the Governor would show mercy in cases where subsequent prison conduct hadn’t shown the defendants to be problem inmates, and in general, where defendants were younger when the crime was committed, where defendants were not already career criminals at the time they were convicted, and where they had lower culpability because of the nature of the underlying offense (e.g., as an accomplice in a felony-murder case without an intent to kill, or in a hit and run case that was arguably an accident). There was an expectation that the Juvenille Clemency Board would take special notice of the reduced culpability and greater capacity for rehabilitation of younger offenders. There was also an expectation was that the Governorwould follow the lead of the legislature to shorten sentences to some middle ground between life without parole or near life sentences for long numbers of years, and the kind of sentence that could have been secured in the juvenilejustice system.

But, the people appointed to the Board by the Governor have taken a crabbed view of their mandate. They have taken a separation of powers view precisely the opposite of the view expressed by the District Attorneys making their case to the legislature; that dealing with retroactive change to criminal sentences that are now unavailable is the legislature’s job rather than theGovernor’s job. They have denied that district attorney’s could abuse their discretion or that the legislature could be wrong but leave the remedy of that wrong intentionally to the Governor. They have abdicated any ability to have an independent sense of what is just in a particular case.

Jeanne Smith, in particular, when interviewed, took a view of the clemencyprocess more appropriate for a parole board than a clemency board, focusing solely on post-conviction conduct, and was tone deaf to the history by which the board she chairs came into being.

Whether intentionally, or by poor judgment, Governor Ritter has betrayed the promises he made when the legislature took action on life without parole sentencing for juveniles, in the implementation of the Juvenile ClemencyBoard, by appointing the wrong kind of people to the Board.

Governor Ritter still has room to redeem himself. The Juvenile ClemencyBoard is advisory only. He can choose to ignore its recommendations and be more generous. He can change his mandate to the Board to get it one the right track. He can keep the faith with legislators of his own party who trusted him, and show that he has some common sense, and that he has an independent sense of justice which the criminal justice system imperfectly tries to replicate after his many years of experience in the trenches.

But, at this point, the future looks bleak. Governor Ritter has not been concerned about harmony with the legislative branch in the past, has not sought to honor his promises in both letter and spirit in the policy making process, and hasn’t shown much moral judgment himself. So, I’m not optimistic about the prospects of juveniles serving sentences that are unreasonably long, given their crimes and their personal culpability in those cases.

POSTED BY ANDREW OH-WILLEKE AT 7/27/2009 11:07:00 AM 

Posted in Legal News, Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2009 by Rev Young.

There has been much talk recently, concerning false confessions, coercion on the part of custodial officers and the practice of the interrogation of juveniles.  This is a large issue that has cost the future of many juveniles.  Before you read the article below, I am going to relate my own personal experience in this area. 

Most of you know that I have a son in prison serving 66 years and incarcerated at the age of 17.  What I am about to tell you should serve as a warning to parents and a request on the behalf of parents of juveniles to attorney’s and lawmakers to help us find a way to protect our children. 

The first time that my son was questioned concerning this specific crime was at the high school he was attending.  I was not notified that authorities wanted to ask questions, no adult was in the room with him (questioned in a private office at school) and as a result my son could not be properly advised concerning his response to authorities.  I want to tell you now, with emphasis, that my position on how we instruct our children has changed drastically.  The next time that my son was questioned is even more cunning.  They arrived at his work place (several plain closed investigators) and asked if he would come down to the police station.  They told him that they just needed clarification on some things and that they didn’t have enough officers on duty to warrant asking the questions right then, plus it would save him embarrassment at his work place.  They also asked if they could talk on the way to the station and asked my son to ride with them.  Another officer would drive his car to the station so that he would have transportation later.  My son complied believing that as long as he cooperated they would have no cause to mistreat him. 

A plain closed officer came to my workplace and met me in the parking lot as I was getting off work.  He had obviously been waiting for me to come out.  He told me that they had my son at the police station and they needed me to come down.  When I asked why, he would tell me nothing.  When I arrived at the police station, I was ushered in with the assistance of this officer through locked doors, inaccessible elevators and finally to the locked room where my son was held.  Remember this as it is important later. 

They questioned my son for 2 1/2 hours.  At one point, when the first set of officers had completed their questioning, I was going to take my son and leave.  They asked if I would give them a few more minutes as a couple of other officers needed answers to a few more questions.  I should have left but I didn’t.  They showed us a video of the confession of one of my sons friends.  I could tell by the video that this kid was saying what they wanted to hear.  It was not the confession of a young man who had killed anyone.  This young man believed what the officers had told him…..they would go easy on him if he would just confess. 

After we returned to the interrogation room, they arrested my son and charged him with 3 counts of first degree murder.  His last words were, “Mom, I don’t care what it takes, sell stuff, sell the house and get me a good attorney.  I don’t want to go down for something I didn’t do.”  Then he added, “Don’t worry mom, the truth always comes out.”

If you will notice, my son was never read his MIRANDA rights.  I, being a trusting citizen, did not suspect that I was being manipulated, and by cooperating, was putting my son in peril.  The issue of MIRANDA was raised and the district court ruled that his rights had been violated.  When the DA appealed the ruling, the appellate court ruled that it was not clear whether or not I understood if we were “free to leave at anytime”.  That brings up the security that I had to pass through in order to reach my son.  There was no way for me to leave that building without the assistance of an officer.

We are still trying to undo what was done.  Parents, do not advise your children to give any more information other than their name, address and the name of their parents.  Parents, do not allow your children to be questioned without the presence of  an attorney, EVER!

The final point….when the video of my sons interrogation was shown in court, it had been edited.  I remembered that night very well and I remembered the course of questioning and the resulting action.  The video presented in the court room did not show me trying to leave with my son.  It had been edited.   Read on………

False Confessions: What would it take to make you confess?

by John Terzano The Justice Project

Share this on Twitter - False Confessions: What would it take to make you confess?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:13:33 AM PDT

Why would anyone confess to a crime they did not commit? What would it take to get you to confess to a crime? For Christopher Ochoa, it took twenty hours of questioning and badgering and threats to get him to falsely confess to the murder of a woman in Austin, Texas. As a result, he spent twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Most people find it hard to understand how anyone could ever confess to a crime they did not commit. But it happens over and over again. False confessions are a well-documented reality, especially among vulnerable populations like juveniles and the mentally-impaired. Of all the DNA exonerations nationwide, false confessions occur in over 20 percent of them.

Last week, two major newspapers highlighted two different cases where the confessions of the defendants had been called into questions.

·                                 John Terzano The Justice Project’s diary :: ::

·                                  

As recently reported in the New York Times, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were released in late June after new DNA evidence from an unknown individual cast doubt on their confessions in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin, TX. Attorneys for both men claim the confessions were the result of police coercion and misconduct. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, Ronald Kitchen spent twenty-one years in prison following a confession he made about the murders of five people. After allegations of abuse and torture on behalf of the officer responsible for securing the confession surfaced, his case was turned over to the Attorney General’s office to re-investigate. Kitchen was released when prosecutors dropped all charges against him because they found no evidence he was involved in the crime.

To a jury or judge, a confession is an incredibly powerful piece of evidence. It can overwhelm evidence pointing to a defendant’s innocence, and judges and juries will sometimes convict an individual based on a confession alone. Given the weight of this evidence, special care must be taken to ensure that confessions are accurate.

How can we prevent against false confessions? States can adopt a policy that requires law enforcement officers to record custodial interrogations, from the delivery of a suspect’s Miranda rights to the end of the interview, without interruption. Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a powerful innovation and fact-finding tool for both sides of the criminal justice system. It helps protect innocent suspects and helps convict the guilty.

When interrogations are recorded, officers are free to study the suspect’s reactions instead of scribbling notes. Judges and juries are able to see exactly what took place during the interrogation, allowing them to more effectively weigh the evidence. In addition, recording can protect officers from false claims of abuse or coercion and provide an excellent tool for training new officers on proper interrogation techniques. Ultimately, recording is in the best interest of all parties – the defense, the prosecution, and the public – that strong safeguards exist to protect against wrongful imprisonment and reduce the number of convictions overturned on appeal.

Many detectives and prosecutors enthusiastically embrace electronic recording. Over 450 police and sheriff’s departments across the country have independently adopted recording procedures. Unfortunately though, only ten states have statewide laws that require electronic recording. The virtue of electronic recording of custodial interrogations lies not only in its ability to help guard against false confessions, but also in its ability to develop the strongest evidence possible to help convict the guilty. Electronic recording incurs minimal costs to the state in terms of implementation, and when compared to the human and monetary costs of wrongful convictions, it is a sound policy. Every state has a responsibility to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Electronic recording is a simple reform that can help states live up to that responsibility by helping to create a more fair and accurate criminal justice system.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2009 by Rev Young.

Report wants life without parole abolished

7/22/2009 11:19 PM

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

A record 140,610 inmates in state and federal prisons are serving life sentences and nearly one-third of those have no possibility of parole, according to a criminal justice research group that supports alternatives to incarceration.

The Sentencing Project, whose reports are regularly cited in academic and government reviews examining criminal justice policy, concluded that the number of inmates sentenced to life without parole has more than tripled to 41,095 since 1992. The report, citing in part the rising cost of incarceration, urges that life without parole be abolished.

The recommendation was met with strong opposition from some law enforcement officials who said life sentences, including life without parole, help drive down violent crime.

Joseph Cassilly, past president of the National District Attorneys Association, acknowledged that long prison terms are a “huge drain on resources.”

He said life sentences are appropriate for violent offenders and even some repeat drug dealers.

“Sometimes there is no way of getting through to these (criminals,)” said Cassilly, who did not dispute the report’s statistical findings.

In the project’s review, titled “No Exit,” researchers also found “overwhelming” racial and ethnic disparities for those serving life terms: 66% are non-white and 77% of juveniles sentenced to life in prison are non-white.

“Life sentences imposed on juveniles represent a fundamental and unwise shift from the long-standing tradition that juveniles are less culpable than adults … and are capable of change,” said Ashley Nellis, a co-author of the report.

Among other findings:

In Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York at least one in 6 prisoners is serving a life sentence.

California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania each have more than 3,000 people serving life without parole.

Pennsylvania leads the nation with 345 juveniles serving life without parole.

The costs of housing an aging prison population also are rising. States should expect to pay $1 million for each prisoner who spends at least 40 years incarcerated, the report concluded.

Todd Clear, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the cost of maintaining a permanent prison population is daunting. The total price tag to keep today’s “lifers” incarcerated for the rest of their lives could cost the nation tens of billions of dollars, he said.

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

24. July 2009 by Rev Young.

Holding Children To The Same Standard As An Adult 

How America Has Turned Its Back On Its Minority Children 

By: Mario Fernando Bueno

If you are a minority child in Michigan, you are eleven times more likely to be tried, convicted, and sentenced as an adult, as apposed to a white youth of the same age and for the same crime. Throughout the nation this statistic is prevalent in most states that sentence children to life. The significance of this statistic should not be overlooked or taken lightly. We live in an America that is lead by “change”, yet in an America that is –to some degree- still rooted in institutional racism. The laws enabling children to be sentenced to life imprisonment are, in and of themselves, not racist; it’s the manner that they are being applied that results in the racial disparity. If for no other reason, the racial disparity in sentencing minority children to life should be cause for concern in our legislative halls.

As I sit at the epicenter of the debate as to whether children should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (my mother is the founder and current President of Second Chance For Youth, a non-profit organization aimed at ending the laws that allow children to be sentenced to life), I am saddened at the realization that America has turned its back on its children. The fact that there exists such a debate… such a heated controversy… as to whether CHILDREN – say it again… CHILDREN- should be allowed to be sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON bewilders me.

In Michigan, District Attorneys Kim Worthy (Wayne County) and Jessica Cooper (Oakland County) vehemently oppose ending the law that allows children to be sentenced to life. In addition, Michigan Republicans lead by Senators Alan Cropsey and Michael Bishop are opposed to ending this barbaric law; and, together they have been successful. Senator Cropsey has recently stated in an interview that he is looking for any reason to support the juvenile reform bills introduced by the Democrats, but that has not found any. Here are three reasons: (1) logic,  (2) common sense,  (3) a sense of humanity.

The Republicans, District Attorneys, and Victim’s Organizations who support the laws that allow children to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole argue that children thirteen to seventeen “knew right from wrong”. While this premise ignores the marked difference between the analytical abilities, impulsiveness, life experience, and rational thinking tools between adults and children, for arguments sake, lets accept the rationale that children should be held to the same standard as an adult… because “they knew right from wrong”. Then, it is only logical that the “playing field” should be leveled; that children should then be held to the same standard in all facets of our society and not simply when it comes to crime and punishment. Immediately, legislation should be introduces- by the supporters of sentencing children to life in prison- that would allow children thirteen to seventeen the power to sign a contract, purchase cigarettes, vote, enroll in the armed services, purchase firearms, obtain a driver’s license, purchase adult films, work forty plus hours per week, have consensual sex, marry, and the list can go on and on.

Is this proposition illogical? Of course, because children are fundamentally and markedly different than adults. To hold a child to the same standard as that of an adult only in terms of crime and punishment is hypocritical, unconstitutional, and evil. The reality is children make mistakes… even tragic ones. Yes, children are salvageable. Children are more amenable to treatment and habilitation because of the plasticity of their brains and their lack of physiological and social maturation. It is this lack of maturity that prevents us from holding children to the same standard as an adult… It is this lack of maturity that should compel America to never turn its back on its children.

To read another story by Mario please go to http://s246427087.onlinehome.us/freejonny/a-story-of-mario/

Posted in Juvenile Offenders, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | 2 Comments »

24. July 2009 by Rev Young.

I recently attended a conference for those who advocate on behalf of juvenile justice reform.  The part that impacted me, of the conference,  was the opportunity to meet and come to know three very wonderful people.  All three of these people had been through the system.  Two of them had been in and out of juvenile detention and juvenile prison, foster homes, group homes and finally found their way out.  Both of them have gone on to advocate for juvenile reform.  One is graduating from law school the other finished school and now heads a very strong group of young people fighting for the toughest neighborhood in America.  The third was on the right path, did very well in school and seemed to be heading for success, except that he got pulled in the wrong direction.  Parents, there is a time in every teenagers life when they are walking the line between success and failure.  When they are walking the line of success and trouble.  It is up to us, as adults, to see the signs and intervene.  That cannot always happen as parents.  Teenagers have limited freedoms that take them out of our vision, oversight and council.  We have to depend on the encouragement and watchful eye of other adults.  This young man went the wrong direction, spent eight years in prison and then went on to work on a masters and doctorate and write a book.  These are examples of what can happen. 

Now for reality.  In almost every state the juvenile intervention, reform and detention programs have taken drastic cuts.  This seems insane to me.  Why would we prevent prevention and intervention programs?  If we don’t take the opportunity to assist these young people now, we will have a bigger problem later.  We need to put our money where our heart is.  Read On……..

Budget Cuts Eroding Progress in Juvenile Justice

By PETER S. GOODMAN

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Her first night inside the razor wire at the state juvenile prison came as a 14-year-old in the mid-1970s, when she was locked up for running away from home. Her next experience came the following decade, when she began work as a correctional officer.

As Velvet McGowan tells it, care was a word not then in the lexicon of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. Teenagers were warehoused like problematic inventory, with as many as 80 crammed into spaces built for 40. Social services were meager. Violent outbreaks occurred daily.

Two decades later, Ms. McGowan oversees the girls’ prison, where she focuses on turning around troubled lives. New programs have expanded counseling and education, cutting the repeat offender rate. New facilities have extricated the state from a federal lawsuit brought in response to once appalling conditions.

But what South Carolina built over many years in eradicating its shameful past is being undermined by the deep economic recession. In the last year, the state has cut the financing for its juvenile justice system by one-fifth, forcing 285 layoffs and the closure of several facilities, including five group homes that focused on counseling.

The department has scrapped a program that helped paroled youngsters find jobs, unleashing them into a state with 11.6 percent unemployment. It has canceled state financing for 40 after-school centers for teenagers, where they get help with their homework, receive mentoring and take part in activities during hours when children are most likely to stray into trouble. It has trimmed the ranks of social workers to 20, from 36.

“I’m scared,” said Ms. McGowan, dabbing tears with a tissue. “I don’t want to relive the ’80s through a budget cut.”

Across the country, depleted coffers have prompted state and local officials to pare programs intended as alternatives to the mere incarceration of juvenile lawbreakers.

In Tennessee, state legislators voted last month to close a wilderness activity camp. In Louisiana, a boot camp aimed at deterring young people from crime has been shut down. In California, alternative facilities focused on counseling are threatened from San Jose to Sacramento.

For South Carolina, cuts are particularly unsettling given its history. For a dozen years ending in 2003, a federal judge supervised the department under the settlement of a class-action lawsuit arising from overcrowded prison conditions.

Since then, the system has stopped treating youthful offenders as hardened convicts, instead confronting them as social problems through new programs that attack the underlying causes of juvenile crime — like dysfunctional homes, drug abuse and difficulties in school.

The department’s director, William R. Byars Jr., a former family court justice, has overseen many of the changes. In his days on the bench, he fretted over the condition of the juvenile justice system, regretfully sending children to the prison then known as “Little Vietnam.”

“It was a dangerous place,” Judge Byars said. “Kids were in here with mental deficiencies. You had kids in here for status offenses, for cutting school or running away. They were all mixed together, because our system was not designed to ask, ‘What is the best situation for this child?’ ”

Under Judge Byars’s direction, the department has focused on drastically decreasing the numbers of young people held inside the razor wire at the prison, shipping hundreds out to wilderness camps and group homes. The number held at the prison has dropped to fewer than 400, from more than 1,000 in the mid-1990s, while the number held in alternative settings has increased by a similar magnitude.

The department has set up a network of so-called intensive supervision officers who get to know the youngsters and their families before they are released, and then visit frequently to stay on top of problems.

A recent department review found that only 12 percent of youths monitored by these officers wound up back in the system a year after their release, compared with 21 percent among those lacking intensive guidance.

The success of the reforms has been “truly remarkable,” wrote Karen L. Chinn, a consultant selected by the court to monitor conditions.

But the cuts of the last year “have already begun to unravel the progress,” Ms. Chinn said.

Judge Byars insists his department will not return to warehousing juveniles. If more cuts threaten to return the prison to overcrowded levels, he will release those on misdemeanor offenses to keep numbers down, he said.

For Ms. McGowan, talk of sliding backward is deeply personal. Like many of the 27 girls that fill the prison she now oversees, she slipped into trouble after a family crisis.

She was 14, and her mother had just died — or so she thought. In truth, the dead woman had been her grandmother, her family told her. Her real mother was someone she knew as her sister, a taciturn woman she did not much like.

“The most precious person of my life has been taken away from me,” Ms. McGowan said. “Nobody sat me down and talked to me about that. Nobody thought to ask me what was going on in my heart.”

She repeatedly ran away from home, was caught and sentenced to weekends at the prison. She occupied a hard mattress inside a low, dimly lighted concrete block building. Most of the other girls were, like her, African-American and the product of some sort of unaddressed trauma.

When Ms. McGowan was 22 and working as a restaurant cashier, she heard the juvenile prison was hiring. The children overflowed the facilities, some sleeping on pairs of bunk beds stuffed into rooms no bigger than 8 feet by 12 feet and some on mattresses covering the floors.

At night, she was sometimes alone, hoping no fight would break out, often finding the inmates tattooing one another with smuggled paper clips or lighting cigarettes by pressing them into bare electrical wiring.

“It was horrible,” she said. “It was like just trying to survive. The only thing we were supposed to provide was security, custody and control. Sometimes we’d sneak a talk. You know, ‘How are you doing? What are you feeling?’ It made me angry, like we were all animals.”

Today, all of the officers on Ms. McGowan’s staff are trained in counseling. The girls gather every morning in small groups to discuss their worries or whatever might be on the mind of a teenager waking up in prison.

A special transitional house for girls nearing release is meant to model life outside. In place of the stall showers and toilets found in the dorms, the house has two private bathrooms complete with bathtubs, the tiles painted with colorful fish and butterflies. One girl does the cooking for the day using a menu the girls create together.

Each girl receives $2,000 in virtual money a month and must write checks simulating payments for rent, electricity and food. If she is late, she pays a fine. She can earn money by doing extra chores. If she runs out of money, she loses privileges, like time watching television.

Britney, an 18-year-old in the house, was paying an extra $500 a month to cover the costs of diapers and food for her 7-month-old daughter, who was delivered in prison. Her mother was looking after the baby until Britney’s release.

That moment was less than 24 hours away, and Britney was both exhilarated and apprehensive. In and out of the juvenile justice system since she was 12 — mostly for running away after battles with her mother — she was about to become responsible for her own child.

“I stayed up on my bed last night thinking you all made me feel like you all cared,” Britney told the group one morning.

An intensive supervision officer had already held counseling sessions between Britney and her mother using a videoconference system. She planned to monitor closely how they were getting along. The officer was to take Britney on a tour of community colleges (she had earned a G.E.D. inside the prison), where she hoped to begin a career as a nurse practitioner. Britney was to be enrolled in parenting classes.

“They got everything planned out,” Britney said.

Still, the adults were anxious, cognizant that the end of Britney’s prison life was the beginning of her next incarnation as another jobless teenage single mother.

“Are you nervous about going home?” Ms. McGowan asked her.

“Yeah,” Britney said. “I’m a little nervous about being free, because I’ve been here so long.”

The girls lined up to go to school, a complex of classrooms inside the wire, as a guard administered pat-downs. Ms. McGowan watched Britney submit for a final day.

“This is a child we’ve really got to check in with,” she said. “It’s really crucial that we stay connected.” Yet the finances needed to maintain that connection were slipping. Inside the prison, the attention given to each child was being diluted by staff cuts.

“We don’t want to go back to how it was,” Ms. McGowan said. “We were just so heartless.”

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | No Comments »

24. July 2009 by Rev Young.

I thought today I would post an article from a very dear and wonderful woman who heads the local chapter of CURE.  She has taken on organizing the volunteer’s to bring celebrations into prison.  That’s right a celebration.  This is also thanks to Kevin Estep who is the warden at Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center.  Warden Estep believes and knows from experience that there are more productive answers to warehousing inmates.  He looks for and encourages innovative ideas that will be the “carrot” in front of these offenders.  He shows them step by step and day by day that there are better ways of going through life than down the wrong road.  He shows them that it is possible to succeed.  Read On…….

An Ice Cream Social in Prison?

The Cheyenne Mountain Reentry Center in Colorado Springs, CO broke some records on Saturday, June 20th, when it brought men and their families together for a Father’s Day Ice Cream Social. Hosted by Southern ColoradoCURE, some forty-odd people, CMRC residents, parents, spouses, children, enjoyed homemade cake and store bought ice cream served up generously by Mary Logan, Brook Henderson, and Sharrie Williams.

Using the chow hall cleaned and prepared by them, residents who have demonstrated good behavior, progress in the reentry programs offered by CMRC, and trustworthiness were allowed to invite their loved ones to join them in a party to celebrate Father’s Day for themselves, their children and their own fathers. While regular visitation went on in the visitor’s room upstairs with lots of restrictions about where to sit, whether touching is allowed and how much noise can be made, downstairs the chow hall was filled with kids laughing, people smiling and talking, hugs and affection shown freely yet appropriately. Instead of correctional officers “guarding” everyone, a few counselors, case managers and the Director and Deputy Director of CMRC joined in the cake and ice cream with the residents. The CMRC staff involved were Deputy Director Emily Bond, Unit Manager King (who took a huge role in organizing the day’s event), Unit Manager Yeaton (wasn’t there on the day of the social but did a lot of leg work beforehand), Mr. LeQuiu, Mr. Giles, OC Mills, who coordinated the music, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Derosier, and the correctional officers and supervisors on duty that morning; they all pulled together to help make the day a success.　 Later, a resident band came in to play and entertain the group – a rare and wonderful sight in a medium-security prison.

Who came up with this brilliant idea to reward and encourage men who are doing well in the reentry program at the private facility?

Kevin Estep, Director of CMRC and former Texas prison warden, believes that fair treatment, respect and an occasional relaxation of rigid institutional rules will encourage men who are trying to reenter society after serving their prison sentences. “I’m proud to be able to bring some brightness and joy into the lives of these men who work so hard to earn back the trust of the community,” says Mr. Estep, a veteran of the therapeutic community school of thought about rehabilitation.

Southern  is a chapter of Colorado CURE, part of the international nonprofit Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants. CURE advocates for those who are incarcerated and who were formerly incarcerated, their families and friends; it does not provide any services. The volunteers who served cake and ice cream did it on their own time, but wanted “the guys” to know that Southern ColoradoCURE is on their side. “We all know about you in here,” one resident said. “Everyone talks about the letters you write to help guys who are going before the Parole Board or trying to get into a [community] halfway house.”

This partnership between a private prison and a criminal justice reform advocacy organization may well be unprecedented in Colorado, and is perhaps rare throughout the country.　 It underscores the fact that at the center of the issue, both groups are essentially on the same side; desiring a safe and secure environment that is productive toward helping incarcerated citizens get the tools they need to be productive within society and to achieve and maintain their freedom at the earliest possible opportunity. 　This event also underscores that, working together cooperatively, we can ensure essential safety/security measures are met, help support families and residents and enjoy a spirit of fellowship at the same time. 　It is hoped that partnerships like this that help facilitate the goal of family reunification can be explored at other prisons, both State and private, since the family is a critical component in the recovery and re-entry process for incarcerated individuals.　 This event and others like it provide a way to build hope, strengthen ties to family and the community and allow prisoners to see that there is a society that will welcome them back once their debt is paid.

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates, Juvenile Offenders, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | No Comments »

10. July 2009 by Rev Young.

I don’t think most of us decided one day that we were going to involve ourselves in the fight for juvenile justice reform.  I believe almost all of us came into this work as a result of an incident or a person that came into our lives and awakened us to the need for reform.  For me?  It was my son and the criminal case that involved him.  Once we were pulled into this frenzied nightmare,  I realized how many cases of injustice and overly punitive measures there were. 

For many of you it may be hard to understand.  I know that when I first began to visit my son at the county jail, I had a very narrow view of who he was housed with and the families involved.  I soon heard some incredible stories that began to chip away at my preconceived ideas of criminals, justice and prison.  Once my son was sentenced to prison, I knew about injustice personally.  No matter what we tried, no matter the violations of his rights, no matter the lack of evidence, no matter the injustice, they wanted to put my son away and that was that. 

The sad part is, there are many stories like that and stories even worse than that. How about the young man who has suffered at the hand of his abusers for his entire life, finally stands up for himself and winds up killing his abuser.  What about the kid who is trying to pay off his mothers drug debt by cooperating with her supplier and ends up being at the scene of a murder which costs him his life. 

The truth is, when a kid get’s involved in criminal activity, there is usually a lifetime of tragedy behind the scene.  That is what this nun found as she came to know a young woman who was sentenced to spend her entire life in prison.  Read on….

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090710/OPINION01/907100346/-1/SPORTS12

Basu: Dreamers & Doers series - Nun seeks to free youths destined to die in prison

REKHA BASU
rbasu@dmreg.com

Twenty years ago, Sister JoAnne Talarico stepped inside a women’s prison to visit someone she didn’t know, and embarked on a journey and a relationship that would become driving forces for her life’s work.

Talarico, 72, of Des Moines, is a nun with the Sisters of Humility of Mary in Davenport. Her commitment to social justice has taken her to El Salvador, seen her marching and speaking out for civil rights and advocating for homeless veterans.

But the relationship with a young female inmate named Christine Lockheart made her work personal, challenging basic assumptions about crime and punishment and giving her “the daughter I never had.”

Talarico met Lockheart when she took over visiting the Mitchellville inmate after a nun who had been doing it moved away. She had never before been in a prison or known a criminal, and assumed whatever the young woman had done warranted the life sentence she got.

Lockheart was convicted of murder four years earlier at age 17. The victim was a man for whom she had cleaned house. Talarico says Lockheart hadn’t anticipated the outcome when she accompanied her boyfriend to the victim’s house to ask for a loan. They left when he said no, but the boyfriend went back in the house and stabbed him.

Lockheart didn’t directly participate but also didn’t immediately turn her boyfriend in. Iowa law permits accomplices to be charged and punished the same as the killers. It also requires mandatory life sentences for Class A felonies committed from age 14 on.

Twenty years of weekly visits to Lockheart, now nearly 42, have convinced Talarico that’s wrong. People under 18 can’t even vote or drink or sign contracts, she notes. “They are children and should be treated as children in the criminal-justice system. They don’t always see the consequences of their actions and are highly susceptible to peer pressures.” And they can be reformed.

There are 44 people serving life sentences in Iowa who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. That’s out of 2,225 in the 42 states with such laws. Amnesty International says 59 percent were first-time offenders. Many of those laws were passed in the 1980s by lawmakers responding to gang violence and wanting to be tough on crime, says Talarico.

She has watched an uncertain young woman mature into an articulate, creative mentor to others, getting scholarships and taking courses through the University of Iowa. “I’m inspired by the fact that she stays so positive. Sometimes I think maybe she does it just for me, but I see all the beautiful things she does … I don’t know that I could be as positive.”

She adds, “My heart aches for her that one mistake just ruined her whole life.” So Talarico is determined to get the law changed.

Nearly three years ago, she attended an Amnesty International conference in Des Moines and met others who shared her concerns. They formed the Iowa Coalition to Oppose Life Without the Possibility of Parole for Youth. Talarico spent most of the last session at the Capitol lobbying for a bill (HF 43, SF 74) that would allow work or parole releases for Class A felons who committed their crimes before turning 18. They’d have to serve 15 years before the parole board could consider, among other things, their age, maturity and susceptibility to outside pressures when the crimes were committed.

The bill never made it out of committee. Talarico believes lawmakers fear being seen as soft on crime when they’re up for re-election, and 2010 is an election year.

Phyllis Stevens is the coalition’s board president. “She’s fabulous,” she said of Talarico. “She’s conversational. She brings a nice personal style to it, but she’s also knowledgeable, not just a ‘bleeding heart.’”

As a nun who believes in redemption, Talarico offers a compelling dimension to the debate, says Stevens. You wouldn’t know it to see her, since she doesn’t wear a habit. One legislator discovered it after his rather forceful outburst at a committee meeting, then apologized, red-faced, Stevens said. But Talarico wasn’t bothered.

Asked whether her faith drives her to this cause, Talarico says, “It’s a justice issue. In a way, I’m acting on my own but in accordance with our laws and beliefs and our mission to the world.”

She answered the call to service at a time when people were drawn into lifetime commitments, she says. “I said ‘forever’ at one time, but I don’t know that we live in a society where people want to do things forever.”

So, ironically, someone who pledged a lifetime commitment to a calling has found her cause in helping undo a lifetime commitment imposed on someone else.

For Lockheart, the only way out of prison now would be a grant of clemency by the governor. She applied, unsuccessfully, in 2003.

But she’s not giving up, and neither will Talarico, who hopes that as the coalition grows broader - especially with neurologists, psychologists and experts in the youthful brain - more lawmakers will listen.

“You just have to keep repeating over and over that we’re dealing with children,” says the former teacher. “Children sometimes do horrible things, but we cannot dispose of them.”

Call it idealism, call it spiritual, call it the instinctive, compassionate response of an older person to a younger one in trouble. Or call it the Lord’s work. Whatever you call it, Talarico’s message is both profound and profoundly simple: Our youth are our future. We cannot afford to give up on them.

Additional Facts

Get involved

- Contact your legislator to support reviving the bill introduced last session to eliminate Iowa’s mandatory life sentences for youth. Or contact the bill’s sponsors, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, in the House, and Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, in the Senate.
- Join the Iowa Coalition to Oppose Life Without the Possibility of Parole for Youth. Sign up online through its Web site: http://www.ia4juvenilejustice.org/
- Link here to view a video about a state of Missouri program to keep youthful offenders out of prison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNo1KDZnuo&feature=channel_page

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | No Comments »

10. July 2009 by Rev Young.

As we address this issue of sentencing reform, mandatory minimums, prison over crowding and the misuse of power by District Attorneys through Direct File Statutes, I have found something of interest.  For the most part, lawmakers are unwilling to be the first one on their block to propose and stand behind criminal justice reforms.  They do not want to be the first to “test the waters” and see what kind of back lash would come as a result of these proposed changes. 

Fortunately there are the exceptions.  I applaud those lawmakers who see the error of our current legislation and want it changed.  The truth of the matter is, it is about justice.  The truth of the matter is, these are cruel and unusual punishments.  The truth of the matter is we are not being fair or just, when it comes to juvenile justice issues.  It is a question of morals, basic human rights, constitutionality and the future of our nation.  Morally?  Because we, as citizens of this country, are responsible for the children and insuring that they are protected, cared for and directed so that they become the next workers, business owners and leaders.  Human Rights?  Since when did we believe it was okay for any other country in the world to over look the needs of it’s children and to punish it’s children severly without having to answer to us for their actions?  We are not above those same requirements.  Constitutional?  Cruel and unusual punishment. 

There is hope.  There are states all across the nation who are working to change the juvenile justice system and, at the same time, looking at ways to prevent criminal behavior in juveniles.  Below are articles from two such states.

Ventura County

Editorial: Sentenced as minors to life

Young lives can be redeemed

Sunday, June 28, 2009

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is haunted by the case of a Riverside girl who was 16 when she killed the man who sexually abused her and lured her into prostitution. She was sentenced to life without parole and, today, at age 31, Sara Kruzan has been rehabilitated.

However, “She is locked up in jail, and she is going to die there,” Sen. Yee told The Associated Press last month.

Because of this case and hundreds of others, Sen. Yee has introduced legislation that would allow courts to review life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences given to minors. If the inmate met three of at least eight criteria, a court would grant a new sentencing hearing — but not necessarily change the sentence — to consider making a prisoner eligible for parole after he or she has served at least 25 years locked up.

The Star supports this bill, which takes into account that minors are different from adults, a fact recognized by the existence of a juvenile-justice system in the U.S., with sentencing guidelines and rules that differ significantly from those in the adult system.

Sen. Yee, who has a doctorate in child psychology, told the Oakland Tribune: “Adolescent impulse control, planning and critical thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. Children have an extraordinary capacity for rehabilitation.”

A report, “Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in Prison,” by The Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law organization in Montgomery, Ala., states: “Kids too young to drive a car or go to a scary movie by themselves” are “subjected to the harshest possible prison sentence despite widespread acknowledgment by experts, parents, teachers, doctors and courts that children tend to be incapable of making mature choices, that they are vulnerable to negative influences and peer pressure, and that they are powerless to protect themselves from dysfunctional and dangerous home environments. The majority of these children were condemned to die in prison by mandatory sentencing laws that preclude the sentencer from considering the child’s age, maturity, or capacity for change.”

Human Rights Watch, an international watchdog group for human rights, supports Sen. Yee’s Senate Bill 399, noting there are 2,380 people in the U.S. serving life sentences for crimes they committed as minors, and just 12 in the rest of the world.

In California, there are 250 inmates given life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed before they turned 18.

Such sentences violate international law and the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every country in the world, except Somalia and the United States.

Colorado outlawed life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences for minors in 2006.

SB399 in California does not mandate a sentence be changed for the inmate sentenced as a minor to life without parole. It only grants a new sentencing hearing after the inmate has served at least 10 years behind bars and only if the inmate meets at least three of eight criteria. In addition, any new sentence would make the prisoner eligible for parole only after he or she has been imprisoned for at least 25 years.

SB399 passed out of the state Senate last week and is headed to an Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday.

The Star urges the Assembly committee members to approve this bill.

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20090629/OPINION01/906290301/One-size-fits-all+justice+doesn+t+work+for+Mich.

June 29, 2009

One-size-fits-all justice doesn’t work for Mich.

Juveniles in Michigan can be given the state’s maximum prison sentence, which is life without the possibility of parole. Jeff Gerritt, an editorial writer for the Detroit Free Press, thinks that is a barbaric practice. See why in this opinion piece, which originally appeared in its entirety in the Free Press.

Michigan has outlawed second chances for some juveniles, garnering international shame for imposing the maximum adult penalty — life without parole — for children as young as 14.

The time is right to end this unreasonable and inhuman law that, in effect, declares young people beyond redemption. … As Michigan Department of Corrections Director Patricia Caruso has said, we must recognize the difference between those we fear and those we are simply mad at.

Arguments made by some Michigan prosecutors that they use the juvenile lifer law judiciously and with discretion — even if true — are off point. Many prosecutors, hunting for votes, have not exercised restraint or judgment. The only way to keep some of them from unnecessarily throwing away the keys on a juvenile offender is to change the law. …

There are serious moral and constitutional problems with sentencing juveniles to mandatory life sentences. That’s why Congress convened a hearing recently on legislation to eliminate life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up two Florida cases challenging such sentences.

Michigan, too, is re-examining juvenile lifer laws that impose one-size-fits-all justice. Bills in the state House and Senate would eliminate mandatory life sentences for juveniles and restore parole eligibility to those serving such sentences. …

The state House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, has already tacked on some debilitating amendments to the bills, including lowering the applicable age to 16 and under and increasing the minimum time served from 10 years to 15 years. Excluding 17-year-olds, even though they are minors, would erase the possibility of parole for 129 of Michigan’s 346 juvenile lifers.

The committee might also, for the first time, require that prosecutors, judges and victims’ families approve a parole hearing. If that happens, we might as well stick with what we have. Would any Michigan prosecutor running for re-election ever OK a hearing for anyone convicted of a homicide?

On the Senate side, state Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, who heads the Judiciary Committee, would not commit even to given the juvenile lifer bills a hearing. … When corrections and criminal justice reform are dominating the public debate, no state legislator should prevent a hearing on an issue that the nation’s highest court and governing body are taking on.

These bills would not … unleash violent criminals. In fact, they would not, by themselves, release one juvenile lifer. They would only give them a chance at parole after serving 10 years or 15 years, and some have already served decades.

Michigan’s Parole Board is one of America’s toughest. Few juvenile offenders would get released after their first hearing. Still, offering some hope of freedom would provide a powerful incentive for prisoners to act right and change. Without hope, people become dangerous, or spiritually dead.

Science has proved what all parents already know: Juvenile brains are more impulsive and unstable than those of adults. They don’t have the same rights as adults, nor should they suffer the same penalties. …

People, especially young people, can change and contribute to society. But hundreds of juvenile offenders in Michigan prisons won’t get that chance unless legislators and Gov. Jennifer Granholm lift the state’s barbaric ban on second chances.

Posted in Legal News, Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

4. July 2009 by Rev Young.

Since the inception of the Colorado Juvenile Clemency Board, there have been no clemency’s granted.  The purpose of the Colorado Juvenile Clemency Board was to answer the issue of retroactive sentence reductions when Colorado agreed to eliminate Juvenile Life Without Parole.  Colorado ruled that the language of the bill would violate the Colorado Constitution it allowed the new legislation to include retro-activity. 

Many legislators are infuriated that the Juvenile Clemency board has not commuted any sentences.  Most were assured that future legislation would not be necessary because of the Juvenile Clemency Board.  Apparently that was not so.  Apparently all that Gov. Ritter hoped to achieve was silencing our voices.  Read On…

SUSAN GREENE

Greene: No second chance for jailed kids

By Susan Greene
Denver Post Columnist

POSTED: 06/21/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

Bill Ritter must have figured we wouldn’t pay attention.

Nearly two years after creating the country’s first juvenile clemency board, it appears the panel he packed mostly with law enforcers hasn’t recommended a single applicant even for a reduced sentence.

Ritter won praise for promising a shot at a second chance for inmates sentenced as kids to life without parole.

Now his pledge seems as hollow as his promises for sentencing reform. Just a bunch of fair-minded words, he must have reckoned, before we forgot and moved on to his next happy press release.

“I don’t think he ever intended to reform anything. What’s the point of his board other than to solidify that he thinks everything’s OK with a system that locks kids up forever?” says Jennifer Jones of Denver, whose brother was one of the most compelling applicants.

Trevor Jones was 17 when he made the mistake of trying to scam a kid out of $100 by selling him a gun and then taking it back. He fired a single shot — accidentally, he claims — that killed Matthew Foley, 16.

Denver charged Jones with first-degree murder, but the jury found him guilty on a lesser charge of reckless manslaughter. Because Foley died during a robbery, prosecutors won a “felony murder” conviction and mandatory life sentence.

Jones, now 30, has served 13 years without a single prison write-up or disciplinary action. He has taken correspondence courses in Greek, Latin and philosophy. He writes letters urging kids to walk the line.

He’s sorry beyond words for what happened to Foley.

Having exhausted his appeals, he spent months working on his application to the Juvenile Clemency Board. It was his last shot at even a day of freedom.

More than a year later, the board sent a letter denying relief without explanation.

Clemency officials won’t comment on their decisions.

Nor will Ritter, who single-handedly held the power to override the denial. He was Denver district attorney at the time of Jones’ trial and, in 14 years, sent more teens to prison for life without parole than any other prosecutor in the state.

Eighteen offenders have applied for clemency since Ritter heralded what now seems the false promise of his board. His appointees have taken more than a year to review some of those applications.

“You don’t want to rush something like this,” clemency chief Mark Noel said last year, as if these weren’t human lives he was talking about.

It’s worth noting that a 17-year-old facing charges as an adult hanged himself last week in an adult jail in Pueblo. Within two days, another juvenile was slapped with unrelated adult charges and locked up in the same cell.

Despite Ritter’s pronouncement that “There’s a body of evidence that shows kids are very different than adults,” his administration is ignoring that evidence. Mercy, as it turns out, isn’t his job as he quietly punts yet another issue to one of his many commissions.

Which calls to mind the decision by Bill Owens to move up the parole date for Charles Limbrick Jr., who killed his mother when he was 15. And Roy Romer’s pardon of William Bresnahan for stabbing his parents at age 16. Bresnahan went on to become a doctor.

Neither of those governors was accused of going soft on crime, as Ritter fears.

As for Jones, he recently wrote his sister about the board’s denial.

“His letter just said obviously it’s not the outcome he’s hoping for,” she says. “I think he’s kind of giving up. He doesn’t really have anything else to look forward to do.”

Susan Greene writes Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Reach her at 303-954-1989 orgreene@denverpost.com.

Please subscribe to receive the latest posts automaticaly.

To support us please click on the CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAUSE page and click on the secure PayPal link.

OUR KIDS THANK YOU!

Posted in Legal News, Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

3. July 2009 by Rev Young.

 have many articles from other sources to post.  I have gotten a little behind.  We attended a NJJN (National Juvenile Justice Network) Conference last week in Washington D we have been very busy preparing and then attending this convening of advocates.  More about that later. 

In this article the spotlight is given to Senator Webb and the hearing that was held at the beginning of June to give testimony concerning the Senator’s bill that was introduced in the senate calling for a thorough evaluation of our “Criminal Injustice” system.  Read on……

Jim Webb Moves Forward To Fix Bloated Incarceration System by Focusing on Violent and Not Minor Offenders

Submitted by christine on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 11:19am. 

·                                 Alerts

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Christine Bowman

America’s prisons, recently deemed by frightened citizens and vocal politicians to benot up to the job of housing Gitmo detainees, truly do warrant a fresh look. That’s exactly what prisons and the process that feeds people into the “corrections” world will get, too, if Senator Jim Webb (D/VA) succeeds in building support for comprehensive reform of the US criminal justice system.

Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs heard testimony on a bill introduced by Webb in March to form a blue-panel commission to evaluate and recommend changes to correct systemic flaws in America’s criminal justice system. The presidential level bipartisan team would be empowered to conduct “an 18-month, top-to-bottom review.”

Although still in the early stages of the legislative process, the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 appears to be attracting the interest of a broad range of groups. If they prove themselves able to work together, this may be the right bill at the right time to address an immense array of interlocking issues.

Initial testimony to the committee came from Webb, the LAPD police chief, Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree and representatives from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Prison Fellowship — the Christian prison ministry founded by Watergate ex-con Chuck Colson.

The proposed commission would be charged with reshaping America’s entire criminal justice system by making policy recommendations to:

• re-focus incarceration policies on criminal activities that threaten public safety; 
• lower the incarceration rate, prioritizing public safety, crime reduction, and fairness; 
• decrease prison violence; 
• improve prison administration; 
• establish meaningful re-entry programs for former offenders; 
• reform drug laws; 
• improve treatment of the mentally ill; 
• improve responses to international & domestic criminal activity by gangs & cartels; 
• and reform any other aspect of the criminal justice system the Commission determines necessary.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony…

Bill Sizemore of The Virginian-Pilot gathered these highlights from the hearing:

“We call it a correctional system, but we all know it doesn’t correct,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on crime and drugs.

The most impassioned testimony came from someone with firsthand experience: Pat Nolan, vice president of Prison Fellowship, a former California state legislator who spent 29 months in federal prison after getting caught in an FBI sting for campaign finance violations.

“What I saw inside prison really troubled me,” Nolan said, describing widespread rape, disease and overcrowding. Most inmates are simply being warehoused, he said. There is little training or treatment, making it hard for them to find a job when they get out and raising the chances that they will return to prison.

The cost to taxpayers is staggering, Nolan said: $68 billion and rising.

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton said communities need to focus on preventing crime, not just responding to it. “There are too many people in prison who don’t need to be there,” he said, citing the mentally ill as an example.

The time is ripe for reform, said Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School. “You can be smart on crime and save a lot of money,” he said.

Webb’s bent on correcting broken corrections system

Decades of supposedly tough-on-crime legislation has resulted in a prison system that is overstretched, expensive, an often unjust. Four times as many people with mental health problems are in jail than are in psychiatric hospitals. Decades of the “war on drugs” has pushed addicts and casual users into prisons while cartels and street gangs have grown by leaps and bounds. Drug policy reform advocates are heartened, as are fiscal conservatives and rights advocates. Which is to say, it’s a big tent coalition seeking big reforms.

As Webb wrote in a commentary at Huffington Post:

The National Criminal Justice Commission Act has already garnered wide support from across the political and philosophical spectrum, including 29 sponsors in the Senate, among them many senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My staff and I have engaged with more than 100 organizations and associations, representing the entire gamut of prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, advocacy groups, think tanks, victims rights organizations, academics, prisoners, and law enforcement on the street. This engagement is ongoing, and support continues to grow. My goal, shared by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, is to pass this legislation soon and to enact it into law this year.

Building broad-based support for far-reaching reform “is an immodest goal for a freshman senator” — but an encouraging one.

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »