Showing posts with label aclu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aclu. Show all posts

Thursday, March 15, 2012

NY TIMES: Solitary wastes lives, money, and sanity.

Abolishing solitary confinement as we know it can be done, people, and work out for the better for all of us - if Mississippi can do it, so can Arizona. The vast majority of prisoners do return to their communities after all, and we would be wise not to destroy their sanity and humanity while "rehabilitating" them beforehand. 

This state, unfortunately, is constructing 500 more Supermax beds as we speak, however - no public hearings, no way to stop them...what a waste of precious resources. No one at the ADC seems to know what "evidence-based practice" means or why they should study up on it. For that reason, crime in this state will never really be impacted by the rate at which we incarcerate people - all the state is doing is setting people up to repeat again.


Our state facility for the seriously mentally ill
SUPERMAX in Florence, AZ


------------from the New York Times-------------

 Prisons Rethink Isolation, Saving Money, Lives and Sanity


CHANGED ATTITUDES Christopher B. Epps, Mississippi's commissioner of corrections, said he used to believe that difficult inmates should be locked down as tightly as possible, for as long as possible. “That was the culture, and I was part of it,” he said.

PARCHMAN, Miss. — The heat was suffocating, and the inmates locked alone in cells in Unit 32, the state’s super-maximum-security prison, wiped away sweat as they lay on concrete slab beds.

Kept in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours each day, allowed out only in shackles and escorted by guards, they were restless and angry — made more so by the excrement-smeared walls, the insects, the filthy food trays and the mentally ill inmates who screamed in the night, conditions that a judge had already ruled unacceptable. 

So it was not really surprising when violence erupted in 2007: an inmate stabbed to death with a homemade spear that May; in June, a suicide; in July, another stabbing; in August, a prisoner killed by a member of a rival gang. 

What was surprising was what happened next. Instead of tightening restrictions further, prison officials loosened them. 

They allowed most inmates out of their cells for hours each day. They built a basketball court and a group dining area. They put rehabilitation programs in place and let prisoners work their way to greater privileges.
In response, the inmates became better behaved. Violence went down. The number of prisoners in isolation dropped to about 300 from more than 1,000. So many inmates were moved into the general population of other prisons that Unit 32 was closed in 2010, saving the state more than $5 million. 

The transformation of the Mississippi prison has become a focal point for a growing number of states that are rethinking the use of long-term isolation and re-evaluating how many inmates really require it, how long they should be kept there and how best to move them out. Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Ohio and Washington State have been taking steps to reduce the number of prisoners in long-term isolation; others have plans to do so. On Friday, officials in California announced a plan for policy changes that could result in fewer prisoners being sent to the state’s three super-maximum-security units. 

The efforts represent an about-face to an approach that began three decades ago, when corrections departments — responding to increasing problems with prison gangs, stiffer sentencing policies that led to overcrowding and the “get tough on crime” demands of legislators — began removing ever larger numbers of inmates from the general population. They placed them in special prisons designed to house inmates in long-term isolation or in other types of segregation. 

At least 25,000 prisoners — and probably tens of thousands more, criminal justice experts say — are still in solitary confinement in the United States. Some remain there for weeks or months; others for years or even decades. More inmates are held in solitary confinement here than in any other democratic nation, a fact highlighted in a United Nations report last week. 

Humanitarian groups have long argued that solitary confinement has devastating psychological effects, but a central driver in the recent shift is economics. Segregation units can be two to three times as costly to build and, because of their extensive staffing requirements, to operate as conventional prisons are. They are an expense that many recession-plagued states can ill afford; Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois announced plans late last month to close the state’s supermax prison for budgetary reasons. 

Some officials have also been persuaded by research suggesting that isolation is vastly overused and that it does little to reduce overall prison violence. Inmates kept in such conditions, most of whom will eventually be released, may be more dangerous when they emerge, studies suggest. 

Christopher B. Epps, Mississippi’s commissioner of corrections, said he found his own views changing as he fought an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit over conditions in the prison, which one former inmate described as “hell, an insane asylum.” 

Mr. Epps said he started out believing that difficult inmates should be locked down as tightly as possible, for as long as possible. 

“That was the culture, and I was part of it,” he said. 

By the end of the process, he saw things differently and ordered the changes. 

“If you treat people like animals, that’s exactly the way they’ll behave,” he now says. 

A Very Costly Experiment 
 
James F. Austin held up the file of an inmate in Unit 32 and posed a question to the staff members gathered in a conference room at the Mississippi Department of Corrections headquarters in Jackson. 

“O.K., does this guy really need to be there?” he asked. 

It was June 2007, and the department was under pressure to make court-ordered improvements to conditions at Unit 32, where violence was brewing. Dr. Austin, a prison consultant, had been called in by the state. As the discussion proceeded, the staff members were startled to discover that many inmates in Unit 32 had been sent there not because they were highly dangerous, but because they were a nuisance — they had disobeyed orders, had walked away from a minimum-security program or were low-level gang members with no history of causing trouble while incarcerated. 

“He started saying, ‘You tell me what kind of person needs to be locked up,’ and it wasn’t near the numbers that we had,” said Emmitt L. Sparkman, deputy commissioner of corrections. By the time they were done, the group had determined that up to 80 percent of the 1,000 or more inmates at Unit 32 could probably be safely moved to less restrictive settings. 

Like many such prisons, Mississippi’s supermax, opened in 1990, owed its existence to the fervor for tougher punishment that swept through the country in the 1980s and 1990s. 

“There was an incredible explosion in the prison population coupled with a big infusion of gangs,” Dr. Austin said. “Riots were occurring. Prison officials were literally losing control.” 

Some states built special units to isolate difficult prisoners — “the worst of the worst,” prison officials said — from the general prison population. Others retrofitted existing prisons or established smaller units within larger facilities. The federal penitentiary in Marion, Ill., was locked down in 1983 after the murder of two prison guards, its inmates confined to cells 23 hours a day and then kept that way permanently. In 1989, California opened Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, a remote town near the Oregon border, specially designed to control inmates in conditions that minimize human interaction.
By 2005, 44 states had supermax prisons or their equivalents. In most, inmates were let out of their cells for only a few hours a week. They were fed through slots in their cell doors and were denied access to work programs or other rehabilitation efforts. If visitors were allowed, the interactions were conducted with no physical contact.
And while prisoners had previously been sent to isolation for 10 or perhaps 30 days as a temporary disciplinary measure, they were now often placed there indefinitely.
Asked to explain the purpose of such confinement, prison wardens surveyed in 2006 by Dan Mears, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, cited “increasing safety, order and control throughout prison systems and incapacitating violent or disruptive inmates.”
But beyond that, said Dr. Mears, who called the rise of supermax prisons “a big, very costly experiment,” the goals seemed murky. Who exactly were “the worst of the worst”? How many people really needed such harsh control, and for how long? And how should the effectiveness of the prisons be judged, especially when measured against the costs of building and operating them?
Dr. Mears said there were no clear answers; indeed, he said, it is virtually impossible to determine how many inmates are in supermax prisons in the United States because there is no national tracking system and because states differ widely in what they call segregation units. “I don’t know of any business that would do this, not something that costs this much, with so little evidence or clarity about what you’re getting,” Dr. Mears said.
With no precise definition of who belonged there, prison systems began to send people to segregation units who bore little resemblance to the serial killers or terrorists the public imagined filled such prisons.
“Certainly there are a small number of people who for a variety of reasons have to be maintained in a way that they don’t have access to other inmates,” said Chase Riveland, a former head of corrections in Colorado and Washington State who now serves as an expert witness in prison cases. “But those in most systems are pretty small numbers of people.”
Mr. Epps, who is president-elect of the American Correctional Association, likes to say prison officials started out isolating inmates they were scared of but ended up adding many they were simply “mad at.”
‘The Real Damage’ 
 
In 1831, the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, where prison officials were pioneering a novel rehabilitation method based on Quaker principles of reflection and penitence. They called it solitary confinement.
“Placed alone in view of his crime,” de Tocqueville wrote in a report to the French government, the prisoner “learns to hate it, and if his soul be not yet surfeited with crime, and thus have lost all taste for any thing better, it is in solitude, where remorse will come to assail him.”
But for many prisoners, isolation was as likely to produce mental illness as remorse, and by the late 19th century, enthusiasm for the approach had flagged. In 1890, deciding the case of a death row inmate held in solitary confinement, Justice Samuel Freeman Miller of the Supreme Court wrote that many prisoners fell, “after even a short confinement, into a semifatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still committed suicide.”
It was the last time the nation’s highest court would address the psychological effects of solitary confinement directly. But lower courts in some states have acknowledged the stress that isolation puts on inmates who are already mentally ill, prohibiting their being placed in solitary except in urgent circumstances.
When Dr. Terry Kupers, a psychiatrist and expert on the effects of solitary confinement, toured Unit 32 for the plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit, he found that about 100 of the more than 1,000 inmates there had serious mental illness, in many cases improperly diagnosed. Some were actively hallucinating. Others threw feces or urine at guards or howled in the night.
In turn, the mentally ill inmates were mistreated by corrections officers, who had little understanding of their condition, Dr. Kupers said.
In a report filed to the court, he described the case of James Coffield, a mentally ill prisoner who had demonstrated “a long history in Unit 32 of bizarre and disruptive behaviors” that prison psychiatrists “characterized as merely ‘manipulative’ and which security staff punished with increasingly harsh force, including repeated gassing with chemicals.”
Mr. Coffield eventually tried to hang himself but failed and ended up in a vegetative state.
Many states continue to house inmates with mental illness in isolation. Some inmates appear to function adequately in solitary confinement or even say they prefer it. But studies suggest that the rigid control, absence of normal human interaction and lack of stimulation imposed by prolonged isolation can cause a wide range of psychological symptoms including insomnia, withdrawal, rage and aggression, depression, hallucinations and thoughts of suicide, even in prisoners who are mentally healthy to begin with.
A study of prisoners in the Pelican Bay supermax, for example, found that almost all reported nervousness, anxiety, lethargy or other psychological complaints. Seventy percent said they felt themselves to be at risk of “impending nervous breakdown.”
“Worse still is the fact that for many of these men, the real damage only becomes apparent when they get out of this environment,” said Craig W. Haney, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an expert on the effects of solitary confinement, who led the study.
In fact, some research has found that inmates released from supermax units are more likely to reoffend than comparable prisoners released from conventional maximum-security prisons, and that those crimes are more likely to be violent. In Colorado, said Tom Clements, executive director of corrections, it turned out that about 40 percent of inmates held in long-term isolation were being released directly to the community with no transition period.
The psychological research has drawn attention, not least from the international community. In a report presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday, Juan E. Méndez, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on torture and other abuse, called for a ban on solitary confinement except in limited situations and singled out the United States for its reliance on the method.
In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights blocked the extradition of four terrorism suspects from Britain, saying it wanted to study whether imprisonment at the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colo., violated a ban on inhuman or degrading treatment.
Yet for states, economic and practical arguments may prove more persuasive than humanitarian concerns.
“It’s just exceedingly expensive to hold someone in a segregation bed,” said Angela Browne, a senior fellow at the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit policy and research group, and head of the institute’s segregation reduction project, which works with states to find alternatives to segregation.
Several states, citing economic reasons, have converted supermax units to more conventional prisons, and a few have closed the prisons altogether. Unit 32 was closed in 2010. The increased costs are largely a result of the staffing required to deliver food and other services to cells and escort prisoners when they are let out.
In 2010, for example, Virginia reported that it cost $89.59 per day to keep a prisoner at Red Onion State Prison, a supermax unit with 399 employees, compared with $60.04 per day at Sussex II State Prison, a maximum-security facility that houses almost 500 more inmates but has a staff of 353.
Gambling on Change 
 
Roy Harper, serving time for armed robbery, kidnapping and other charges, used to wake in his cell at Unit 32 seized with anxiety every morning. “You never know what the day is going to bring,” he said recently.
Sometimes it was flooding from malfunctioning toilets. Sometimes it was inmates setting fires or cutting themselves — two prisoners cut off their own testicles in the time he spent there, he said — and sometimes it was just the sense of isolation he felt, “like being alone in the world.”
Mr. Harper was a prisoner in Unit 32 from the day it opened to the day it closed, 20 years later. But the summer of 2007, he recalled, was worse than most. When the killings began, prison officials first cracked down, taking away the inmates’ fans — the only relief from summer temperatures that approached 100 degrees and, according to an environmental expert who filed a report on the conditions, could feel like 120 or more. They kept prisoners in their cells around the clock, not even allowing them out for exercise, he said.
Mr. Sparkman, the deputy corrections commissioner, viewed the situation as so critical that in July he moved from his home in Jackson to Parchman, where Unit 32 sits on the grounds of the state penitentiary. It was clear that a different approach was needed, he said: “What we were doing, the 23-hour lockdown, was not working.”
But the shift had to be made carefully.
“It was gradual, and it was very controlled,” Mr. Sparkman said. “We started out with one building, identifying those groups that we could let out, and we let some of them out. Some of them we were able to transfer completely out.”
A few guards rebelled at the new orders and resigned in protest. A few others were fired. But by the end of six months, most prisoners were spending hours a day outside their cells or had been moved to the general population of other prisons. A clothing warehouse was turned into a group dining hall, and a maintenance room was converted to an activities center. The basketball court filled with players.
Mr. Harper did not benefit immediately from the changes. He remained in 23-hour lockdown until he worked his way to greater privileges. But he was elated at what he saw, he said, with inmates “working again, walking without chains, going to the yard, going to the chow hall.”
The A.C.L.U. continues to monitor conditions in other prisons in the state. But Margaret Winter, the lead lawyer for the A.C.L.U. in its lawsuit over Unit 32, said she watched the transformation there in wonder, especially as two men who at the beginning of the process seemed deeply entrenched in their views shifted direction. The change, she said, was “stunning.”
Mr. Sparkman said the new approach went against everything he had been trained to do. “If you’d come to me in 2002 and told me I was going to do something like that, I’d say, ‘You don’t know me,’ ” he said. “I’d have probably locked them down for anything that squeaked.”
Mr. Epps looks back at the decision as a nerve-racking gamble.
“Was it scary? Absolutely,” he said. “But it worked out just fine. We didn’t have a single incident.”

Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: March 14, 2012
An earlier version of this article misstated the position of Christopher B. Epps, Mississippi’s commissioner of corrections, in the American Correctional Association. He is president-elect, not president. (Daron Hall is the current president; Mr. Epps takes over in 2013.)

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Prisoners file class-action suit against Arizona Department of Corrections

Arizona Department of Corrections - Central Office
Phoenix (November 22, 2011)

Please, families, tell your loved ones behind bars that help is really on the way. It's going to take a long time for anything to change through the courts, though, so you need to tell prisoners to be patient and "No more suicides!" At least have them write to me before they give up for good... 


--------from the National ACLU's website, at long last. Thanks to all the partners taking this state to task for their abuse and neglect of our most vulnerable prisoners-----


PHOENIX – Prisoners in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections receive such grossly inadequate medical, mental health and dental care that they are in grave danger of suffering serious and preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement and even death, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed today by a legal team led by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Prison Law Office.

The lawsuit also charges that thousands of prisoners are routinely subjected to solitary confinement in windowless cells behind solid steel doors, in conditions of extreme social isolation and sensory deprivation, leading to serious physical and psychological harm. Some prisoners in solitary receive no outdoor exercise for months or years on end, and some receive only two meals a day.

“The prison conditions in Arizona are among the worst I’ve ever seen,” said Donald Specter, executive director of the Berkeley, Calif.-based Prison Law Office. “Prisoners have a constitutional right to receive adequate health care, and it is unconscionable for them to be left to suffer and die in the face of neglect and deliberate indifference.”

Specter was the lead counsel in Brown v. Plata, a similar case from California in which the Supreme Court last year reaffirmed that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate health care.

“Courts have consistently ruled that solitary confinement of people with mental illness is unconstitutional because it aggravates their illness and prevents them from getting proper treatment,” said David Fathi, director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “Even for those with no prior history of mental illness, solitary confinement can inflict extraordinary suffering and lead to catastrophic psychiatric deterioration.”

Critically ill prisoners have begged prison officials for medical treatment, according to the lawsuit, only to be told to “be patient,” that “it’s all in your head,” or that they should “pray” to be cured. Arizona prison officials have repeatedly been warned by their own medical staff of the inadequacy of the care, echoing complaints from prisoner advocates and families that prisoners face a substantial risk of serious harm and death. Yet, they have failed to ensure that minimally adequate health care is provided as required by the Constitution.  

In one particularly tragic case, a prisoner at the state prison complex in Tucson died last year of untreated lung cancer that spread to his liver, lymph nodes and other major organs before prison officials even bothered to send him to a hospital. The prisoner, Ferdinand Dix, filed repeated health needs requests and presented numerous symptoms associated with lung cancer. His liver was infested with tumors and swelled to four times its normal size, pressing on other internal organs and impeding his ability to eat. Prison medical staff responded by telling him to drink energy shakes. He died in February 2011, days after finally being sent to a hospital but only after his abdomen was distended to the size of that of a full-term pregnant woman. A photograph of Dix shortly before his death appears in the lawsuit.

Jackie Thomas, one of the lawsuit’s named plaintiffs who is housed in solitary confinement at the state prison complex in Eyman, has suffered significant deterioration in his physical and mental health as a result of being held in isolation, where he has become suicidal and repeatedly harmed himself in other ways. Prison staff have failed to treat his mental illness, improperly starting and stopping psychotropic medications and repeatedly using ineffective medications that carry severe side effects. Last November, Thomas overdosed on medication but did not receive any medical care.

“Faced with such gross indifference on the part of prison officials to the needs of prisoners with mental illness in their care, it was essential we get involved,” said Jennifer Alewelt, staff attorney with the Arizona Center for Disability Law, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “Prisoners with mental illness can be particularly vulnerable, and we must do everything we can to ensure their mental health needs are met while incarcerated.”   

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Charles Ryan, director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, and Richard Pratt, the department’s interim director of the division of health services, the lawsuit asks, among other things, that constitutionally adequate health care be made available to prisoners, that medications be distributed to patients in a timely manner, and that prisoners not be held in isolation in conditions of social isolation and sensory deprivation that put them at risk of harm. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages.

“Arizona has used the absence of transparency to callously ignore the basic needs of persons entrusted to its care, at times with deadly results,” said Daniel Pochoda, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona. “Absent court intervention the health and well-being of thousands of prisoners will continue to be sacrificed to economic expediency.”

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arizona has the sixth-highest incarceration rate in the nation.

Other attorneys on the case are Daniel C. Barr of Perkins Coie LLP and Caroline Mitchell of Jones Day.
A copy of the lawsuit is available here and here.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

HAWAIIANS in AZ: Nunuha family sues CCA and Hawai'i for murder.


This poor man's murder was preventable - and horrendous. Condolences to his loved ones. I hope you make CCA and the State of Hawai'i pay - it's the only thing that seems to make these people change how they abuse and neglect other human beings. If you need the support of other prisoners' families surviving similar traumas, please let me know (Peggy Plews 480-580-6807 prisonabolitionist@gmail.com). I am in Phoenix, AZ.


Arizona State Legislature, Phoenix.
February 15, 2011


----------------from the ACLU of Hawai'i--------------

Family of Hawaii Prisoner Murdered in Mainland Prison Files Lawsuit Against State of Hawaii, Corrections Corporation of America

Today the family of Bronson Nunuha, a 26-year-old Hawaii prisoner who was brutally murdered at a Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (NYSE:CXW) private prison in Arizona in 2010, filed a lawsuit in state court against CCA and the State of Hawaii.  The suit exposes CCA’s business model of grossly short-staffing prisons and cutting corners in every way possible to make its private prisons profitable.  These systemic practices violated fundamental safety requirements and subjected Hawaii prisoners to rampant gang violence in under-staffed prison units.  Bronson Nunuha was just months away from release on a burglary conviction when CCA forced him to share housing with extremely violent, gang-affiliated prisoners in the same unit.  A copy of the complaint is here

“Bronson’s death was senseless and preventable.  CCA and the State of Hawaii needlessly put him in danger,” said attorney Kenneth M. Walczak, who, along with the Human Rights Defense Center and the ACLU of Hawaii, represents the Nunuha family. 

“Private prisons are known to have higher levels of violence due to understaffing and high staff turnover that result from their goal of generating ever-greater profits,” added HRDC director Paul Wright. “But prison companies are not allowed to make profit more important than human life.  Unfortunately, CCA’s desire to turn a corporate profit needlessly cost Bronson Nunuha his life.”

Bronson was transferred to CCA’s Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona as part of a controversial practice in which Hawaii prisoners are sent to for-profit mainland facilities. He was serving a 5-year sentence for burglary and property damage when he was killed by other prisoners. Bronson, who was only months away from completing his sentence and returning to his family on Oahu, left behind a grieving mother, sisters, and his seven-year-old son. 

Under Hawaii law, the State was required to return Bronson to Hawaii when he had only a year left on his sentence so that he could complete necessary programs to help him re-enter the community.  The State ignored this law.

Bronson was murdered in CCA’s “Special Housing Incentive Program,” or SHIP. The SHIP program places rival gang members and prisoners who do not belong to any gang together in one unit, where they share recreation time and sometimes the same cell.  Predictably, this practice results in violent incidents like Bronson’s murder. Only one CCA employee was present to oversee approximately 50 prisoners in the SHIP unit where Bronson was housed.

While at the CCA prison, Bronson had asked to be removed from the SHIP unit but CCA staff denied his requests.  On February 18, 2010, two gang members attacked Bronson in his cell; the cell door had been opened by a CCA employee, who then left. Bronson was beaten and stabbed over 100 times. His assailants carved the name of their gang into his chest and even had time to leave his cell, shower and change clothes before CCA staff knew that Bronson had been killed. 

One of Bronson’s assailants, Miti Maugaotega, Jr., had previously been involved in several attacks on other prisoners at a different CCA prison. Maugaotega, a gang member, was serving multiple life sentences for attempted murder, rape, and armed robbery. CCA and the State knew that Maugaotega was dangerous and capable of extreme violence but still housed him in the same unit as Bronson, a non-violent offender close to finishing a 5-year sentence.

CCA prisons that house Hawaii prisoners have been plagued with problems. In addition to Bronson’s murder, another Hawaii prisoner, Clifford Medina, was killed at the Saguaro facility in June 2010. In 2009, Hawaii removed all of its female prisoners from CCA’s Otter Creek Correctional Center in Kentucky following a scandal that resulted in at least six CCA employees being charged with rape or sexual misconduct. Other Hawaii prisoners have sued CCA, charging that the company has tolerated beatings and sexual assaults in its mainland prisons, and for refusing to allow them to participate in native Hawaiian religious practices.

“Why the State of Hawaii continues to contract with this company is mystifying, frankly,” said Wright. “After two murders, disturbances, allegations of rampant sexual abuse and a lack of accountability by CCA employees, it’s fairly obvious that CCA is unable or unwilling to safely house Hawaii prisoners, and the State is unable or unwilling to adequately monitor conditions at mainland prisons. Hawaii taxpayers are certainly not getting what they’re paying for.”

ACLU of Hawaii Senior Staff Attorney Dan Gluck added, “the ACLU has long warned the State about the damaging effects of its short-sighted policy of shipping prisoners to the mainland. This tragedy is bound to be repeated unless Hawaii adopts more effective prison policies.” 

Bronson’s family is represented by the San Francisco law firm of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP, by HRDC chief counsel Lance Weber, and by the ACLU of Hawaii’s Dan Gluck.  The attorneys ask anyone with information about Bronson’s death – or information about violations of other safety rules at the CCA Saguaro Correctional Facility – to contact them.              
 
###

The Human Rights Defense Center, founded in 1990 and based in Brattleboro, Vermont, is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights in U.S. detention facilities. HRDC publishes Prison Legal News, a monthly magazine that includes reports, reviews and analysis of court rulings and news related to prisoners’ rights and criminal justice issues. PLN has almost 7,000 subscribers nationwide and operates a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) that includes a comprehensive database of prison and jail-related articles, news reports, court rulings, verdicts, settlements and related documents. 

 Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP has a unique practice blending public interest and private sector litigation.  The firm represents individuals and companies in complex trial and appellate litigation in state & federal courts.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

The republican candidates and the three letters you will never hear them say. (MLK)

Tomorrow is the day we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's life here in A-merry-ca. I will wait to hear all the republican candidates for president give us a nice speech about King's contribution to our great republic while they are on the campaign trail. I will wait, but I doubt if I will hear it.

Republicans are running against Barack Obama, and contrary to what you might hear them say in thirty second sound bites, they are not trying to unite the country; they are trying to unite their base. They cannot do that by acknowledging those other people who have voted by a huge majority for the man their base despises and fears.

Sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's not. And, sometimes, as in the case of Flipper, the silence speaks volumes.

"In the last few months, the Republican Party has spoken to many ideas. Many of them very important to the GOP. They speak freely on the economy, foreign policy, education and government spending. What they do not talk about very often, is their plan on how to unify an America so much more diverse than what the founding fathers created. They steadily evade any deep discussions on race (unless it is in direct proportion to a cost they don’t approve of).
For many this is frustrating. For others it is proof of their bigotry. But as one New York Times article says, it may be all by design. Especially for Mitt Romney:
Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America." [Source]

Mitt Romney knows what he is doing. His constant talk of making A-merry-ca great again, and going back to what it used to be pushes all the right buttons on all the right people.

"In this way, whether he means to or not, Mr. Romney connects with a central evangelic fantasy: that the Barack Obama years, far from being the way forward, are in fact a historical aberration, a tear in the white space-time continuum. And let’s be clear: Mr. Obama’s election was not destiny, but a fluke."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 83 today, and I am pretty sure that if he were alive the republican candidates for president and the folks who support them would be spinning history to put him in quite a different light than we see him in now. (Martyrdom will do that to you.)

I give the American Civil Liberties Union credit for monitoring how we deal with the issue of race in the upcoming elections, and of course there are no surprises in their study:

  • Many of the candidates invoke the concept of “states’ rights” in the 10th Amendment to support efforts to undermine Constitutional rights, such as access to the ballot, as well as contraception and reproductive rights.

  • Paul has not adequately answered deeply disturbing questions about racist comments in newsletters published under his name in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

  • Gingrich continues to make veiled racist references to “food stamp recipients” and ending poverty by putting kids to work in poor “urban” areas. And Santorum said he didn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”


  • Martin Luther King Jr. said “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” For too many of the presidential candidates, the arc is broken."

    "And the church said, 'Amen!'"




      






         

     

    Monday, November 21, 2011

    ACLU Moves to Intervene In AZ Voting Rights Act Challenge

    -----from ACLU-AZ today----

    ACLU Moves to Intervene In Voting Rights Act Challenge

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Monday, November 21, 2011

    CONTACT:

    Phoenix: Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6006 (office) or 602-301-3705 (cell)

    New York: Vesna Jaksic, ACLU National, (212) 549-2666 or media@aclu.org

    PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona filed a motion in a Washington, D.C. federal court today to intervene in the state of Arizona’s challenge to the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). The ACLU argues that Section 5 of the Act, which since 1965 has protected racial and language minorities’ access to voting, must remain in place.

    “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is critical for ensuring that states do not pass election laws that negatively affect minority voters,” said Katie O'Connor, staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “We are intervening in this case to make sure that this critical piece of legislation is upheld, so that everyone's fundamental right to vote is protected.”

    On Aug. 25, Arizona became the first state to challenge this section of the VRA since it was reauthorized in 2006. In Arizona v. Holder, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne claims that during the 2006 reauthorization of the law, Congress did not provide evidence of continuing discrimination in Arizona and that Section 5 imposes a severe burden on the state.

    “This latest move by Tom Horne to bail out of the VRA is part of a nationwide effort to rob people of color of their voice at the ballot box,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “Considering he is leading efforts to defend SB1070 and the Mexican-American studies ban – two laws that scapegoat U.S. citizens of Latino descent – it’s shameful and disingenuous for him to say that discrimination in Arizona doesn’t exist.”

    Because of Arizona’s long history of implementing procedures that have had a discriminatory impact on voters, especially Latino voters and those with limited English proficiency, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires the state to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before implementing any new voting practices or procedures that could negatively impact or dilute their future votes.

    “The ongoing attempts to politicize the re-districting process by the Arizona legislative and executive branches in total disregard of voters’ choice of an independent commission demonstrate the fragile state of the fundamental right to an effective vote for all Arizonans,” added Daniel Pochoda, Legal Director of the ACLU Foundation of Arizona.

    The ACLU filed the motion to intervene on behalf of seven voters who live in Arizona. They are: Latino voter and immigrant rights activist Luis Avila, who currently serves as President of the Somos America Coalition, Napoleon Pisaño, a Latino activist from Mesa who worked for the Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center, and Eric Mante, a Filipino American voter who attends Arizona State University; African American voters Dionne Thomas, Director of Youth and Young Adult Ministries at Progressive Baptist Church in Mesa, Calvin Goode, who served over a period of 22 years on the Phoenix City Council, and Melvin Hannah, former Director of Community Outreach and Job Development of the Greater Phoenix Urban League; and Japanese American voter Kathryn Nakagawa, a board member of the Japanese American Citizens League.

    “Civic engagement in Arizona, especially among Latinos, is now more important than ever,” said Luis Avila, 29, who became a citizen in 2009. “We can’t just sit on the sidelines and ignore discriminatory attempts to make it harder for Americans to cast votes. We need to do everything we can to ensure that everyone has access to the polls and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act plays an important role in making that happen.”

    The ACLU is arguing the state has a long and persistent history of implementing measures that have a discriminatory impact on voters. For example, despite the absence of significant fraud, Prop 200 dramatically altered Arizona election law by requiring citizens to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, and by imposing a restrictive identification requirement as a condition of casting a ballot at the polls. The law, passed in 2004, made it increasingly difficult for voting-age citizens, particularly elderly Native American voters, to register or vote because of lack of requisite documentation, including birth certificates and other federal or state forms of identification. More than 30,000 voter-registration applications in Arizona have been rejected as a result of the law’s onerous identification requirements. A portion of the law relating to registration requirements was struck down in 2010.

    More recently, the Arizona Senate passed SB1409, a measure that requires all documents issued by any Arizona agency or political subdivision to be written in English. Although the bill created an exemption for official ballots, there are lingering questions about its potential impact on minority voters because all non-ballot voting materials must be printed in English. This could include important voting guidance and instructions, and summaries of ballot initiatives and referenda. The bill was held in the House of Representatives.

    There are currently two other cases filed by sub-jurisdictions in the DC District Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 5: LaRoque v. Holder, filed by residents of Kinston, North Carolina, and Shelby County v. Holder, filed on behalf of Shelby County, Alabama. On September 21, a district court judge issued a 151-page opinion in the Shelby County case upholding Section 5’s constitutionality. That decision has been appealed. A lower court decision is still pending in the North Carolina case on the constitutionality of Section 5. The ACLU represents voter minorities in these challenges.

    Attorneys on the case include O'Connor and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Pochoda of the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, and Art Spitzer of the ACLU National Capitol Area.

    Click here to read the ACLU’s response to the lawsuit filed by the state of Arizona.

    Click here to read the state’s complaint in the case, State of Arizona v. Holder, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    For more information about the individuals who are serving as interveners, click here.

    More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights

    ###

    Alessandra Soler Meetze

    Executive Director

    American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona

    P.O. Box 17148

    Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148

    Phone: 602-773-6006 (direct) or 602-650-1854 (general)

    Fax: 602-650-1376

    Visit us on-line at: www.acluaz.org

    En Español: http://www.acluaz.org/espanol

    Find us on Facebook or Twitter

    Thursday, November 3, 2011

    ACLU releases "Banking on Bondage: Private prisons and mass incarceration"

    -----------from the American Civil Liberties Union--------------

    Private Prison Industry Feeds on Nation’s Crippling Addiction to Incarceration While Reaping Multi-Billion Dollar Revenues

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

    NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today released a new report providing the first comprehensive analysis of the destructive impact of prison privatization.

    The report, “Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration,” traces the rise of the for-profit prison industry over the past three decades and shows how private prison companies have capitalized on the nation’s addiction to incarceration to achieve gigantic profits. All the while, the report shows, mass incarceration wreaks havoc on communities by unnecessarily depriving individuals of their liberty, draining government resources and bringing little or no benefit to public safety.

    “Our nation’s reliance on mass incarceration has bankrupted government budgets, torn families and communities apart, disproportionately impacted people of color, and provided no benefit to public safety,” said David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project and the author of the report. “But it has been a bonanza for the private prison industry, which rakes in billions of dollars a year and dishes out multi-million dollar compensation packages to its top executives. For-profit prison companies are a barrier to the kind of criminal justice reform that is desperately needed in America.”

    Spurred by criminal laws that impose needlessly steep sentences – especially for low-level, non-violent offenders – and curtail rehabilitation opportunities, the United States today imprisons more people than any other nation in the world. The crippling cost of incarcerating increasing numbers of Americans has saddled government budgets with rising debt and exacerbated the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation. Yet the two largest private prison companies alone obtained nearly $3 billion in revenue in 2010.

    While evidence that privatization saves taxpayers money is mixed at best, for-profit prison advocates continue to trot out privatization schemes as a supposed answer to budgetary woes confronting state governments.

    • Arizona has announced plans to award 5,000 additional prison beds to private contractors despite a recent statement by the state’s auditor general that for-profit imprisonment in Arizona may cost more than incarceration in publicly operated facilities.
    • Florida has attempted to increase its reliance on private prisons in a misguided attempt to reign in prisons costs despite concerns that doing so could impede more serious and fundamental changes, such as sentencing reform.
    • The Louisiana legislature last year narrowly defeated a proposal pushed by Gov. Bobby Jindal to sell off three state prisons to private companies after state legislators expressed deep concerns about doing so.
    • Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to create a new network of massive immigration detention centers, managed largely by private companies, even as allegations of sexual abuse in private facilities continue to surface. In August 2011, a security officer employed by a private prison company pled guilty to sexual abuse of a female detainee; in the following month another employee of a private prison company pled guilty to similar crimes.

    Empirical studies may also show a heightened level of violence against prisoners in privately run institutions, a possible reflection of the higher rate of staff turnover in private prisons, which can result in inexperienced guards walking the tiers.

    But despite serious questions about the wisdom of privatizing prison systems, some members of the for-profit prison industry are using shrewd tactics, including extensive lobbying, lavish campaign contributions and efforts to control information, to garner more and more government contracts and lock up ever-increasing numbers of people.

    “It is imperative that we halt the expansion of for-profit incarceration,” said Shapiro. “The private prison industry helped create, and continues to feed off, the social ill of mass incarceration. Private prisons cannot be part of the solution – economic or ethical – to our nation’s addiction to incarceration.”

    A copy of the report is available online at:
    www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-i...

    ACLU: The big business of immigrant detention...




    ------------------From the ACLU blogs------------

    The Big Business of Inhumane Detention of Immigrants


    The Department of Homeland Security assumes that mass detention is the key to immigration enforcement. But in fact, our detention system locks up thousands of immigrants unnecessarily every year, exposing detainees to brutal and inhumane conditions of confinement at massive costs to American taxpayers. Throughout the next two weeks, check back daily for posts about the costs of immigration detention, both human and fiscal, and what needs to be done to ensure fair and humane policy.

    The inhumane and abusive system that is immigration detention in this country is good business for one particular special interest group — the private prison industry.

    According to some estimates, nearly 50 percent of the tens of thousands of immigrants in detention every day are locked up in jails and detention systems operated by private prison companies — a reality that crystallizes the private prison industry's deep financial incentive to see the continued expansion of a system that this blog series has made clear is riddled with myriad abuses.

    An ACLU report examining the destructive impact of prison privatization, to be publicly released tomorrow by the National Prison Project, outlines the nefarious connection between the for-profit private prison industry and the expansion during the last decade of immigration detention.

    It's clear that executives in the private prison industry have achieved gigantic profits on the backs of immigration detainees left vulnerable to sexual abuse and even death.

    As the report makes clear, private prisons have profited not only from needlessly harsh sentencing policies but also from an unprecedented increase in the number of detained immigrants. In 1994, the average daily population of detained immigrants stood at 6,785. By 2001, the number of immigrants detained at any given time had more than tripled, to 20,429. By 2010, fueled to a significant degree by a post-9/11 increase in reliance on immigration detention, that number stood at 31,020 — an eye-popping 450 percent increase over 1994 levels.

    Why? Well at least a part of the answer was provided by National Public Radio, which reported in a 2010 story that the private prison industry engaged in a "quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070," the infamous statute that requires police officers in Arizona to ask people for their papers during law enforcement stops based only on an undefined "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country unlawfully.

    Senate Bill 1070, and similar "copycat" laws since enacted in several other states, have the potential to further increase the number of immigrants detained, thereby adding pressure to build more immigration detention centers — and put even more cash into the pockets of private prison fat cats.

    It's a nasty business, indeed.

    Thursday, September 29, 2011

    Murder of Shannon Palmer: Lewis lieutenant stands up.


    "SOS: Chuck Ryan is Killing AZ Prisoners"
    Phoenix New Times Sidewalk
    November 12, 2010



    The ACLU National Prison Project and the Prison Law Office (which took California DOC to the Supreme Court over medical care for prisoners) are investigating the abuse and neglect of prisoners at the Arizona Department of Corrections and may sue Arizona for injunctive relief over the poor medical and psychiatric treatment. ADC employees, ex-prisoners, family members and others with first-hand knowledge or eyewitness testimony that can be offered to help protect prisoners and staff from the deteriorating conditions inside our state prisons should contact me (prisonabolitionist@gmail.com / 480-580-6807) or the ACLU of Arizona for more information. The ACLU-AZ is at:

    American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
    P.O. Box 17148
    Phoenix, AZ 85011

    602.650.1854
    info@acluaz.org


    Please see my post from yesterday about the escalating violence in the state prisons, also.



    Thanks to both Paul Rubin and Chuck Bauer for the following...


    -----------from the Phoenix New Times-------------

    A Respected State Prison Officer Quits Over Dangerous Conditions for Inmates and Guards

    By Paul Rubin

    PHOENIX NEW TIMES

    published: September 29, 2011



    Chuck Bauer loved his job as a lieutenant at the Lewis Prison Complex in Buckeye. He gradually had risen in rank over eight years (in two stints) with the Arizona Department of Corrections, winning Supervisor of the Year at Lewis twice.

    But the 56-year-old Peoria resident says he became increasingly discouraged by what he saw on the job — cutbacks in personnel and resulting safety issues for "his people" (corrections officers) and for inmates.

    On September 10, 2010, Bauer heard over his walkie-talkie about an inmate who was badly hurt inside Cell A-26 in Building A of the Buckley Unit, a so-called "protective segregation" area.

    The incident led Bauer, within days, to quit his job and try to move on with his life — something, he says, that has been difficult.

    "I am a loyal guy, and it still makes me sick to think that I abandoned my people," he tells New Times. "I just had to do it. I know from up close that bad things happen in prisons, but what happened to inmate [Shannon] Palmer that day just didn't have to happen.

    "For one thing, we were short-staffed to the max, as we have been for a long time now, and couldn't keep an eye on those inmates like we're supposed to — simple matter of numbers. It was like a nightmare, and it could have happened to one of my officers just as well as to that poor guy."

    Bauer contacted New Times after reading our recent "Hell Hole" cover story (September 1) about the horrific murder of Shannon Palmer, 40, a seriously mentally ill Mesa man who had but a few months left to serve on a three-year criminal-damage rap. Palmer was attacked with a razor-blade shank by Jasper Rushing, who had been his cellmate (in a cell designed for one person) for about three weeks.

    Rushing was a decade into a 28-year sentence for first-degree murder when he took his weapon to Palmer's throat and then to his penis (which he cut off) after knocking him out with a makeshift club (a small sheet wrapped tightly around hardcover books).

    Bauer says he immediately rushed to the wing, where he saw Palmer lying inside the cell, mutilated, bleeding profusely, and all but dead. Jasper Rushing still was in the area, handcuffed and, Bauer recalls, "as calm as a man can be."

    Bauer decided to perform CPR on the unconscious Palmer himself, with the assistance of his colleague Captain Ron Lawrence.

    "It was so bad that I didn't want the staffers to have to deal with it," Bauer says, without a hint of braggadocio. "There was blood everywhere, like out of a horror movie, and I knew he wasn't going to make it. But we had to try our best, and we did. I didn't even notice [Palmer's penis] on the floor until later."

    Afterward, Bauer dictated his report on his role in the tragedy, changed his bloodied shirt, and tried to go about his duties. But he says he couldn't shake the feeling that Shannon Palmer's homicide, while obviously extreme, was symptomatic of issues increasingly plaguing the corrections department.

    "I knew that quitting a job I have loved during this economy was pretty drastic, and people I talked to about it thought I was nuts," he says.

    "But there's a time in a person's life when you have to do what makes sense to you, and I just couldn't stand by any longer and just wait for something to happen to one of my [corrections officer] guys or gals. I just didn't want to be the one that would have to make that call to an officer's wife or husband about an injury, or worse."

    Bauer pulls out a piece of paper on which he has scribbled some talking points:

    • The lights were off in the Palmer/Rushing cell for weeks, which was dangerous for all concerned, including the corrections officers: "We couldn't get the maintenance people to fix the lighting and lots of other things at that time. I know that sounds hard to believe, but it's true. Being in the dark is gonna drive anyone nuts."

    • The corrections officer who made the ill-fated decision to assign Palmer and Rushing to the same cell in August 2010 "was completely overworked — too much on her plate — doing seven or eight different jobs, which meant she was doing none of them too good."

    • Many seriously mentally ill inmates are in harm's way because of their inability to anticipate a potentially violent situation, and because Arizona's corrections department is doing a poor job of isolating that population: "There's no place to put the mentally ill, outside of prison, so we end up trying to look after them, trying to make sure they get the right meds in them, and whatever."

    • Morale among state corrections officers is poor, in part, because of mandated furloughs, at the same time that Arizona's prison population continues to grow: "I know [corrections department Director] Charles Ryan has no idea who I am, but he's an idiot if he doesn't know that his officers are not happy with the safety issues and the money issues involving corrections officers that are happening on his watch."

    Bauer points out that even though Rushing and Palmer were in a protective-segregation unit, this meant little.

    "It doesn't mean that the inmates in that unit aren't going to get hurt [or killed]," he says. "Those guys [Palmer and Rushing] were in an [isolation] cell and weren't out in the yard, and look at what happened."

    Bauer says his decision to quit his $52,000-a-year job has had great repercussions on every part of his life.

    "It's not as if I had this big fancy game plan to quit my job and lose my benefits and all that," he says, adding that he and his wife don't have healthcare insurance at the moment.

    Bauer recently has been trying to get his new construction-cleaning business together, and he says things are looking up. Still, he often thinks back to his last day of work at Lewis at the end of September 2010.

    A warden wanted to chat with him, Bauer says, but Bauer was worried that he might be persuaded to rescind his resignation.

    So instead of meeting with the warden, Bauer found his way to the opposite end of the sprawling complex and stepped through the prison gates for the last time as a corrections officer.

    "One of the hardest things I've ever done," he says. "Part of me wishes that I had stuck it out and part of me doesn't. I'd like to think I had the respect of my officers and of the inmates. The inmates may not have liked me much, but they knew I stuck to my word."

    Bauer asks if he can add a few final thoughts:

    "What happened in that cell between those guys was as bad it gets. I still have these real bad dreams about it.

    "I don't know whether to blame the Arizona Legislature for wanting to lock everyone up but not wanting to pay for it, or to blame the current director [Ryan] and the direction he's been taking.

    "How about if I just blame everyone?"

    Wednesday, September 7, 2011

    ACLU, Prison Legal News Sue Sheriff Babeu to End Censorship at Pinal County Jail

    From Prison Legal News and the ACLU-AZ

    --------------------------


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Wednesday, September 7, 2011

    CONTACT:

    Arizona: Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6006 (office) ameetze@acluaz.org

    Washington: Paul Wright, Prison Legal News, (802) 257-1342,
    pwright@prisonlegalnews.org


    Phoenix, AZ – Prison Legal News (PLN), represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona (ACLU) and the law firm of Rosen, Bien & Galvan LLP, today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Pinal County Jail policy that prohibits inmates from receiving any magazines, hardcover books or letters of more than one page in length. The lawsuit, which was filed against Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and Pinal County, argues this “postcard-only” policy amounts to censorship and prevents inmates from receiving Prison Legal News, a non- profit monthly journal that reports on corrections news and prisoners’ rights issues.

    “Publishers have a well-established First Amendment right to send their publications and books to prisoners, and it is unfortunate that rather than respect the rights of publishers to communicate with inmates Sheriff Babeu continues to try to defend the indefensible by banning our books and magazines," said Paul Wright editor of PLN, which distributes approximately 40 book titles including self-help, educational and criminal justice-related publications.

    According to the complaint, paperback books (limited to 3) are the only exception to the policy and those must be from “an approved publisher.” Over the past six months, jail officials have refused to deliver several PLN publications, including Prison Legal News and other informational brochures, citing “not allowed,” “only 1-page letters allowed,” or “not from an approved publisher,” and have also failed to deliver copies of PLN’s paperback books. The materials provide inmates with information on matters of concern, ranging from addressing their basic health and safety needs to litigating federal civil rights claims.

    “As implemented by Sheriff Babeu, the postcard-only policy is clearly unconstitutional and serves as an excuse to censor books and magazines for no good reason,” added ACLU of Arizona Legal Director Dan Pochoda. “Jail officials who are serious about lowering recidivism and increasing public safety recognize that cutting inmates off from the outside world and denying them access to periodicals is counterproductive.”

    PLN is asking the court to order Sheriff Babeu to cease the unconstitutional practice of censoring PLN and limiting inmate mail to short messages on postcards, and to compensate PLN for past and continuing injuries caused by the censorship. The case is Prison Legal News v. Babeu, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In addition to Pochoda, PLN also is represented by Ernest Galvan and Kenneth M. Walczak of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP in San Francisco, and Lance Weber, in-house counsel for the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center, the parent organization of Prison Legal News.

    Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), founded in 1990 with offices in Brattleboro, Vermont, is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights in U.S. detention facilities. HRDC publishes Prison Legal News, a monthly magazine that includes reports, reviews and analysis of court rulings and news related to prisoners’ rights and criminal justice issues. PLN has approximately 7,000 subscribers nationwide and operates a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) that includes a comprehensive database of prison and jail-related articles, news reports, court rulings, verdicts, settlements and related documents.

    The complaint is available on-line at: www.acluaz.org.

    --American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
    of Arizona - Media Relations Office
    P.O. Box 17148
    Phoenix, AZ 85011
    Tel: 602-650-1854 Fax: 602-650-1376
    http://www.acluaz.org

    Sunday, July 17, 2011

    Bill Montgomery on Sentencing reform.

    The Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, recently submitted the following response to a piece on sentencing reform written originally for ASU's Cronkite News (republished by the Capitol Times) in May. His letter is comprehensive, which I appreciate - and his criticism of the case used to represent non-violent offenders was taken to heart by Cronkite News, who consequently edited it out of their final version of the article, which I've pasted after his commentary.



    I disagree with many of Montgomery's conclusions - and question his data and sources - especially where he estimates how much money has theoretically been "saved" on crimes prevented by imposing longer sentences on offenders across categories. But I'll let him and the story that follows speak for themselves right now. Just don't take this post as an endorsement of Montgomery and the MCAO's positions - I'm still in Rep. Cecil Ash's corner on sentencing reform.



    What I should note here, however, is that Montgomery was recently given kudos by the ACLU of Arizona for the MCAO's emphasis on diversion of juvenile offenders arrested for graffiti. Some may recall that Thomas was draconian in his efforts to criminalize and punish youth, and routinely ignored evidence-based practice in juvenile justice matters. The MCAO under Andrew Thomas also referred more youth to private vendors for diversion programs, which can be unaffordable to many families and force low-income youth down a criminalized path instead of promoting rehabilitation and community accountability. Montgomery's folks don't appear to be catering to the private punishment industry like Thomas' did (ask the ACLU-AZ for their new briefing paper, "Protecting What Works: Juvenile Diversion in Maricopa County" for more on that issue - it hasn't been posted to their site yet).



    -----------------from the Capitol Times------------------

    Setting the record straight on sentencing

    by Bill Montgomery / Guest Opinion

    Capitol Times

    Published: July 11th, 2011

    I am writing to correct a number of inaccuracies in the May 20 “special report” printed in your newspaper (A push from the right: More conservatives joining fight to change sentencing guidelines”). I am sure the reporter’s intention was to present a thorough examination of this important topic, but her final product was extremely one-sided and lacking in several important facts. As the chief prosecutor for the 4 million residents of Maricopa County, I feel it is my duty to set the record straight.

    The problems in this article begin with the characterization of Candita Gottsponer, the convicted felon featured in the opening of the report. She is described as someone “with a record for marijuana possession” who “didn’t expect to go to prison for her first DUI.” The impression most readers might have is that Gottsponer was given a lengthy prison sentence (23 months) for what seems like a mild offense.

    In fact, a simple Internet search of publicly available court documents would have revealed that Gottsponer had eight criminal cases, five of which involved felony offenses, including misconduct involving a weapon, possession and use of a dangerous drug, credit card theft, involving a minor in a drug offense and failure to appear. The writer also fails to mention that Gottsponer’s first DUI was an aggravated felony offense — she was driving under the influence with children in the vehicle.

    Gottsponer received a prison sentence not because her offenses were “non-violent” as the article mistakenly suggests, but because she committed multiple felony crimes — exactly the type of repeat criminal Arizona’s tough sentencing laws are designed to target. Further proof of the efficacy of her sentence comes from Gottsponer herself, who readily admits that prison afforded her the opportunity to get an education, turn her life around and become, in her words, “a good role model for her kids.” I applaud her change in attitude.

    If anything, Gottsponer is a prime example of how well our current sentencing regime works.

    The article goes on to suggest, with no objective supporting data, that Arizona has eliminated alternatives to incarceration such as fines and substance abuse treatment in favor of lengthy prison sentences. Exactly the opposite is true. In 2010 alone, more than 4,400 felons in Maricopa County have been offered diversion programs instead of prison, while defendants in some 6,200 drug cases were sent to substance abuse programs, not prison.

    The common misconception, repeated throughout the article, is that a simple drug possession conviction in Arizona results in jail or prison time. Again, not true. The overwhelming majority of first-time felony drug possession cases result in probation. And under Proposition 200, with very limited exceptions, first and second-time drug possessors must be placed on probation and offered the opportunity of drug treatment. The indisputable fact is that a first time drug user has to work pretty hard to get into prison in Arizona.

    Had the reporter relied on the actual numbers instead of generalities from various interest groups, she would have discovered that only 68 of the roughly 40,000 inmates in the Arizona Department of Corrections are there for possessing drugs — and most of those convicts pled their cases down from more serious offenses. All other drug offenders in our prisons are there for narcotics trafficking, a serious crime which no true conservative — or anyone with a true concern for public safety — would say should be treated lightly.

    The article is also rife with distortions of Arizona’s sentencing statutes. Here’s just one example: “a bill signed by Gov. Jan Brewer made causing an accident while driving with a suspended license a felony rather than a misdemeanor, raising the penalty from a maximum of 30 days in jail to a minimum of nine months behind bars.” Left out of this truncated description is any mention that the type of “accident” addressed in this statute is one which results in a death or serious physical injury. As a result, the reader is left to believe that you can go to jail for nine months or more for causing a simple fender bender on a suspended license.

    I also take issue with the quantitative analysis underpinning many of the article’s assertions about the cost of our current sentencing regime. The budget for Arizona’s Department of Corrections, we are told, has risen from $41.4 million in fiscal 1979 to $721 million in fiscal 2000 (no effort is made to adjust those dollars for inflation, but let’s put that aside for the moment). Additionally, according to the article the number of inmates has increased “10 times over since the late 1970s, while the state’s population had only doubled.”

    By themselves and without the proper context, these numbers appear to be excessively large. Yet a more responsible and complete analysis would have also looked at what Arizona’s presumably large investment in incarceration has yielded in the way of benefits. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of the huge reduction in crime the state has enjoyed over this roughly 30-year period. Such details, of course, would have provided the inconvenient and incontrovertible truth that our current incarceration policies have actually made Arizona a much safer place to live, work and raise a family.

    In Maricopa County, with 65 percent of the state’s population, violent and property crimes have fallen nearly 29 percent (as the number of inmates rose 38 percent). Before comprehensive sentencing reform, Arizona was perpetually among the top three states in serious crime. By 2009 (the most recent reported year), we’re down to 15th. A decade ago, Phoenix was ranked the top city for auto theft. Today we’re down to 56th place. Many other types of crimes are also down significantly.

    The financial impact of these declines is substantial (and also absent from the article’s analysis). Research data compiled by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council found that Arizona’s strengthened sentencing statutes have led to the incarceration of an estimated 3,100 additional offenders in Maricopa County since 2005 who would have otherwise not been sent to prison. These are largely repeat offenders who have been found to commit an average of just under one felony per month. With an average prison sentence of 33 months under Arizona’s truth-in-sentencing laws, that works out to roughly 98,038 additional crimes prevented in Maricopa County alone.

    Assuming 90 percent of those deterred crimes (88,234) are property crimes with an average cost of $1,900 each, that works out to a savings of $167.7 million. Assuming the remaining 10 percent (9,804) are violent offenses, generally estimated to cost $20,000 each, that savings approaches $196 million. So, not only are we safer thanks to tougher sentencing, we’ve also saved a bundle — roughly $363.7 million.

    And this is precisely the outcome proponents envisioned when they enacted tougher sentencing laws: fewer crimes, fewer crime victims, greater savings, and safer neighborhoods.

    But wait, the reporter warns us, the number of inmates in Arizona continues to rise! Scary looking figures supposedly supporting this trend are offered as the article’s parting shot. But these miss the mark entirely. Yes, many people are going to prison — but more are actually coming out. In fact, over the past 11 months there’s actually been a net outflow of inmates. So images of an ever-expanding prison population are simply wrong.

    Given the many inaccuracies throughout the report which I’ve cited, I’d like to respectfully ask that the Capitol Times revisit this topic and apply a more rigorous analysis of our sentencing laws, one informed by actual facts instead of opinions and generalities. There is a strong, substantiated argument that Arizona’s current sentencing regime has made our state safer and saved the taxpayers substantial amounts of money. Your readers deserve to hear it.

    — Bill Montgomery is the Maricopa County attorney.


    -------------------From Cronkite News-------------


    More conservatives joining push to change sentencing guidelines

    Editor’s Note: The introduction to this story has been corrected to remove a reference to a case that erroneously represented the issue of sentencing guidelines in Arizona. A corrective to the story is available here. The 21st paragraph of the story has been corrected to reflect that recently signed legislation involves accidents that cause serious injury or death. A corrective on that point is available here.

    Arizona's prison population:

    – 1970 : 1,672
    – 1974 : 1,752
    – 1980 : 3,480
    – 1985 : 8,152
    – 1990 : 13,699
    – 1995 : 20,742
    – 2000 : 26,510
    – 2005 : 33,471
    – 2010 : 40,508

    PHOENIX – Rep. Cecil Ash, a Republican representing a conservative district in Mesa, considers himself anything but soft on crime.

    “When a person commits … an intentional violent felony there’s not much excuse for that,” he said.

    But his five years as a deputy public defender in Maricopa County Superior Court helped make him question whether changing the way Arizona deals with non-violent criminals would offer an opportunity to save tax dollars and help those offenders turn their lives around. He pointed to lesser drug offenses and white-collar crimes as examples.

    “There are only limited funds to go around, and it’s being used in the Department of Corrections,” Ash said. “If we are wasting money in some areas that could be better used in health care or education, then it has an impact.”

    Since the late 1970s, state and federal lawmakers have reacted to rising crime and the illicit drug trade by mandating prison time for many non-violent offenses, ranging from driving under the influence to possession of small amounts of marijuana. Those sentencing guidelines also targeted repeat offenders regardless of whether their offenses were violent.

    Advocates, generally offering a liberal perspective, have responded that eliminating the options of fines, work release, substance-abuse treatment and house arrest in favor of prison time can turn non-violent offenders into career criminals. Losing contact with their families, communities and jobs contributes to this, they argue.

    As states face large budget deficits, calls for reforming sentencing for non-violent offenders also are coming increasingly from conservatives such as Ash who call prison costs unsustainable.

    While Arizona’s population increased by 24.6 percent from 2001 to 2010, the population in state and private prisons rose 50.8 percent to 40,508. Bill Hart, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University, said laws requiring mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for a broadening range of non-violent offenses contributed to that.

    “Incarceration has long been a growth industry in Arizona,” he said.

    Origins

    Before the push toward tougher sentences, nearly every federal and state system gave judges latitude on sentences and allowed parole boards to periodically review whether an offender should be released. Judges could consider factors such as marital status, employment and social class as well as the crime itself when determining how much, if any, time a defendant would face.

    In the 1970s, concerns about variability in sentencing and rising crime rates prompted a bipartisan push, led by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., that in the 1980s led to federal sentencing guidelines.

    “It was strange bedfellows,” said Cassia Spohn, a professor in Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. “The conservatives argued that it’s a tough-on-crime control mechanism; the liberals argued that indeterminate sentences were unfair, that they were racially and ethnically disproportionate.”

    The guidelines base sentences on the severity of the offense and the offender’s criminal history. It’s a complex formula that Spohn equates to lines intersecting on a grid.

    Meanwhile, states added their own sentencing guidelines, with their own complex formulas, for offenses not covered by federal laws.

    The results were mandatory minimum sentences, most often targeting drug-related crimes such as possession or trafficking but also applying to DUIs, crimes involving weapons and repeated offenses.

    Hart, with the Morrison Institute, said Arizona has been a national leader in such laws.

    “Incarceration is very much used here as a tool, and in fact Arizona has kind of a reputation nationwide as a fairly punitive corrections system, meaning a heavy emphasis on incarceration,” Hart said.

    In 1978, Arizona adopted a criminal code laying out minimum, maximum and presumptive sentences for dozens of felonies. It included additional penalties for repeat offenders and those who commit crimes while on probation.

    One provision, for example, calls for a parolee charged with a felony drug crime involving eight or more pounds of marijuana to face a life sentence and serve a minimum of 25 years on top of any other sentence.

    Since then, lawmakers have regularly made changes, large and small, to that code, sometimes increasing sentences but also reclassifying offenses as more severe crimes, which has the effect of boosting penalties. This year, for example, a bill signed by Gov. Jan Brewer made causing an accident involving serious injury or death while driving with a suspended license a felony rather than a misdemeanor, raising the penalty from a maximum of 30 days in jail to a minimum of nine months behind bars.

    In addition, Arizona established “three strikes” laws requiring judges to give extended prison terms to those convicted three times or more of violent or aggravated offenses. A so-called truth-in-sentencing law requires violent and non-violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before being eligible for parole.

    Hart said such laws have boosted prison populations and rates of incarceration around the country.

    “Arizona has been a leader even among these in its rates,” he said.

    Spohn said that another outcome of the push for mandatory sentences was that power over criminal penalties shifted from judges to prosecutors, who decide which crimes carrying which mandatory minimum sentences defendants will face.

    “We haven’t eliminated discretion in sentencing, we just moved it across the parking lot to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Spohn said, quoting a federal judge she interviewed for her research.

    After 10 years on the Maricopa County Superior Court bench, Penny Willrich has become an advocate for amending sentencing guidelines for non-violent offenders.

    “This is sort of a rough-and-ready state, and they have a sort of narrow and myopic view of criminal rehabilitation,” Willrich said. “Being soft on crime is a misnomer; any time you impose punishment on somebody, you’re not being soft on crime.”

    She added: “I think we really have to work on getting rid of the misnomer so that people can get down to business of really evaluating whether the sentences that are there fit the crime.”

    Conservative voices

    Last year, an Arizona Office of the Auditor General report on the Arizona Department of Corrections’ prison population and the associated costs noted that the number of inmates had increased 10 times over since the late 1970s while the state’s population had only doubled. To keep up with that growth, it said, the state would need to add 8,500 beds by 2017.

    Until now, the state has addressed that growth by building more prisons, the report said. Lower-cost options for the future could include diverting more non-violent, low-risk offenders from prison or reducing their time in prison, report concluded, adding that state could look at expanding the use of alternatives to prison, such as house arrest.

    Out of a total state budget of $8.9 billion going into the current fiscal year, which ends in June, $949 million was designated for the Department of Corrections. The department’s budget has risen from $41.4 million in fiscal 1979, just after Arizona’s new criminal code went into effect, $413 million in fiscal 1990 and $721 million in fiscal 2000.

    It’s the costs associated with Arizona’s rising prison population that have conservatives such as Ash, the state representative, looking for alternatives for non-violent, low-risk offenders.

    He authored seven bills this year that would have provided judges discretion to sentence certain non-violent offenders to alternatives to prison, reduced charges for certain non-violent offenses or reduced prison time for low-risk offenders.

    “Some people are not malicious; they’ve just made mistakes,” Ash said.

    One bill would have prevented underage girls arrested for prostitution from being charged with sex crimes. That change would allow judges to sentence those offenders to diversion programs and counseling rather than prison.

    Another bill would have established a process allowing inmates with severe medical conditions to apply for parole if they aren’t serving life sentences or facing the death penalty, releasing the Department of Corrections from responsibility for their care.

    Ash said such changes would take into account public safety, the need to rehabilitate inmates and fiscal responsibility.

    “At some point you have to balance financial resources you have with what’s needed to be done, and it’s difficult when you just have limited resources,” he said.

    However, Ash’s only bill dealing with the subject to reach committee was a measure that would have established a legislative committee to study sentencing guidelines. It won a unanimous endorsement from the House Judiciary Committee but didn’t reach the floor.

    The Goldwater Institute, a private think tank dedicated to limited government and free markets, has included alternative sentences for non-violent offenders in its recommendations for reducing the state budget.

    Byron Schlomach, director for the Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity, said judges and juries should be allowed to look at whether options other than incarceration would allow low-risk offenders to earn money to pay restitution and help cover the cost of their supervision.

    “Anything that’s cheaper than what we are spending on incarcerated individuals now – that’s just fiscal sense,” he said. “So why wouldn’t we do that, especially if there’s evidence, and there is, that it’s at least as effective as a deterrent on future crime as the current system is.”

    Schlomach said he sees a “weird confluence” of liberal and conservative arguments on the subject.

    “That just sounds all kinds of conservative to me, and it also sounds merciful to these other people who come from a different point of view,” he said.

    Ash’s efforts have national support from organizations such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, whose RightOnCrime project focuses on reviewing mandatory sentences. The project has gained support from national conservatives leaders such as Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich.

    Marc Levin, the foundation’s director of the Center for Effective Justice, said the states’ budget issues will persuade people who wouldn’t consider sentencing reform before to take a closer look at the issue.

    “In the past, people were extremely reluctant to address it – they didn’t want to be accused of being soft on crime,” he said. “I think people have realized that need to be both tough and smart.”

    Hart, with the Morrison Institute, said he sees many states reconsidering their stands on sentencing.

    “There’s a realization across the country that states can no longer afford these enormous costs of incarceration,” he said. “There’s a lot of belief and, I think, a lot of evidence that this large-scale incarceration does not seem to have really worked very much in correcting people.”

    A prosecutor’s view

    Hart said deterrence, not rehabilitating criminals, was the goal of mandatory sentencing.

    “The aim was really to take discretion away from judges who were perceived back then as being soft on crime and not harsh enough,” he said.

    Hart said those opposed to changing the current system contend that non-violent offenders are a very small part of the equation.

    A 2010 report by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, produced in response to state budget concerns, said that violent and repeat offenders make up about 94 percent of the Arizona’s prison population. The report also noted Arizona’s crime rate dropped by 42.3 percent from 1995 to 2008.

    “Their whole point of argument is, ‘No, we don’t have a lot of the wrong people in prison; the right people are in prison, even though there are so many,’” Hart said.

    Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said he looks to crime rates to see what’s working.

    “If we’re warehousing them, fewer crimes are being committed, and then other offenders who are out there on the streets don’t have the professionals teaching them what to do,” he said.

    Montgomery added that there’s a lack of objective data on the effect of alternatives to prison sentences.

    “And without being able to do that I would be very suspect of people trying to say, ‘Aha! Diversion reduces crime which reduces an inmate population,’” Montgomery said.

    Ash’s bills faced legislative gatekeepers with tough-on-crime reputations. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, brought only one of Ash’s bills before the committee. The one bill that did wasn’t taken up afterward by the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-Glendale.

    Neither Farnsworth nor Weiers responded to repeated phone messages and e-mails.

    Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was quoted by Capitol Media Services as saying he wouldn’t hear such bills.

    “Just because we’re in a budget crisis doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to let prisoners out of prison,’’ said Gould, who also didn’t respond to interview requests from Cronkite News Service. “It’s the basic function of government to punish evildoers.’’

    Trends

    Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project for the Pew Center on the States, said research shows that new ways of treating substance abuse and other underlying causes of criminal behavior can help reduce the chance that offenders will commit more crimes when released. That’s helping lawmakers in other states ask the right questions when it comes to alternatives to prison.

    “Part of that is due to the budget situation, but it’s also in a large part due to recognition that there are more effective, less-expensive strategies,” Gelb said.

    Levin, with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said that this is a message conservatives can respond well to.

    “They realize that the growth in government has been unsustainable, and the growth in the number of criminal laws – the number of people in prison – has just been one aspect of the enormous growth in government that we have to rein in,” he said.

    Texas, for example, started programs in 2007 that allow more non-violent offenders into substance abuse programs combined with probation as an alternative to prison.

    The Arizona Auditor General’s report also noted Mississippi had increased early releases for non-violent offenders, Florida had expanded house arrests and Georgia had allowed non-violent offenders to serve time during the day but be home at night.

    Levin said that financial realities will force Arizona to take a hard look at following suit.

    “We don’t want to just write a blank check for any other government program,” he said. “Why should we write a blank check for prisons?”