Jan-Feb 2013
Published by Barbara Brooks, Sentencing and Justice Reform Advocacy (SJRA)
Vol. 4, Issue 8
P.O. Box 71, Olivehurst, CA 95961 530-329-8566 YesWeCanChange3X@aol.com www.SJRA1.com
Printing provided by Carole Urie, Returning Home Foundation, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
The women at CCWF are
writing that they need HELP!
“We are not getting Tampons, we were given a
handful for a room of 8 women for a whole
month. They have cut our meals in 1/2 and we no
longer get meat, we are given only Soy. Women
are going hungry. There are too many packed in
too small of spaces and women are now starting
to get into
fights.
W o m e n They ask that are being
locked in advocates and i s o l a t i o n .
We are not
getting our
Media to
m a i l .
Boxes are
not being
deliver ed.
please let
There are
no jobs nor
Californians us
classes for
that
w e r e
transferred
know they
over from
VSPW. We
need help
are
told
the waiting
lists
are
ASAP!
very long.
The ones
that
do
have jobs are only earning 8 Cents an hour for
very long, hard shifts. We are also not getting
cleaning supplies.” They ask that advocates
and Media to please let Californians know they
need help ASAP! Write Warden, Legislators...
Senate Bill 283
Successful Re-Entry &
Access to Jobs
Senator Hancock (D – 09)
As Introduced, February 14, 2013
SB283 Factsheet
ISSUE
California currently maintains a lifetime ban on
people with prior drug-related felony convictions
from receiving basic needs assistance, job training and employment support services through the
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids (CalWORKs) program and CalFresh
(known nationally as the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program). This ban exists despite the
fact that the state has the 2nd highest rate of recidivism in the country and that countless studies
finding access to basic needs supports, like food
and housing assistance, reduces crime and recidivism and contributes to successful re-entry of
individuals who have been incarcerated.
CURRENT LAW
California maintains an optional lifetime ban on
receiving CalWORKs or CalFresh for people
with former drug-related felony offences when
the conviction occurred after 1996. In 2004, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB
1796 (Leno), which partially repealed the lifetime
ban for some individuals but not for all. Meanwhile, 38 states have chosen to fully opt-out of or
alter these lifetime bans, making federally funded
food benefits, federally funded job training and
work supports and basic needs benefits available
to support successful re-entry for these individuals and prevent recidivism.
In response to a US Supreme Court order to address prison overcrowding, Governor Brown
worked with the Legislature, local governments,
law enforcement and probation leaders, to realign
the supervision of people with non-violent offences to local law enforcement. Public Safety
realignment was codified by AB 109 in 2011, and
subsequently amended by legislation in 2012.
AB 109 created Local Corrections Community
Partnerships tasked with planning and implementing policies to reduce recidivism and promote
public safety. In addition to law enforcement
leadership, County Human Services Agencies are
mandatory participants in local councils, as work
supports, homelessness prevention, employment
& training, and other human services are essential
to achieving cost-effective solutions to California’s high recidivism rates.
BACKGROUND
A report by the Reentry Policy Council of the
Council of State Governments credits public
benefits and job training as key contributors to
successful prisoner reentry and recommends that
states opt out of bans against people with prior
drug-related felony convictions. The Reentry
Policy Council is a bipartisan working group with
representatives of national associations of probation and parole, correctional administrators,
courts, police, mental health and housing experts,
among others.
Harvard’s Bruce Western said that the costs to
restoring access to benefits like CalWORKs and
CalFresh, “...are offset by increased employment
and reduced crime and correctional costs for
program participants…Achieving these objectives
will yield a sustainable public safety that overcomes the long-term negative consequences of
criminal punishment and promotes the economic
improvement of poor communities.”5
Thousands of Californians are released from
prison or jail every year on parole or probation.
Unfortunately, with few or no job prospects,
approximately two-thirds of those released from
prison will be rearrested – and almost one-half
will be re-incarcerated—within three years of
their release. According to a 2011 report by Pew
Center on the States, California ranks secondworst in the nation in recidivism rates, nearly 15
percentage points higher than the national average.6
The ban on CalWORKs and CalFresh assistance
for groups of individuals with past drug-related
felonies, regardless of their subsequent efforts to
improve their lives, is a major barrier to successful reentry and, consequently, a contributing
factor to the state’s high recidivism rates. Restoring access to these benefits to persons with prior
drug-related felony convictions will not only
improve outcomes of very vulnerable families,
but also improve public safety by increasing their
chances of employment and financial stability
and reducing their risks of reoffending.
1
1796 (Leno), Chapter 932, Statutes of 2004 Welfare and Institutions Code §18901.3
2
Drug Offenders: Various Factors May Limit the
Impacts of Federal Laws That Provide for Denial of
Selected Benefits, GAO-05-238, (Washington,
D.C.: September, 2005) http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d05238.pdf
3
Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting
the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the
Community. Council of State Governments. Reentry
Policy Council. New York: Council of State Governments. January 2005,
4
http://www.reentrypolicy.org/about/
reentry_policy_council
5
Western, Bruce. 2008. “From Prison to Work: A
Proposal for a National Prisoner Reentry Program.” (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008) 3-5
6
See, for example, Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners
Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003); U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau f Justice Statistics, Survey
of State Criminal History Systems, 2001 (August
2003); Solomon, A., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A.
(2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of
postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. The Pew Center on the
States (2011). The State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. (Cont’d Page 2)
Page 2
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Jan-Feb 2013
first book is scheduled for release this year, and
he blogs at: www.donaldrayyoung.wordpress.com
By Donald Ray Young
San Quentin Death Row
Proposition 34, the Savings Accountability
and Full Enforcement Act, failed by a narrow 5248 percent split. Just enough to expose the execution chamber. But not enough for us to forget the
wise people on the right side of history – the 48
percent. Death Penalty Focus, American Civil
Liberties Union, and Friends Committee on Legislation of California fought the good fight, unified
by dedicated organizations, groups and individuals. To the hundreds of volunteers who collected
over 800,000 signatures to put the SAFE Act on
the ballot. To the people who graciously sacrificed
their time, energy, and treasure, we honor you and
your commitment to abolition. Thank you!
If this were the last bus, we missed it. We
were double-crossed by a faction of our base.
Where there is execution, hope and parole cannot
exist. You are either against capital punishment
or for state sponsored lynching. It is truly that
simple, no matter how confusing obstructionists
wish it to be. A YES vote on Proposition 34
would have abolished capital punishment in California. . . PERMANENTLY!
Life Without the Possibility of Parole
(LWOP) lives and exists in every state, with or
without capital punishment. Connecticut recently
became the 17th state to abolish legal lynching –
the death penalty. The people of California voted
in the current Death Penalty (Proposition 7) on
November 7, 1978, and now only we the people of
California can vote it out. California would have
been the first state to abolish capital punishment
via the ballot box. The first rule of abolition is to
protect life by eradicating capital punishment.
Only then can we remove LWOP from the equation. Even parole eligible lifers are more likely to
die in prison than be paroled. Wake up, California! Let us dismantle this killing machine . . . or
is it too late?
Strange Fruit
Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop.
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
By Billie Holiday
Death row is where innocence takes a final breath.
Capital punishment has never been concerned
with morality; it has always been about brutality.
Conscious people know that America has preserved a legal system which puts people to death,
even innocent ones. You do not need to be an
“expert” to understand that killing is wrong and
capital punishment must be abolished by any
means. When chattel slavery was abolished in the
19th Century my ancestors were greeted with
Black Codes, Exclusionary Laws, Share Cropping,
the Convict Lease System, Chain Gangs, Jim
Crow Laws, the Ku Klux Klan . . . and Lynching.
They courageously traveled this torturous path for
all of humanity.
The death penalty makes killers out of judges,
prosecutors, jurors, prison staff, and the people of
the State as a whole. The courts openly admit
that the death penalty is racially biased
(McKleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279.) The two
major organizations that were opposed to Proposition 34 were The California District Attorneys
Association and the California Sheriffs’ Association. These are the very entities which overwhelm
the justice system with police misconduct, dishonest forensic experts, prosecutorial misconduct and
false confessions. Basic math and history tell us
that very few if any California death row prisoners
will ever see society. The district attorneys are
calling for the immediate execution of the 20 or so
who have fully exhausted their appeals.
Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U. S. Supreme
Court wrote in his concurring opinion in Furman
v. Georgia, the case that abolished the death penalty in the United States in 1972, “If people were
familiar with the truth about the death penalty they
would want to abolish it.” In November 2012 the
Campaign to End the Death Penalty declared,
“After much thoughtful debate, the CEDP board
of directors voted not to endorse supporting the
SAFE Act.” The building is on fire. We are pulling people out of the flames, while attempting to
put the fire out. Instead of assisting us save lives.
. . delusional minds and organizations selected this
moment to discuss the adequacy of fire alarms. If
you consider yourself an abolitionist but refuse to
abolish, the least you can do is step out of the
way! Thank you! We have work to do and it is a
matter of life and death.
Abolitionists are obligated to galvanize the base,
persuade the undecided, and engage the opposition. If you are an abolitionist in fact as well as
deed and not just in theory, you would have voted
YES on Proposition 34. If you care about human
rights, you voted YES on Proposition 34. If you
wanted to save $1 billion over the next five years
and create a healthy economy, you voted YES on
Proposition 34. California is 47 out of 50 states in
per pupil spending, so if you care about the education of our youth and wanted to spend more on
education than on prison, you voted YES on
Proposition 34. If you believe in your heart that
the State does not have the right to legally lynch in
your name – leaving blood on your hands – you
voted YES on Proposition 34.
We fought the good fight! And it’s not over. The
struggle will never end!
////
Donald Ray Young is an innocent man erroneously convicted and sentenced to San Quentin’s
death row in 2006. Donald is a paralegal with an
Associate of Arts degree in Sociology. He hopes to
pursue further education, including a law degree
that will aid him in achieving his exoneration. His
Donald Ray Young
E78474 East Block
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974
SB283-Re-entry & Access to Jobs
(Cont’d from Front Page)
http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/
PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf.;
and Stephen J. Tripodi, Johnny S. Kim and Kimberly Bender, “Is Employment Associated With
Reduced Recidivism?; The Complex Relationship
Between Employment and Crime,” Int J Offender
Ther Comp Crimnol 2010 54; 707 DOI;
10.1177/0306624X09342980.
6
The Pew Center on the States (2011). The State of
Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s
Prisons.
http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/
PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_State of Recidivism.pdf,10
(finding that well over 40% will be reincarcerated
within three years, and that California’s rates in
1999-2002 were 61.1 percent, and 2004-2007, were
57.8 percent).
This Bill
SB 283 allows individuals, previously convicted
of a nonviolent drug felony, who meet all other
eligibility rules to receive basic needs services,
employment training and work supports through
the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) and CalFresh programs,
provided that they are complying with the conditions of probation or parole, or have successfully
completed their probation or parole.
SUPPORT
County Welfare Directors Association (CoSponsor) Drug Policy Alliance (Co-Sponsor)
Welfare Directors Association (Co-Sponsor)
California Drug Counseling, Inc.
California Hunger Action Coalition
Community Action Partnership
Conn/McCorry
Los Angeles Community Action Network
RainChains.com
San Luis Obispo County Department of Social
Services
Urban Counties Caucus
Contact
Marla Cowan, marla.cowan@sen.ca.gov
Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009
Cathy Senderling-McDonald csend@cwda.org
California Welfare Directors Assocation
(916) 443-1749
Glenn Backes, glennbackes@mac.com
Drug Policy Alliance
(916) 202-2538
Jessica Bartholow jbartholow@wclp.org
Western Center on Law and Poverty
(916) 442-0753
Jan-Feb 2013
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
By Maureen Murdock, PhD
Part One of Two Parts
Three decades ago, California spent 10% of
its budget on higher education and 3% on prisons. In recent years, the prison share of the
budget rose above 10% while the share for
higher education fell below 8%. As university
administrators in California increase tuition to
cover their deficits, they complain that the state
spends much more on each prisoner—nearly
$50,000/year—than on each student.
Half a million people are now in prison or
jail for drug offenses, about 10 times the number
in 1980. There have been especially sharp increases in incarceration rates for women and for
people over 55, long past the peak age for violent
crime. In all, about 1.3 million people, more than
half of those behind bars are in prison or jail for
nonviolent offenses.
The reality is that these arrests and incarceration have done little to stem the flow of illegal drugs. While many scholars still favor tough
treatment for violent offenders, they have begun
suggesting alternatives for other criminals. James
Q. Wilson, the conservative social scientist
whose work in the 1970s helped inspire tougher
policies in prison, several years ago recommended diverting more nonviolent drug offenders from prisons to treatment programs. Prosecutors have resisted attempts to change the system,
contending that the strict sentences deter crime
and induce suspects to cooperate because the
penalties provide the police and prosecutors with
so much leverage.
Ironically, the top judge in New York doesn’t agree with the prosecutors. In his annual State
of the Judiciary speech in Albany, the chief
judge, Jonathan Lippman called for an end to
holding low level offenders in jail prior to trial
and called instead for the expansion of supervised release programs that monitor defendants
awaiting trial and providing them with programs
to overcome drug and alcohol abuse. He noted
that pretrial detention cost an average of $19,000
per defendant nationally whereas monitoring a
defendant in the community cost less than $4600.
Some of the strongest evidence for the
benefit of incarceration came from studies by a
University of Chicago economist, Steven D.
Levitt who found that penal policies were a major factor in reducing crime during the 1990s.
But as crime continued declining and the prison
population kept growing, the returns have diminished. He writes, “In the mid-1990s I concluded
that the social benefits approximately equaled the
costs of incarceration. Today, my guess is that
the costs outweigh the benefits at the margins. I
think we should be shrinking the prison population by at least 1/3.”
In the 1980s stricter penalties for drugs
were promoted by Republicans like Reagan and
by urban Democrats worried about the crack
epidemic. 3-strikes laws and other formulas
forced judges to impose life without parole, a
sentence that was uncommon in the United States
before the 1970s. Most other countries do not
impose life sentences without parole, and those
that do, generally reserve it for a few heinous
crimes.
In England where it is used only for homicides involving an aggravating factor like child
abduction, torture or terrorism a recent study
reported that 41 prisoners were serving life terms
without parole. In the US, some 41,000 are. The
US is nearly alone among nations of the world in
abandoning our obligation to rehabilitate offenders.
The number of drug offenders behind bars
has gone from fewer than 50,000 in 1980 to more
than 500,000 today, but that still leaves more
than two million people on the street who sell
drugs at least occasionally, according to calculations by Peter H. Reuter, a criminologist at University of Maryland. Cocaine, heroin and other
illegal drugs are as readily available today as in
1980 and generally at lower prices.
According to Michelle Alexander’s article
in the New York Times (2/3/13), “Why Police Lie
Under Oath,” federal grant programs like the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant Program have encouraged state and local
law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in
order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting
high numbers of people for drug offenses, no
matter how minor the offenses or how weak the
evidence. Police officers’ tendency to regard
procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort
the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals
involving police officers lying or planting
drugs—in Tulia, Texas and Oakland, CA for
example—have been linked to federally funded
drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in.
(“Why Police Lie Under Oath,” Michelle Alexander, NYTimes 2/3/13)
The pressure to boost arrest numbers is not
limited to drug law enforcement. Even where no
clear financial incentives exist, the “get tough”
movement has warped police culture to such a
degree that police chiefs and individual officers
feel pressured to meet stop-and-frisk or arrest
quotas in order to prove their “productivity.” The
reluctance to expose police lying derives partly
from the code of silence that governs police
practice and from the ways in which the system
of mass incarceration is structured to reward
dishonesty.
Sentences for some drug crimes have been
eased at the federal level and in states like New
York, Kentucky and Texas. Judges in Ohio and
South Carolina have been given more sentencing
discretion. California voted in November to soften their state’s 3-strikes law to focus only on
serious or violent 3rd offenses.
The three strikes created a cruel,
Kafkaesque criminal justice system that lost all
sense of proportion, doling out life sentences
disproportionately to black defendants. Under the
statute, the third offense that could result in a life
sentence could be any number of low-level felony convictions, like stealing a jack from the
back of a tow truck, shoplifting a pair of work
gloves from a department store, pilfering small
Page 3
change from a parked car or passing a bad check.
In addition to being unfairly punitive, the law
drove up prison costs.
The revised law preserves the threestrikes concept, but it imposes a life sentence
only when the third felony offense is serious or
violent, as defined in state law. It also authorizes
the courts to resentence thousands of people who
were sent away for low-level third offenses and
who present no danger to the public.
The resentencing process is shaping
up as a kind of referendum on the state’s barbaric treatment of mentally ill defendants,
who make up a substantial number of those
with life sentences under the three-strikes
rule. It is likely that many were too mentally
impaired to assist their lawyers at the time of
trial.
_________________________
In the next issue, Dr. Murdock will write
about the Incarceration of the Mentally Ill:
A Poor Substitute for Treatment
Maureen Murdock is an author, educator, Jungianoriented psychotherapist and photographer. Maureen has a small private psychotherapy practice in
Santa Barbara. She was Chair and core faculty of
the MA Counseling Psychology Program at Pacifica
Graduate Institute in Santa Barbara and adjunct
faculty in the Depth Psychology Department at
Sonoma State University.
Maureen’s popularity as an author, lecturer, and
workshop presenter has enriched the lives of thousands of people. Her latest book Her other books
include The Heroine’s Journey, Fathers’ Daughters: Breaking the Ties that Bind, Spinning Inward:
Using Guided Imagery with Children, The Heroine’s Journey Workbook and Monday Morning
Memoirs: Women in the Second Half of Life.
Maureen has written articles about mental illness
and addiction in the family for professional journals
and has presented workshops on Harm Reduction
Therapy for Families of substance abusers. Maureen
has just completed a memoir entitled Hooked On
Hope: A Mother’s Tale.
www.maureenmurdock.com
By Pat Nolan
Vice President, Prison Fellowship
Dear Friends,
One of the most disturbing developments in my
lifetime has been the shift of mentally ill persons
from state hospitals to jails and prisons. That was
not the intent of those who closed the state mental hospitals. However, it certainly has been the
result, because the resources they promised to
put into community mental health treatment were
never provided.
(Cont’d Page 4)
Page 4
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Jan-Feb 2013
helping our justice and mental health systems
work together to provide better access to treatment for people who need it. It will also ensure
that law enforcement officers stay safe when
they are responding to mental health crises.
By Spoon Jackson
It is almost impossible for any human being to be
incarcerated ten or more years and not have some
kind of mental health problems. Prison life is not
a natural or healthy environment, particularly
inside California prisons.
The soul, heart, mental, and spiritual torture are
often unrelenting. Pain unending for the prisoner
and his family and friends. Some short term
mental health dilemmas can be handled in the
heart or soul through self-help meditative and
communication groups, through letter-writing
and art programs. Sometimes outside help is
required, especially if one is suffering through
long lockdowns or isolation. These long lockdowns caused me some depression, sadness, and
deep pain. The lockdowns only illuminated my
stress, especially after 35 years of incarceration
and mostly good programming.
Despite the 35 years, I have never adjusted to
being caged. During the last long lockdown, I
missed visits from Sweden and lost my Swedish
girlfriend. I missed playing my native flute and
teaching my prose and poetry classes.
I had not been on such a long lockdown in decades. This 9 month lockdown came almost on the
heals of a 4 month lockdown. These supermodern, race-based, lockdowns are ridiculous
and unjust and dampened my heart and spirit
some.
I needed to get away and have time to myself to
contemplate my prison future. I was stressed out
and burnt out on these race-based lockdowns.
My soul and heart needed some alone time to
heal. So, instead of hurting myself or others, I
went to the hole on a mental health break and to,
hopefully, be transferred to an institution not
prone to lockdowns.
I was sent to the stand-alone hole with its dirty
skyline and nothing else. No books except the
bible, if you knew to ask for it. The cell a cave
structure that looked like the cages the Quakers
created in Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia which opened in 1829 and closed in the
1970s.
I was in the hole for only a little while, and when
I went back to the mainline yard, the lockdown
had been lifted. But only for a moment. The next
day we were back on the race-based lockdown.
I had decided to check out the mental health
department, but after six months waiting, I saw
the psych for 10 minutes total. Like the health
care people, the mental health department here
seems to be more concerned with custody issues
than with a prisoner’s mental state. The mental
health program at New Folsom is a joke, and
they don’t bother to hide that fact, especially
when there is a lockdown. They have the nerve
to come and talk with you at your cell door
where there is no privacy.
After 35 years I’ve developed my own ways of
dealing with sadness and depression, but I am
open to new ideas. I like to think we all have our
own keys to our hearts and souls — sanity and
insanity. Yet I know one must be as open as the
sky and a forever-student in life during the most
trying times.
////
Spoon Jackson B-92377
CSP-Sacramento
PO Box 290066
Represa, C 95671-0066
(Cont’d from Page 3)
In my last Justice eReport, "Dealing with Mental
Illness,"[http://www.justicefellowship.org/
node/121] I wrote extensively on the need to fix
the system for dealing with the growing number
of untreated mentally ill in our communities.
Unfortunately, county sheriffs have become the
default provider of mental health services in most
communities. This situation is bad for those who
are mentally ill, who don't receive the treatment
they need. It is also dangerous for the law enforcement officers who arrest and incarcerate
them, and it is very costly for the taxpayers.
Good News
However, there is some very good news to report! Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep.
Richard Nugent (R-FL) have teamed up to introduce legislation, S. 162 and H.R. 401, which will
encourage coordination between law enforcement and mental health providers so that nondangerous mentally ill persons will receive treatment without being booked into jail. Please take
a moment right now to email your senators and
representatives [http://cqrcengage.com/
justicefellowship/app/write-a-letter?
0&engagementId=815] to urge support for this
critical legislation.
Senator Franken has been an articulate and forceful advocate for these changes. In announcing
his sponsorship of the bill Senator Franken cited
his home state's experience:
Minnesota's jails and prisons are overwhelmed
with people who would likely be better served by
the mental health system, and many of them need
better access to treatment. My legislation will
make our communities safer and stronger by
Representative Nugent, the sponsor of the bill in
the House, brings great credibility to our efforts
because he was Sheriff of Hernando County,
Florida for 10 years. He knows first-hand the
difficulties of trying to serve mentally ill persons in jails that were never designed to provide
adequate treatment. He commented about the
bill:
After thirty-seven years in law enforcement, I
have seen far too many tragedies result from
mental health needs that went either unnoticed,
untreated, or misunderstood. This legislation
will help give law enforcement the tools and
training they need to improve the way that our
legal system interacts with individual suffering
from mental health crises.
What the Bill Does
The legislation will offer grants to law enforcement, the courts, and correctional facilities to
help them better deal with the increasinglyprevalent mental health issues they encounter. It
will:
- expand mental health courts across the U.S.;
- fund "peer to peer" services that connect veterans who are arrested with other veterans to
provide support, mentorship, and assistance in
obtaining treatment, recovery, stabilization, or
rehabilitation;
- offer grants to fund veterans courts to help
arrested veterans who have mental health conditions, including substance addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and mental health
conditions manifesting from traumatic brain
injuries;
- expand funding for crisis intervention teams;
- support the development of training materials
to provide patrol officers a basic understanding
of how to identify and respond to incidents
involving people with mental illnesses;
- fund corrections-based programs that:
- provide initial and periodic assessments of
the clinical, medical, and social needs of inmates;
- provide appropriate treatment and services
that address the mental health and substance
abuse needs of inmates;
- develop comprehensive individual postrelease transition plans for eligible inmates that
coordinate health, housing, medical, employment, mental health services and substance
abuse treatment;
- provide alternatives to solitary(Cont’d Pg 6)
Jan-Feb 2013
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
By Bruce Swenson
CTF-Central
For over a decade California watch dog
groups have recommended the creation of a sentencing commission with presumptive powers,
which could then re-write this states byzantine
criminal sentencing laws. This need for such a commission could soon be at hand. California's dysfunctional legacy for excessive sentencing may
have found the end of its road regarding criminal
justice policy. The concept of a sentencing commission as a form of governance for California's justice
system has been referred to by scholars, criminologists, judges, and yes even some state legislators as
a much needed tool which this state should now
consider.
Federal receivership over our correctional
department is still posting watch over a bloated
prison system, with one final benchmark of time
remaining. By December of 2013, we shall see if
the newly appointed secretary of CDCr can meet
all of those federal orders laid now before his
charge. It is certainly clear that “Realignment” has
done most of what it could, but still it leaves deep
undercurrents of excessive sentencing practices
and statutes in-place still to be re-written.
Voting taxpayers in California assume they can
trust their elected representatives to make costbenefit decisions for criminal sentencing in an
effective accountable manner. But as long as we
have vastly opposing approaches from our legislature about crime and its consequences, California will remain in financial despair over its ineffective prisons, their costs, and those overzealous
sentencing schemes which keep our prisons all so
full! This state’s blind obsession for prolonged
punitive sentencing never explains where funding
will come from in order to civilize those declarations. Nor does the legislature ever pose allegiance
to a goal of any sort for gauging and then tracking
success or failure rates over their disproportionate
sentencing contrivances. A sentencing commission is a forum designed to correct inequities
such as these. Of all the states in this country,
California is one which needs a strong presumptive commission the most!
Both the American Bar Association and the
American Law Institute have strongly recommended that every state jurisdiction should charter permanent sentencing commissions for themselves. Such commissions are made up of state
judiciary, prosecutors, defense lawyers, correction
officials, health representatives, regular citizens,
and even legislators. These varied representative
areas can therefore strive for a reputation of nonpartisanship. Better funded ones may have their
own research and administration staff.
The first order of business a new commission
usually considers is the adoption of sentencing
guidelines. Sometimes by state law, the commission’s guidelines take effect unless the legislature
acts to block them. In other states, guidelines
must be affirmatively enacted by its legislature.
Most commissions have duties to collect statistics, monitor systems operations, make public reports to the people, forecast correctional resource
needs, and then respond to legislative requests for
policy recommendations. All this inevitably results
in the re-writing of the state’s penal code.
As we all know, California sorely needs statutory re-writes which could do everything from
returning custody credits for programming lifers,
to broadening milestone credit availability while
in custody. All programming prisoners should be
incentivized! Statute re-writes could remove the
ability for a governor to intervene in the taking of
parole dates after a hearing board grants parole and
provides a date of release. Allowing CDCr and our
legislature to continue on without such re-writes can
only be viewed as penologically unsound! It is
absurd to withhold credits for positive programming, as is the case now. A commission could do
these things since our current leadership system will
not.
By recent count, there were eighteen permanent
sentencing commissions in the U.S. charged with
oversight of their states. Additionally; a few states
created temporary ones that decided not to recommend guidelines (Georgia-New York-Texas). Florida
and Tennessee had them, then disbanded their
commissions after their guidelines went into
1
effect.
Sentencing guidelines can be very restrictive of
judicial sentencing discretion and they may also be
designed as loose prescriptions or mere recommendations. The degree of enforceability is a fundamental
policy choice that individual states can fine tune,
along a continuum from “mandatory” to
“
advisory.” In most guideline systems the sentence is a function of the offence, compounded
by the defendants prior convictions. A sentencing
grid is built on these two axes. The guideline for
first offender is very specific while the sentence
within the grid ratchet upward in severity for
repeat offenders. The range of restrictive capacity with these guidelines is a function of state
choice in their conception of a commission. But
far more critical is the formulation of the legal
standard that governs trial courts ability to depart
from the guideline range in individual cases. This
“
departure standard” is the very cornerstone affecting everything else in that state system. Half
of the U.S. state guidelines systems use
“
presumptive guidelines,” which are binding on
the sentencing court unless it can give adequate
reasons on the record for imposing a nonguideline penalty. In the federal system judges
refer to them as “mandatory,” not as presumptive.
Whatever the standard, it has bite only if a
trial court departure from it is reviewable in a
particular case. Ultimately, it is up to the states
appellate court to rule on the adequacy of reasons
for departure given by sentencing judges in these
cases.
Adjustments along the enforceability scale have
large effects on the allocation of discretion within
the system. In a well thought out state system, if a
judge feels strongly that the guideline term is inappropriate, that judge may move up or down with
little concern of reversal.
At the other end of the system-design continuum, about half of the states that have adopted
sentencing guidelines which are voluntary or
Page 5
“advisory systems,” make no provision for their
enforcement at all. For these states, there is no
appellate review of those reasons. In these instances, trial courts discretion is much the same as
in traditional determinate schemes. Sentences
given within statutory boundaries cannot be
reassessed for its substance. A sentencing commission such as this is a weakened player and has
no formal power in the matter.
History shows that, with these advisory systems, guidelines are influential with trial judges,
but in other states they are irrelevant. A study done
in 2006 found that “advisory systems” overall have
been much less successful than “presumptive” or
“
mandatory” systems in their efforts to control
2
prison population growth.
One third of America's state jurisdictions have
adopted sentencing guidelines, yet still empower
parole boards which actually make the final decisions about length of prison terms. This “backended” release authority undermines sentencing
judges entirely, and absolutely adds to prison
over-crowding in those states. The other two
thirds stick with their creations for guidelines, and
with the implication that sentencing design decisions are straightforward. So, the greater the
parole boards authority over prison terms, the
lesser the discretion held by judges. And because
sentencing guidelines do not regulate parole
boards...their release matrix's also tend to be diminished with importance in those systems. It is
important to note that in most state guideline systems, judges have gained discretionary powers, not
lost out on them.
There is one dominate reason for states to
create sentencing commissions and guidelines. It
happens to be money! Under them, these states
have demonstrated that it is possible to generate
better forecasts of prison growth, redirect state
finances to other sorely needed areas of civil life,
and even bring down recidivism rates for offenders as they return into the civil sector.
For these last fifteen years all public safety
officials who have focused on criminal justice
have agreed that the creation of a sentencing
commission would vastly encourage state-wide
reform toward best practices as it reduces excessive sentencing. Sentencing judges understand too,
that it would result in improvements for proportionality and uniformity in sentencing. God willing,
it may even introduce “Principles” into our state
judicial system over the abused technicalities for
“
Procedure” which haunt the workings of our
courts now!
Lawmakers who have proposed the need for such
a commission are always confronted with fierce
opposition by rouge politicians, errant law enforcement groups, and punitively oriented crime
vengeance power-blocks funded by the prison
guards union. They all regurgitate three main
arguments.
1. Sentencing Commissions are undemocratic.
2. They abrogate lawmakers of their responsibility to determine criminal penalties.
3. They are stealth means for reducing or
softening prison terms.
(Cont’d Page 6)
Page 6
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
(Cont’d from Page 5)
Response to ONE: Even though this appointed
body operates as an independent agency, its usefulness is for intentionally buffering sentencing
from hasty political calculations, attacks from
interest groups, and hysteria over sensationalized
crimes. Appropriately appointed sentencing commissions have the presence and resources to
study these matters collectively for the entire
population of the state.3 “Crime of the week”
legislation from rouge politicians spurred on by
vengeance groups will cease to exist. Considering politics in California for these last seventeen
years, it will be worth having this type of insulation
that can overpower common hysterias, plaguing
public safety resolutions today. A commission,
through its collective resource impact assessments, can produce much more reasonable and
affordable policies than our current batch of bureaucrats are capable of. The idea that it is somehow “a cabal” is simply untrue.4 Since California's legislative sausage making is only superficially democratic anyway, how dare critics falsely
caution over an undemocratic outcome for one!
California's public safety hearings are controlled
by well funded interest groups occurring behind
closed doors. Public hearings now, are only performances occurring after decisions have been
made. Voters can only be minimally involved
through its overly abused initiative process. So
ironically, a sentencing commission would actually
bring more people from more communities into the
policymaking process with its open meeting format, and information distribution arrangements.
In fact, it could only increase public knowledge
about sentencing and the state’s criminal justice
issues!
Response to TWO: A Sentencing Commission would reduce legislators role in sentencing
policymaking, but not as much as critics claim.
For California, the central purpose would be to
insulate sentencing policy from heated political
gamesmanship, while not cutting legislators out of
the picture altogether. In the guidelines development
process, legislators can weigh in during open meetings and can ultimately reject them, should they
pass a bill to do so. “Even if those guidelines go into
effect, lawmakers can still affect sentencing
law.”5 A commission in most states is considered to be within the legislative branch of government. Basically, a sentencing commission
performs best, in large part, because it works
well with its state legislature.
Response to THREE: Are they stealth
means for reducing prison terms??? Unless California is willing to seriously increase taxes for
the purpose of building more prisons, i t simply
must reduce the number of its people behind bars
by re-writing most of its sentencing statutes.
Sentencing reform MUST come about in California! Other states with such commissions reserve
prison beds only for the most serious of offenders. So, YES a California commission would
reduce prison terms. But i t would not let offenders off the hook. They would s t i l l pay for their
crimes. But not a l l of them would do so in
expensive prison c e l l s .
Critics arguments about a potential California
Sentencing Commission distort reality with cer-
tain politicians and powerful interest groups, who
only want to retain their affected monopoly for
over-sentencing effluvia. No matter how loudly
those same groups and individuals scream
“
undemocratic”, they have shown l i t t l e desire
for actually making this policy area more democratic!
A sentencing commission can provide data
directly to “The People” outlining sentencing
goals, outcomes, and their relevant costs as we
modernize our states overcrowded and punitive
prison system. All objective measures declare
that California's politicians have so far done a
very poor job on the subject of criminal sentencing policy. Unless the opposition can make a
reasonable case for maintaining the current status
-quo, we should have a hard time understanding
their attacks over the creation of one.
I t is we 1 over due for California to seat such
a commission. If one isn't put in place soon, mark
my words... we will put a design for one up to
“
The People” for voting•..•as an INITIATIVE!
And “WE THE PEOPLE WILL GET IT THAT
WAY!!!”
////
1. The “Frase Table” from a chapter out of a book
titled; Crime and Public Policy.
By Prof. Wilson & Petersilia Copyright 2011.
2. The Pfaff Study 2006.
3. As an example: Minnesota created it's sentencing commission over twenty years ago. From
its inception it has been aggressively open
with outreach components, holding public
hearings, as it informs both the policymakers
and public of its practices, sharing openly its
extensive data. Fears that a commission would
be too isolated and undemocratic have NOT
panned out. (Assist. Prof. of Sociology Joshua
Page, at the U. of Minn., taken from “Final
Thoughts on Sentencing Commission and
Reform” (2011)
4. Prof. Richard Frase at the U. of Minn., and one
of the nation’s foremost experts on state and
federal sentencing commissions.
5. Id. Prof. Richard Frase
(Cont’d from Page 4)
confinement and segregated housing, as well as
mental health screening and treatment for inmates placed in solitary confinement or segregated housing; and
- train each employee of the correctional facility
to identify and appropriately respond to incidents
involving inmates with mental health or cooccurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders.
- provide grants to identify those with mental
illness who consume a significantly disproportionate quantity of public resources, such as some
homeless with emergency housing, judicial, corrections, and law enforcement
services; The grants are also to be used to:
Jan-Feb 2013
- support multidisciplinary teams that coordinate, implement, and administer communitybased crisis responses and long-term plans for
high utilizers;
- provide training on how to respond appropriately to the unique issues involving high utilizers for public service personnel, including
criminal justice, mental health, substance abuse,
emergency room, healthcare, law enforcement,
corrections, and housing personnel;
- develop or support alternatives to hospital
and jail admissions for high utilizers that provide treatment, stabilization, and other appropriate supports in the least restrictive, yet appropriate, environment; or
- coordinate services for high utilizers among
law enforcement, mental health,
substance abuse, housing, corrections, and
emergency medical service operations.
Why the Bill Is Important
This bill is very exciting. It has broad bie
partisan support,
and it was carefully written to
provide an framework that communities can use
to move from our current dysfunctional practices to a coordinated and humane response to
mentally ill persons who are in crisis. By helping the criminal justice system collaborate with
our mental health system, Sen. Franken and
Rep. Nugent's bill will provide help for those in
crisis without putting them in jail. Once these
programs are established it will cost much less
to provide treatment. And the programs will
create a safer environment for law enforcement
officers and the general public.
Grant Available
By the way, if collaboration to assist the mentally ill is of interest to you, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has announced a competitive
grant, the FY 2013 Justice and Mental Health
Collaboration Program solicitation [https://
www.bja.gov/Funding/13JMHCPsol.pdf]. Applications are due March 25, 2013.
I have compiled some excellent resources on
mental health and the justice system. I think you
will find them helpful. They are listed under
"Resources" at the end of this eReport.
Follow Us on Twitter
Also, many of our subscribers follow me on
Twitter [https://twitter.com/justicereform].
I tweet with links to breaking criminal justice
stories, plus articles about successful reforms
and reports of what works. Sign up here [http://
www.justicefellowship.org/sign-up].
In His service,
Pat Nolan
Chuck Colson Distinguished Fellow on Justice
Director of PFM's Center for Justice Reform
(Cont’d Page 10)
Jan-Feb 2013
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Robert Weisberg, Debbie A. Mukamal and Jordan D. Segall
September 2011
Continuing from Dec 2012 issue on “Inmate Characteristics”
Pages 22 of the report
INMATE CHARACTERISTICS (Cont’d)
Page 7
Stanford Criminal Justice
Center
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
www.law.stanford.edu/
program/centers/scjc
Other Factors
Chart 16 provides assorted demographic characteristics of
the inmates in our sample. None of the characteristics presented in the table—immigration status, whether an inmate
has children, and marital status—is significantly associated
with a release or denial.
Chart 17 presents the grant rate by facility. To avoid misleading findings, state prisons that are poorly represented in our
sample—specifically, facilities with fewer than ten hearings
in the sample— were omitted from this table, leaving a total
of 13 facilities.
Though these characteristics are not significantly associated
with the grant rate, some results are intrinsically interesting.
First, 59 percent of the inmates in our sample have children.
Of that population, only 35 percent are married, and only 22
percent were married before entering prison.
As the table indicates, grant rates differ dramatically by facility. Some prisons, like Chuckawalla, Folsom and Pleasant
Valley, have grant rates below 10 percent, others, like Mule
Creek and the California Institution for Women, grant more
than a third of parole cases. As stated above, Solano houses
the largest percentage of lifers as a percentage of its total
prison population.
Other Factors Associated with Release
Facility
Parole hearings are held on-site at most of California’s 33
state prisons. Grant rates might vary across facilities for a
variety of reasons, such as systematic differences in the type
of inmates held at various facilities, availability of rehabilitative programs at various facilities, or differences in the pool
of commissioners who conduct hearings at various facilities.
A more robust analysis of grant rates by institution is warranted to better understand the reasons underlying variances.
In the next issue, the report will continue with Other Factors
Associated with Release.
Page 8
Page 9)
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Be sure and put your name, address and phone number on your email.
Word your message something like the following:
James Austin is the President of JFA
Institute. The JFA Institute has managed the
Corrections Options Technical Assistance
(COTA) program for the U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance for a
number of years. Through the program JFA
provided technical assistance to the states of
Florida, Kansas, Nevada, Texas, Ohio,
Rhode Island, and Alaska and is currently
working with other states. Assistance has
ranged in type from establishing reliable
prison population projections to designing
risk assessment instruments and evaluating
the effectiveness of treatment programs. The
JFA Institute also facilitates presentations,
workshops and task forces for state and
municipal agencies.
Editor of SJRA Advocate: Below are
quotes from James Austin’s Declaration
to the Three Judge Court in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Statement in Response to October 11, 2012, Order Regarding Population
Reduction.
I am a criminologist retained by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this action. I have previously submitted expert reports in this action,
and have testified before the Court. Counsel
for Plaintiffs asked me to evaluate the
CDCR’s population reduction proposal.
The CDCR is proposing several actions that
will serve to reduce projected inmate population and expand bed capacity. Each of
these measures is safe and effective. To meet
the June 2013 deadline the CDCR proposes
to reduce the prison population primarily by
what it calls “Court Ordered Early Releases.” As explained to me by CDCR, this
will be achieved by identifying and releasing
the lowest risk prisoners through CDCR’s
scientifically validated risk assessment instrument (California Static Risk Assessment
or CSRA). Since 43% of the current CA
prison population is low risk, this method
alone is sufficient to meet the target population. The use of a validated risk assessment
Jan-Feb 2013
is by far the safest method of reducing the prison population because it
selects only those who are low risk, while the other methods identified
by the CDCR include inmates with higher risk levels.
Below, I analyze the State’s proposal as well as additional population reduction measures that the State could employ to comply with the
Court’s Order by June 27, 2013.
All of the data presented in this report were provided to me by the
CDCR. These include detailed data files that consist of the current
prison population, the last 12 months of prison admissions and the last
12 months of prison releases. I also worked with the CDCR researchers
to calculate recidivism rates for specific types of inmates and the likely
impact of either diverting inmates or reducing their lengths of stay
(LOS) in prison.
To comply with the court-ordered cap of 137.5% of design capacity, the State must reduce the population of the 33 in-state prisons to
109,k805 prisoners. If current population trends remain constant, and
no further steps are taken to reduce crowding, on June 27, 2013, there
will be approximately 120,000 prisoners in the 33 prisons, approximately 9,000 more inmates than the order allows. The most recent
trends show that the population has been relatively stable since the
summer of 2012. Prison admissions have been stable or slightly increasing over this period. The impact of Realignment appears to have
hit a plateau. Both I and the CDCR agree that the population needs to
be reduced by about 9,000 by June 27, 2013.
In developing a safe and effective plan to lower the current prison
population, the risk level of the inmates to recidivate is an important
tool to use. The [CDCR] proposal consists of increasing prison bed
capacity and reducing the projected prison population. The prison bed
capacity is largely increased by delaying the CDCR plan to return out
of state inmates (3,892), the opening of the California Health Care
Facility (1,722 beds) and expanding in-state and local jail contract beds
(2,225 beds). The balance of the gap is by reducing the inmate population. To reach the June 2013 deadline, the CDCR appropriately relies
on a validated risk assessment instrument to reduce the population by
approximately 7,000 prisoners. In general terms, CDCR explained that
it will identify the lowest-risk prisoners using a validated risk assessment instrument, and release those with the least risk first, working
through the low-risk inmate population until the court-ordered target is
met.
From a public safety standpoint, the use of risk assessments to
reduce prison populations is by far superior to all the other proposed
methods because it relies on an objective measurer of risk, and does
not include, as do the other methods, higher risk inmates. In my opinion, the CDCR’s reliance on risk as the primary means of meeting the
Court’s deadline is well justified.
The CDCR also uses other measures to reduce the prison population: Reducing Prison Admissions: (1)Redefines certain drug possession crimes as misdemeanors and thus cannot be sentenced to state
prison; (2)Increases the types of non-violent, non-serious crimes that
would fall under the recently passed re-alignment act (AB109) and
thus would be sentenced to serve time in the local jails; (3)Requires
inmates who have 9 months or less to serve after being sentenced by
the courts to remain in the local jails; Reducing Length of Stay:(4)
Allows minimum custody inmates to receive 2 for 1 credits similar to
inmates assigned to conservation and work camps.
(5)Increases amount of good time credits that 2nd strikers are entitled
to earn. (6)Increases the amount of good time credits that prisoners
convicted of violent offenses are entitled to earn. (7)Allows 2nd Strikers and those convicted of a violent offense to receive Milestone program credits.
There are three concerns I have with the CDCR Plan. First, the
document provided by CDCR only shows the impact of the reforms as
if they were applied to the current inmate population on a specific
date. ...CDCR’s document significantly undercounts the impact that
CDCR’s methods would have if they were applied on a sustained basis
going forward, and/or if they were made retroactive to the current
inmate population. Second, the CDCR’s Plan will begin implementation of the population reduction measures after the June 27, 2013
deadline. There is no reason that it should take the (Cont’d Page 9)
Jan-Feb 2013
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Page 9
34% of Sentence versus 15%. Retroactive and Sustained. If this
reform is made retroactive to the current inmate population and sustained going forward, it would reduce the prison population by 6,000
by June 27, 2013 and no significant adverse impact on the counties.
d) Enhanced Program Credits-All inmates. Retroactive and
Sustained. This reform is similar to the one proposed by the CDCR
but is made retroactive to the current population and sustained going
forward. It assumes that 35% of all DSL, 2nd Strike and 3rd Strikers
can complete a meaningful program that would serve to reduce their
risk of recidivism, and their length of stay would be reduced by an
average of six months. The long-term impact would be a reduction in
the CDCR population of approximately 4,000 inmates. This reform
would require the CDCR to redefine and recalculate Milestone program credits for the existing inmate population.
e) ICE Transfers This reform would transfer all prisoners with
ICE holds to ICE when the prisoner is within 6 months of their release
date. This would reduce the population by approximately 1,000 prisoners.
f) Diversion of Probation Technical Violators-Retroactive This
reform would prohibit the admission of probationers who have been
admitted to prison for a technical violation of probation while on
probation status. ...based on the principle that only persons convicted
of new felony crimes should serve time in state prison. This would
reduce the population by approximately 2,500 prisoners.
g) Facilitated Implementation of Prop 36 3rd Strike Law This
reform would expedite the release of all inmates who are part of the
affected Prop 36 class rather than waiting upon individual judges to
resentence these inmates. This would reduce the population by approximately 2,200 prisoners.
h) Release Low Risk Lifers Past Their Minimum Parole Eligibility Date. There are some 9,000 Lifers with the possibility of parole
who are low risk and are past their minimum eligible parole date
(MEPD). This class of inmates by far poses the lowest risk to public
safety based on recidivism studies completed by the CDCR. Based on
the CDCR data there are approximately 9,315 prisoners who are past
their MEPD. Virtually all of them (96%) are low risk.
(Cont’d from Page 8)
State so long to implement these measures,
assuming the Court waives the relevant laws
in the coming weeks and the CDCR makes
its reforms retroactive to low risk inmates.
Third, CDCR’s Plan does not include a
20% discount factor to ensure the projected
reductions will occur and the plan will succeed. Based on my extensive experience
working with other jurisdictions to reduce
prison populations, I have come to understand that calculated population reductions
rarely occur as designed due to unexpected
and/or unintended developments. This happened in California, when AB 109 did not
have the full impact on the state prison
population that was initially projected. Consequently, any population reduction plan
should have a discount factor that will provide a sufficient cushion in the estimates and
help ensure compliance with the Court’s
Order. For purposes of my estimates, based
on my experience in other states, the discount factor must be at least 20%.
Despite these concerns, I am confident
that even if CDCR implemented it’s plan
exactly as written, it could achieve the full
crowding reduction ordered by the Court in
a safe manner by June 27, 2013, because, as
explained above, CDCR’s “catchall” plan
for reducing the prison population targets the
lowest-risk prisoners in the system, and
would not cause an increase in crime rates.
Additional Population Reduction
Measures:
There are other reforms that the State could
employ to safely reduce the current inmate
population by June 27, 2013.
a) Diversion of Drug Possession Cases.
Retroactive and Sustained / This reform is
the same as the pone proposed by the CDCR
except that it is made retroactive to the current inmate population and would be sustained. ...if fully implemented would reduce
the current prison population by nearly
2,000.
b) 2nd Strikers serve 34% of Sentence
versus 20%. Retroactive and Sustained.
(SJRA Editor: This statement is confusing).
Would require CDCR to recalculate release
dates for some portion of the approximately
33,000 2nd strikers. This would reduce
prison population by approximately 3,000 by
June 27, 2013 and have no impact on the
counties.
c) Violent Offense-Non Strikers-serve
Impact on Public Safety
Since the mid-1990s California’s and the nation’s crime rate has
dropped dramatically. California’s rate is now below what it was in
1960...California’s rate is now below the national rate. The reforms
outlined above will not increase the current low crime rate.
Thee is ample evidence that California (and other states) can reduce
their prison populations and lower their crime rates at the same time.
California’s prison population peaked in 2007 at 173,312; since then,
the prison population has been lowered by nearly 40,000 inmates, and
California’s crime rate declined by 11% (17) reduction for violent
crime). As I previously testified at the trial in 2008, lowering the state
prison population would have no impact on crime or arrest rates which
has proven to be the case. So it is clear that prison populations and
crime rates can be lowered simultaneously.
...each of the new measures chosen by the CDCR to reduce crowding, as well as the additional measures that I discus above, are safe.
...they could be implemented without having an impact on public
safety or the operation of the state or local criminal justice systems.
...they would provide large cost savings that could be used to offset
any local criminal justice costs and increase the level of effective
programs at the state nd local levels.
To ensure this conclusion is true I re-calculated the impact of seven
of the major reforms using the same methods I explained during trial
in this matter, plus applying the CDCR risk assessment system to
ensure that no high risk inmates are released sooner. These calculations confirm that there will be no adverse impact to public safety if
the CDCR Plan or an expanded version of the CDCR Plan as described previously is implemented. Further, implementing these seven
reforms using the risk assessment system would reduce the prison
population by at least 18,577 by June 27, 2013--sufficient to meet the
Court’s order and return all of the out of state inmates as originally
proposed by the CDCR by 2014 (or sooner).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct,
and that this declaration is executed at San Diego, CA this 7th day of
January, 2013.
James Austin
SJRA Editor: The 3-Judge Court has given a 6-month extension, until
the end of the year to reduce the population to about 110,000. CA
wants the population cap terminated entirely, and have stated they will
again take to U.S. Supreme Court.
Page 10
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Materials & Resources
(Cont’d from Page 6)
Resources
- Justice Fellowship's Resource Page on Mental Illness
- "Dealing with Mental Illness" [http://
www.justicefellowship.org/node/121]
(Justice eReport, January 9, 2013)
- Mental Illness Policy Organization [http://
mentalillnesspolicy.org]
- Joint statement [http://www.franken.senate.gov/?
p=press_release&id=2276] of Senator Franken and
Representative Nugent on introduction of the Justice
and Mental Health Collaboration Act
- Bureau of Justice Assistance solicitation [https://
www.bja.gov/Funding/13JMHCPsol.pdf] for grants for
the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program
- Mental Health Resource Page [http://
www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/topics/mentalhealth-topic],
National Reentry Resource Center
- National Association of Drug Court Professionals
[http://www.nadcp.org/nadcp-home]
(a terrific source of information on drug courts, veterans courts and other
"problem solving courts")
- "Human Rights at Home: Mental Illness in U.S.
Prisons and Jails"
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg66207/
html/CHRG-111shrg66207.htm]
(Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, September 15, 2009)
- "Violent Behavior: One of the Consequences of
Failing to Treat Individuals with Severe Mental Illness" [http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/
resources/consequences-of-lack-of-treatment/
violence/1381]
(Treatment Advocacy Center, April 2011)
- Mental Health Took Kit [http://www.csg.org/
knowledgecenter/docs/ToolKit05MentalHealth.pdf]
(Council of State Governments)
- "York Co. Deputies Train in Dealing with Mental
Illness"
[http://www.wcnc.com/news/health/York-Co-Deputiestrain-in-dealing-with-mental-illness-189411761.html]
(WCNC-TV, Charlotte, NC, February 1, 2013)
- "Crisis Intervention Team: The 'Memphis
Model'" [http://www.memphispolice.org/crisis%
20intervention.htm]
(Memphis Police Department)
- University of Memphis CIT Center [http://
www.cit.memphis.edu/information.html]
- "Fifty Years of Failing America's Mentally
Ill" [http://professional.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424127887323539804578260023200841756.h
tml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64wsj#printMode]
(E. Fuller Torrey, The Wall Street Journal, February 4,
2013)
- "Sheriffs to Obama: Gun Control Not the Salvation,
Look at Mental Health"
[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0128/Obamaand-police-chiefs-discuss-assault-rifles-backgroundchecks-video#.UQ_JuGjcf-A.twitter]
(Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, January 28, 2013)
Pat Nolan
Vice-President, Prison Fellowship
***********************************
FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
***********************************
Justice Fellowship's Resource Page on Mental Illness
[http://www.justicefellowship.org/node/65]
Jan-Feb 2013
"Crisis Intervention Team: The Memphis
Model" [http://www.memphispolice.org/crisis]
(Memphis Police Department)
University of Memphis CIT Center [http://
www.cit.memphis.edu/information.html]
"Dealing with Mental Illness" [http://
www.justicefellowship.org/node/121]
(Justice eReport, January 9, 2013)
Mental Illness Policy Organization [http://
mentalillnesspolicy.org]
Joint statement [http://www.franken.senate.gov/?
p=press_release&id=2276] of
Senator Franken and Representative Nugent on introduction of the Justice and
Mental Health Collaboration Act
Bureau of Justice Assistance solicitation [https://
www.bja.gov/Funding/13JMHCPsol.pdf]
for grants for the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program
"Fifty Years of Failing America's Mentally
Ill" [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/opinion/
costly-phone-calls-for-state-inmates.html?_r=0]
(E. Fuller Torrey, The Wall Street Journal,February
4, 2013)
"Sheriffs to Obama: Gun Control Not the Salvation,
Look at Mental Health"
[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0128/Obama
-and-police-chiefs-discuss-assault-rifles-background
-checks-video#.UQ_JuGjcf-A.twitter]
(Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, January 28, 2013)
Mental Health Resource Page [http://
www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/topics/mentalhealth-topic],
National Reentry Resource Center
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
[http://www.nadcp.org/nadcp-home]
(a terrific source of information on drug courts, veterans courts, and other "problem solving" courts)
"Human Rights at Home: Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons
and Jails"
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg66207/
html/CHRG-111shrg66207.htm]
(Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, September 15, 2009)
"Violent Behavior: One of the Consequences of Failing
to Treat Individuals with Severe Mental Illness" [http://
www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/resources/
consequences-of-lack-of-treatment/violence/1381]
(Treatment Advocacy Center, April 2011)
Mental Health Tool Kit [http://www.csg.org/
knowledgecenter/docs/ToolKit05MentalHealth.pdf]
(Council of State Governments)
"York Co. Deputies Train in Dealing with Mental
Illness" [http://www.wcnc.com/news/health/York-CoDeputies-train-in-dealing-with-mental-illness189411761.html]
(WCNC-TV, Charlotte, NC, February 1, 2013)
Over the years, Carole has helped in so
many ways. She matched dollars for
donated stamps by prisoners,
in order to raise funds for our
3-Strikes grassroots campaign.
She also donated the cost of having the
Decals put on our 3-Strikes Van.
But the greatest help SJRA Advocate
has received is Carole’s willingness to
provide the printing of the
Advocate.
Carole, we can never thank you enough for
your extreme generosity to us.
We are Blessed because of You!
~Advertisement~
Jan-Feb 2013
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Page 11
Is the Defendant eligible for re-sentencing under Proposition 36?
Three Strikes Justice Center, LLP (TSJC)
*855 Bryant Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94103
Office: 415-913-7742
Fax: (415) 913-7823
Email: info@ThreeStrikesJusticeCenter.com
Visit our website:
www.ThreeStrikesJusticeCenter.com
We are an organization aimed at assisting
lifers in their Prop 36 petitions.
*Correction: In Oct-Nov 2012 issue, the printed address
Flowchart Cont’d on Page 12
(850) was incorrect. Please mail to 855 as shown.
Page 12
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Jan-Feb 2013
Flowchart-Is the Defendant eligible for re-sentencing under Prop 36? (Cont’d from Page 11)
Three Strikes Justice Center, LLP (TSJC)
an organization aimed at assisting lifers in their Prop 36 petitions.
For more info, contact us at the address below, or visit www.ThreeStrikesJusticeCenter.com.
Three Strikes Justice Center
*855 Bryant Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94103
Office: 415-913-7742
Fax: (415) 913-7823
Email: info@ThreeStrikesJusticeCenter.com
*Correction: In Oct-Nov 2012 issue, the printed address(850)
was incorrect. Please mail to 855 as shown.
Jan-Feb 2013
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Today’s date, Mar 14, 2013
You are reading the Jan-Feb 2013issue.
Dear Loved Ones,
We’re still here, we’re alive and well and FREE!
So many good things have happened since Jeff
was released.
First, I want to clear up a couple things. Jeff
DID qualify under Prop 36, as his 3rd strike was
evading police, a non-serious, non-violent offense. How rumors got around that his case was
burglary is beyond me. Anyway, he was resentenced on his 51st birthday, Jan 30th. He was
not in court. He was released on Feb 6th. From
the time his brother Keith and I picked him up,
he had his nose in the cell phone, trying to learn
everything about it and take pics. This went on
for days...He said he was trying to catch up for
the 17 years he missed on the outside. I think he
wanted it all done in a week.
The day we picked him up, he wanted to go
to a restaurant and have a REAL hamburger. So,
he devoured a huge cheeseburger, bacon and all,
with steak fries...saying this was absolutely the
BEST hamburger he ever had in his whole life!
He actually wanted another one...Ha...the waitress’ mouth fell open, and she had this “I can’t
believe it” look on her face.
After lunch, we went shopping for some
clothes, (anything but blue shirt), and since we
were so close, we stopped by the DMV. He was
able to get his CA ID, (he knew his previous
driver’s license number). And he filled out his
Voter’s Registration right along with the ID
application. REMEMBER, IF YOU ARE NOT
ON PAROLE, YOU CAN REGISTER TO
VOTE!
Jeff has had so many opportunities since he
got out...He’s been on Geri Silva’s (FACTS)
radio show...in fact she interviewed both of us.
He’s been invited to be on a future panel on 3Strikes...He’s very anxious to try and help those
left behind. He has been very fortunate to get a
job right away. Dan Lepez, a volunteer coach at
SQ who got to know him, offered him a job.
He’s doing very
well in his job.
They are still
playing baseball,
and the first game
was in Las Vegas,
and Dan and his
wife Cathy invited both of us to
go with them, all
expenses paid!
We were gone for
5 days. How good
is that! Jeff and I
walked the Vegas
strip together and
he took so many
pics. It was all so
different than
when he had last
been there, years
ago. We had a
wonderful time, and we didn’t do much gambling. We have really been blessed with so
much!
Jeff has been working his head off around the
house. He has mowed, watered, pruned,
trimmed, chopped, cut down and cleaned everything. He’s like a tornado...We all painted the
living room, Jeff did the ceiling...It’s been
great...he got me caught up on so much that
needed attention. He still is adjusting, but doing
quite well. So, there’s HOPE! When he talks on
the phone, he’s yelling...I have to remind him to
tone it down...it must be because it’s so noisy in
prison??? And he’s holding his salad bowl in his
hand while he shovels it in...we really have to
discuss this. I did tell him he has longer than 5
minutes to eat. He’s having to sleep on the sofa,
which makes into a queen-size bed. He thinks
the bed is super comfortable. But I told him any
bed would feel good after what you’ve had to
Page 13
sleep on for years.
I still think it a good idea to go to a transitional housing for awhile until you get adjusted.
So much has happened so fast, I don’t know if
that’s the best way to go, but I know Jeff is a hard
worker, and he likes to be busy.
He got his driver’s license about a week and
a half ago, and did not miss one question! Can
you believe it! So, lots of good things are coming
up for Jeff, and I’m just so happy he’s getting his
life back. I want all the same for you all, too.
And I am committed to helping all prisoners with
whatever I can. Most things are going to be very
difficult. And there is SO MUCH that needs to be
done. Each of us have to commit ourselves to
take an active role. We have to be bold and enlist
our families and friends to help us.
This issue of the Advocate has various
chances for us to write letters, and get our voices
out there. We have to stay at it! Get our families
involved!
I want you to know I have still been working
on trying to find jobs and transitional housing,
and this is not an easy task, but I have some people helping, and we’re working on a number of
things. We will get this info to you asap. Keep
our phone # so you can keep in touch, and we can
still provide resources to you. It’s a tough process,
but I know we can do it. We will accept all the
help we can get also. One person told me that
there are more people who hire felons than we
realize. They gave some tips about getting and
keeping a job. For one thing, do not lie on the
application. Employers do not like that. If you
lie, you might get the job, but after they check you
out, you will lose your job, not because you are a
felon, but because you have lied to them. They
also said, ‘don’t show up for work drunk or on
drugs.’ Be on time.
While in prison, whether you will get out or
not, do everything you can to be a better person.
You never know when opportunity will come
your way. God Bless, Love to you all...
Page 14
SJRA Advocate . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961 . www.SJRA1.com
Jan-Feb 2013
We are a positive voice for prisoners through a monthly newsletter
focused on CA prisoner/prison issues.
Our goal is to publish truthful information to educate, motivate and
inspire prisoners, families, general public,
lawyers, legislators and local lawmakers.
We give a voice to the prisoner.
We oppose the Three-Strikes Law, Mandatory Minimums, Marsy’s Law,
Life Without Parole, Death Penalty, Solitary Confinement.
We believe Lifers should be paroled if found suitable.
We believe that juveniles should not be sentenced to Life Without Parole.
We support drug and alcohol treatment in lieu of jail, rehabilitative
sentences, restorative justice, second chances,
sensible sentences that fit the offense.
We support non-profit prison reform groups and help to get their
message out by offering free space in the newsletter.
We encourage family volunteers to show up when needed, and provide
helps to write letters to politicians, judges, newspapers,
We believe there is power in our votes, and all families, including felons
who are not in prison and not on parole need to ‘show up’ at the polls
and exercise their right to vote..
WE DO SO MUCH MORE—
Check out our website at www.SJRA1.com
We are a publication, offering information on CA prison issues. We
have one person on staff, Barbara Brooks, who is not paid, not an
attorney and does not give legal advise.
SJRA cannot:
1. Provide you with legal representation,
2. Give you legal advice or answer any legal questions regarding
specific aspects of your case or your loved one’s case,
3. Assist you with your appeal or post-conviction petitions,
4. Help you file claims against the Department of Corrections or Bureau
of Prisons, or
5. Recommend other attorneys to you for any of these purposes.
If you need legal help, contact a lawyer or the State Bar Association
in your local area.
If you write asking for any of these things, we will not respond to your letter.
SJRA ADVOCATE
(Circle which applies)
SUBSCRIPTION or ADDRESS CHANGE
Prisoners:
I wish to subscribe to 12 issues ($18) or 40 Forever stamps. (Circle)
OR I wish to subscribe to 6 issues ($9) or 20 Forever stamps. (Circle)
Free Persons:
$20-12 issues or $11-6 issues
Date of Request ____________PRISON________________________________
Name (First,MI,Last______________________________CDC#_____________
Housing_______________________________________
Mailing Address _______________________________________________
City_________________________________ST_______ZIP_____________
2 or 3 Striker?______ Lifer?______ LWOP?______ JVLWOP?______ DP?______
Make Check/Money Order Payable to: Barbara Brooks, SJRA
Mail to: Barbara Brooks, SJRA . PO Box 71 . Olivehurst, CA 95961
FREE ON-LINE NEWSLETTER--CHECK OUR WEBSITE AT www.SJRA1.com
Please checkmark your interests:
More changes to 3-Strikes AFTER Prop 36 passed.
Re-entry after leaving prison.
Innocent
Life WithOut Parole
Juvenile Life Sentences
Solitary Confinement
Prison Rehabilitation
Death Penalty
Mentally Ill
Other___________________________