Monday, January 31, 2011

What if Obama Addressed Prison Reform And Mass Incarceration?

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Millions of Americans are affected by the inconsistencies of the criminal justice system from police treatment and profiling to unfair trials and sentencing to an overwhelming need for prison reform. These issues affect Caucasian-Americans, Latino- Americans and African-Americans. The recent State of Georgia Prison strike and lockdown, the largest strike and lockdown in the history of the United States, and the investigated beatings of three African-American inmates by guards subsequently, is compelling evidence that this issue plagues the African American communities deeply.

President Obama should have addressed the millions of family members, activists, organizations and attorneys who fight for those on a daily basis who are dealt with unjustly by the system or have been wrongly incarcerated. President Obama should have given a call to action to Congress to create legislature for effective investigations into federal and state court systems regarding unfair and inconsistent treatment. President Obama neglected to address this often forgotten part of America."


Excerpt from article written by Jenny Triplett is co-Editor-in-Chief of Prisonworld Magazine. For more information log onto www.prisonworldmagazine.com or click the below link.


http://www.1888pressrelease.com/president-obama-neglects-to-address-criminal-justice-system-pr-274535.html

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Thoughts on Healthcare in Prison

The following was written by an inmate in the Monroe, WA Correctional facility. This work is the property of the author[s]/creator[s]. Subject to the right of "Fair Use" as recognized by law, no person may print, reprint, publish, copy, perform, deliver, transmit or sell any work posted within the Voices from Prison. 6and44.blogspot.com assumes no responsibility for the unlawful or unauthorized use of any work posted.

My name is                       ;
If that person has a life sentence, you can bet that at some point he or she will become a level one health care patient because we have been given a sentence that insists we die here in prison. It only stands to reason that the 20 and 30 something's of today are going to e the 50 and 60 year olds of tomorrow with their own ballooning health care cost stuck in the system that is bogged down by the overwhelming cost of incarceration specifically related to our health care system.

The first requirement states that any medical treatment must be essential to life or preservation of a limb, or reduces what is called intractable pain, or prevents significant deterioration of activities of daily living (ADL) There are several other requirements, but for the time constraints we are bound by here today, please allow me to move forward. To be deemed a level one health care patient, one of the requirements states that the cost of any treatment determined by the health care providers and the care Review Committee must exceed $25.000.00. Let me assure you that my health care from this day forward will only increase and eventually balloon into 100's of thousands of dollars over the remaining days of my life.

There are many men and women currently incarcerated in DOC that are even worse off than me and they are housed on the fourth floor here at Monroe or other medical facilities throughout Washington. Many of these men have served a significant amount of their sentences and are in poor health leaving no questions that their life of crime and their perceived threat to the community in which they came from are virtually non-existent.
When we talk about the budget and how DOC has to find ways to make even more cuts, you would think that this is one of the areas DOC would certainly take a look at. Yet they do not, and in fact it has been made even more difficult for offenders with health care problems to ask for clemency and this is especially true with lifers who can no longer ask for medical clemency by law.

I believe it cost somewhere around $45,000.00 a year to house an offender today. If we are talking bottom line dollars here then it is way past time to look at another functional Parole system that will allow for the sick and elderly to go home. If DOC is not geared for rehabilitation, then let us remind them what compassion is as it relates to the taxpayer's pocket books.

I do not believe the law makers accounted for this when the three-strike bill was passed and as I understand it today, it is something they are not looking forward to dealing with in the future. But they must. There are many incarcerated persons with a level one health care issue that would have been let go under the old guidelines Parole Board system. If we are talking bottom line dollars here then it is way past time to look at another functional parole system that will allow the sick and elderly to go home. If DOC is not geared for rehabilitation, then let us remind them what compassion is as it relates to the taxpayers pocket book.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

The Onion - Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried as a Black Adult

This would be funny if it weren't so closely tied to the way people perceive others based on race.  Unfortunately, this video speaks of reality for many African Americans. Also take a look at "Would You Stop a Bicycle Thief?" and examine your own racial biases.



Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult

Thursday, January 27, 2011

3and15 - Disproportionate figures in WA State

This statistic is from 2007 report from the Sentencing Guidelines Commission
Total Washington State African American Population - 3%
Total Washington State African American Sentencing - 15%


Full article at: http://www.sgc.wa.gov/Publications/DisparityDisproportionality/Adult_DisparityDisproportionality_FY2007.pdf

Quotes from a 'Century End Report' on SRA - WA State Sentencing Guidelines Commission

"Changes to sentencing law over the years have generally resulted in the growth of the prison population and in the lengthening of prison terms, which has put upward pressure on the amount of resources needed to deal with that increasing population.  In addition, the Act itself has become increasingly complex, which has arguably reduced public understanding of the law and may have compromised the ability of criminal justice practitioners to implement the law effectively."  
"Legislative amendments to the rules for “scoring” an offender’s criminal history have led some to conclude that sentences are often disproportionate to the offenses, particularly with regard to drug offenses." 

"The Commission is troubled by the problem of over-representation of minorities in the criminal justice system.  Many racial and/or ethnic disparities have arisen well before the time of sentencing, however, and therefore, there is not only a need to examine disparities in sentencing, but also to   focus on other points of discretion arising earlier in the justice process."
Full report at http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/SPR%20Report.pdf

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Michelle Alexander on KUOW

Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" on The Conversation with Ross Reynolds.

Justice Department begins preliminary review of Seattle police

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a preliminary review of the Seattle Police Department in response to a request by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and 34 other groups seeking an investigation of officers' use of force, particularly against minorities.
Seattle Times staff reporter

The Justice Department has launched a preliminary review of the Seattle Police Department to determine whether its officers have engaged in a pattern of unnecessary force, particularly against minorities.
The federal review is in response to a request last month by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU) and 34 other community groups that asked the Justice Department to investigate police use of force in several recent high-profile incidents, including the fatal shooting of John T. Williams.
U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan said Monday she met last week with officials from the Police Department and the office of Mayor Mike McGinn, representatives of the City Council and some of the community groups pushing for the investigation.

Durkan said attorneys from the federal department's Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C., will travel to Seattle in early February to begin the process.
The review will be broad and include Justice Department scrutiny of instances of alleged criminal civil-rights violations by individual officers as well as a "global" look at the department to determine whether, as the ACLU and others allege, there exists a "pattern and practice" of civil-rights violations by officers.
Durkan described the process as a "preliminary or scoping review that will help us determine ... how deep we go" with an investigation.

Durkan, who has been deeply involved in use-of-force issues concerning the Police Department for nearly a decade, said she is concerned enough "to take the additional step to see if there is a systemic issue that needs to be examined and changed."

"Any time you start to see a number of complaints, you're obliged to ask whether there might be a ... cultural problem," she said. "Smoke does not always mean there is fire. Our obligation is to determine whether there is a fire."

If a full investigation is ordered, the Justice Department would conduct a top-to-bottom review of Seattle police operations. The federal agency could work with the department to remedy problems or, if constitutional violations are uncovered, seek written settlements to ensure changes.

The ACLU's request comes after highly publicized incidents in which officers have resorted to force, often against people of color. In their request, the ACLU and other organizations asserted that some Seattle officers appear to "inflict injury out of anger" at suspects rather than to protect public safety.
"Distrust of the police by communities of color grows as a result, and it becomes harder for the Seattle Police Department to do its job of keeping all Seattle residents safe," said the letter, which was sent to Durkan and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division.
The confrontations include an officer kicking and threatening to beat the "Mexican piss" out of a prone Latino man in April; the repeated kicking of an African-American teen during an arrest inside a convenience store in October; and the pummeling of an African-American man in a police lobby in June 2009 in which officers were cleared of wrongdoing.

Also cited is an officer's fatal shooting in August of Williams, a First Nations woodcarver, which led, according to sources, to a preliminary finding by the Police Department that the officer's actions were unjustified. The shooting was the subject of an inquest that concluded last week.

Earlier this month, two former U.S. attorneys, brothers Mike and John McKay, wrote Durkan to support the investigation, claiming the department has stonewalled efforts to investigate a claim that an off-duty Seattle officer last summer threatened a 19-year-old man with a gun over a poor parking job then conspired to have the young man charged with a crime. Mike McKay's firm is representing the man in a claim against the city.

A source within the U.S. Attorney's Office, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said investigative duties will be split in the initial inquiry.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Miyake, a veteran federal criminal prosecutor, will look at individual incidents, such as the Williams shooting, to determine whether criminal civil-rights cases should be brought against specific officers, the source said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Diaz, in the Seattle office's civil division, will oversee the broader investigation into the department, the source said.
Police Chief John Diaz has said he would welcome a Justice Department inquiry. "We welcome any review and will cooperate fully," department spokesman Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said Monday.
McGinn spoke with Durkan about the investigation last week and welcomes the review, spokesman Aaron Pickus said.

"Elevating these issues and bringing some sunshine to them is a good thing," he said. "We need to have an understanding about how widely certain values are held within the Police Department and what we can do to address those issues.

Also welcoming the investigation is City Councilmember Tim Burgess, who oversees the Public Safety Committee. He said Monday he hopes the Justice Department will focus on the role of the Police Department's front-line supervisors — the sergeants and lieutenants — "whose influence and importance within the department is underappreciated."
"You can have all of the advance training, all of the new rules you want," Burgess said. "But unless and until those front-line supervisors take on the role of coaching and nurturing and training our officers, we will continue to have problems."

Durkan said Burgess' observations "are exactly the sorts of things we want to hear."
Before her appointment as U.S. attorney in 2009, Durkan served as the civilian member of the Police Department's Firearms Review Board and played a key role in two citizen panels that have looked at the department's disciplinary practices and the function of the civilian-run Office of Professional Accountability.

Information from Seattle Times archives is included in this report.
Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com

Black Twitter

We could not say it better.  Please take a look at the post by TED Fellow Kyra Gaunt

In the words of Michelle Alexander, "Nothing less than a major social movement" is necessary to make a change in the plight of those affected by mass incarceration. There is no us and them in this endeavor. We much reach across racial and economic lines and embrace each others' humanness, felon or not.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Michelle Alexander is in Seattle TOMORROW!


The New Jim Crow: The Prison Industrial Complex

DATE | TIME: Monday, January 24, 2011 | 7 p.m.
LOCATION: Mount Zion Baptist Church

MICHELLE ALEXANDER
Join us for an powerful discussion about the current Prison Industrial Complex! The event will be led by Michelle Alexander, professor and author. She joined the OSU faculty in 2005 and holds a joint appointment with the Moritz College of Law and the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. She was a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, where she served as Director of the Civil Rights Clinic. She has litigated civil rights cases in private practice and has engaged in innovative litigation and advocacy efforts in the non-profit sector. For several years, Professor Alexander served as the Director of the Racial Justice Project for the ACLU of Northern California, which spearheaded a national campaign against racial profiling by law enforcement. Professor Alexander is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Vanderbilt University. Following law school, she clerked for Justice Harry A. Blackmun on the United States Supreme Court, and for Chief Judge Abner Mikva on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

This lecture is part of the Diversity Speaker Series
The Bush School Diversity Speaker Series is free and open to the public. Unless noted, events will be held at:
The Bush School | 3400 E. Harrison St., Seattle | www.bush.edu/diversity contact: Dr. Eddie Moore Jr., Director of Diversity | 206-326-7731 | eddie.moorejr@bush.edu
Sponsors:  ACLU | Bethany Presbyterian Church | Casey Family Services | Comparative History of Ideas-UW | Cross Cultural Connections | Empower Law PLLC | Giddens School | Mount Zion Baptist Church | Seattle Pacific University | Seattle Public Schools | North Seattle Community College | Seattle University | Starbucks | Seattle Hip-Hop Summit Action Network and Youth Council | UmojaFest P.E.A.C.E. Center | WEACT  | YMCA of Greater Seattle

SPS CLOCK HOURS: Participants who attend a one-hour pre-lecture workshop and the lecture/discussion are eligible for three clock hours at a cost of $6 ($2/hour). Please bring a check made out to Seattle Public Schools. We are unable to offer clock hours for the lecture only. Contact Jenn Kovach, SPS, at jekovach@seattleschools.org with questions.


UPCOMING EVENTS

Brian C. Johnson
REEL DIVERSITY: FRAMING DIVERSITY THROUGH MODERN FILM
DATE | TIME: Tuesday, February 1, 2011 | 7 p.m.
LOCATION: The Bush School Community Room

Barbara J. Love
BENDING THE ARC OF THE UNIVERSE: HOW YOUNG PEOPLE CHANGE THE WORLD
DATE | TIME: Thursday, March 3, 2011 | 7 p.m.
LOCATION: The Bush School Community Room

Hsiao-wen lo
WHEN CARING PEOPLE HURT: RACIAL MICRO-AGGRESSION AND HOW ALLIES CAN HELP
DATE | TIME: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 | 7 p.m. and Friday, April 29, 2010 (Upper School Privilege Day 2)
LOCATION: The Bush School Community Room

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Thoughts on the Parole Board

The following was written by an inmate in the Monroe, WA Correctional facility. This work is the property of the author[s]/creator[s]. Subject to the right of "Fair Use" as recognized by law, no person may print, reprint, publish, copy, perform, deliver, transmit or sell any work posted within the Voices from Prison. 6and44.blogspot.com assumes no responsibility for the unlawful or unauthorized use of any work posted.

My name is                   , and I would like to ask you now to forgive me. I have always been told that one should never curse in public or when making a presentation. Right now I need to let you know that there is no way I can make this presentation without cursing. So I will get the cursing out of the way now and then make my presentation. My cursing is "PAROLE BOARD".

Now that I have said that, I will continue. Until 1985 when a person was convicted of a crime, the judge in the case would sentence the person to the maximum amount of time the crime called for. The judge and prosecutor would send a recommendation to the Parole Board along with any mandatory that the crime carried.

At the time of sentencing, each person would receive 1/3 of his or her time off. This time belonged to the person and it was not taken away unless that person committed some offense in prison that the department felt deserved loss of good time, and even with this, the institution could only recommend that the person lose good time. That Parole Board had the last option on what to do with the recommendation.

When you saw the Parole Board, before going to your parent institution, they would set your time. which could be any amount of time they felt was correct or deserved for your crime. The time would include any mandatory time that was imposed. The time that was set at this initial meeting would/could have 1/3 removed for good behavior. An example would be if you were given 6 years on a 15-year sentence, you would be able to get 2 years off the 6 years if you kept your nose clean.

You would be asked when you wanted to see the Parole Board again. You could meet with them every year or any increment up to the year before your release. Each appearance would include an update on what you have or have not done since your last appearance. When you did appear before the Parole Board you had the option of just talking about what you had done since the last time you saw them, or you could present information stating why you felt you had earned consideration for a time cut. (The Parole Board at any time could look at your accomplishments and if they felt you had made some improvements, they could give you a time cut. A time cut could be taking the 6 years they had given you, and reduce the time to be served from 4 years to a lower number of years and a sooner release).

One of the good points about this system was the fact that the members could release a person when they felt the person had reached a point where a release would best serve the person and society. This would be opposed to keeping them locked up and have the person start to go down hill because they felt no one was looking at what they were doing and only at the crime. Often this was/could be considered placing punishment on top of punishment.

One of the negative outcomes of the change from the Parole Board to the SRA is that everyone who was under the Parole Board was given more time under the ISRB. The court ordered that old Parole Board offenders he placed under the SRA and given release dates consistent with the SRA. This is not what happened; they were given 'PAROLE ELIGIBILITY REVIEW DATES'. Since there is no such thing in the state of Washington as a parole. how can you give me a date to decide if I am eligible for it? When this all took place, I had a projected release date of April 24, 2005, after the conversion I now will be seen on November 12, 2020 to see if I qualify for a parole. Please explain that to me.