Budget woes prompt states to rethink prison policy, posted by Robert Paisola

By DAVID CRARY

AP National Writer

NEW YORK » Their budgets in crisis, governors, legislators and prison officials across the nation are making or considering policy changes that will likely remove tens of thousands of offenders from prisons and parole supervision.

Collectively, the pending and proposed initiatives could add up to one of biggest shifts ever in corrections policy, putting into place cost-saving reforms that have struggled to win political support in the tough-on-crime climate of recent decades.

"Prior to this fiscal crisis, legislators could tinker around the edges -- but we're now well past the tinkering stage," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, which advocates alternatives to incarceration.

"Many political leaders who weren't comfortable enough, politically, to do it before can now -- under the guise of fiscal responsibility -- implement programs and policies that would be win/win situations, saving money and improving corrections," Mauer said

In California, faced with a projected $42 billion deficit and prison overcrowding that has triggered a federal lawsuit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate parole for all offenders not convicted of violent or sex-related crimes, reducing the parole population by about 70,000. He also wants to divert more petty criminals to county jails and grant early release to more inmates -- steps that could trim the prison population by 15,000 over the next 18 months.

In Kentucky, where the inmate population had been soaring, even some murderers and other violent offenders are benefiting from a temporary cost-saving program that has granted early release to nearly 2,000 inmates.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is proposing early release of about 1,000 inmates. New York Gov. David Paterson wants early release for 1,600 inmates as well as an overhaul of the so-called Rockefeller Drug Laws that impose lengthy mandatory sentences on many nonviolent drug offenders.

"These laws have neither curbed drug use nor enhanced public safety," said Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "Instead, they have ruined thousands of lives and annually wasted millions of tax dollars in prison costs."

Policy-makers in Michigan, one of four states that spend more money on prisons than higher education, are awaiting a report later this month from the Council of State Governments' Justice Center on ways to trim fast-rising corrections costs, likely including sentencing and parole modifications.

"There's a new openness to taking a look," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, a Republican who in the past has questioned some prison-reform proposals. "What we'll see are changes being made that will have a positive impact four, five, six years down the road."

Even before the recent financial meltdown, policy-makers in most states were wrestling with ways to contain corrections costs. The Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project has projected that state and federal prison populations -- under current policies -- will grow by more than 190,000 by 2011, to about 1.7 million, at a cost to the states of $27.5 billion.

"Prisons are becoming less and less of a sacred cow," said Adam Gelb, the Pew project's director. "The budget crisis is giving leaders on both sides of the aisle political cover they need to tackle issues that would be too tough to tackle when budgets are flush."

In contrast to past economic downturns, Gelb said, states now have better data on how to effectively supervise nonviolent offenders in their communities so prison populations can be reduced without increasing the threat to public safety.

Safety remains a potent factor. In California, for example, the state correctional officers' union contends Schwarzenegger's proposals will fuel more crime.

In Idaho, a combination of budget cuts and prison overcrowding contributed to an uprising Jan. 2 in a former prison workshop that was converted into a temporary cell block. Inmates who engaged in vandalism and arson had been placed there as part of a cost-cutting effort to move other prisoners back to Idaho from more expensive quarters at a private prison in Oklahoma.

Thomas Sneddon, a former Santa Barbara, Calif., prosecutor who is now executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, said he and his colleagues support reappraisals of corrections policies yet worry constantly that dangerous criminals will be released unwisely.

"I don't think the public at large has any idea of who's in these prisons," Sneddon said. "If they went and visited, they'd say 'My God, don't let any of these people out.'"

He noted that many states are seeking to send fewer offenders back to prison for technical violations of parole conditions. Some of these violations are indeed relatively minor, Sneddon said, but often they are accompanied by more serious criminal behavior that warrants a return to prison.

As budgetary pressures worsen, some advocacy groups are concerned that spending cuts will target the very programs needed to help inmates avoid re-offending after release -- education, vocational and drug-treatment programs.

"The idea that we'd cut programs and then release inmates early is a toxic combination," said Pat Nolan, vice president of Prison Fellowship. "Just opening prison doors and letting people out with no preparation -- that's cruel to the offender and dangerous to public."

However, Nolan, a former California legislator who served time in a federal prison on a racketeering charge, sees the current climate as ripe for the kind of reforms Prison Fellowship has advocated with its Christian-based outreach programs.

"It's forcing the legislators to see the actual costs of imprisonment, because it's coming out of the budget for schools, roads, hospitals," he said.

The Council of State Government's Justice Center has been working with 10 states to develop options for curbing prison populations without jeopardizing public safety. Tactics used in Texas and Kansas have included early release for inmates who complete specified programs, more sophisticated community supervision of offenders, and expanded treatment and diversion programs.

"There's an unprecedented level of interest in this kind of thinking," said the Justice Center's director, Michael Thompson. "It's a combination of fiscal pressure and a certain fatigue of doing the same thing as 20 years ago and getting the same return."

In Florida, where prisons are so crowded that the state has acquired tents for possible use to house inmates, officials say 19 new prisons may be needed over the next five years. As an alternative, Corrections Secretary Walter McNeil told lawmakers they should re-evaluate the state's hard-line sentencing policies and look at ways to help released inmates avoid returning to prison.

One important variable is the role of private prisons, which some advocacy groups consider less accountable that state-run prisons. Elizabeth Alexander of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project expressed concern that fiscally struggling states would rely increasingly on private operators.

The largest private prison firm, Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America, operates in 20 states and says some of them have asked if CCA can expand its capacity so more beds don't need to be added to the state-run system.

"Of the states we do business with, none have made prison construction a priority in this economic environment," said Tony Grande, CCA's executive vice president. "Our partnership with the states will become even stronger. ...We want to be a part of their financial solution."

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender- In The Proper Format? A Question for the Supreme Court, Posted by Robert Paisola

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender- In The Proper Format? A Question for the Supreme Court, Posted by Robert Paisola

We at BOPWATCHDOG.COM received this letter. There are many valid points and more to come.News of a horrific crime, reporters telling the details over and over, mugshots of the suspect on the screen, revelation that the suspect is a registered sex offender. Even though such a crime might occur hundreds of miles away, I panic.

That crime could cost my son any remaining chance of a normal, stable childhood. It could cost me the choice to live peacefully with my husband, the right to live free of the terror that someone will show up on my doorstep intent on murder.

Why? Because in response to horrific crimes, society now lashes out at law-abiding citizens who, in the past, broke the law. Punishes them again by broadcasting their daily whereabouts to the world, driving them into joblessness and homelessness, banning them from walking down a city street or taking shelter in cases of emergencies. And the law thoroughly punishes their families. Spouses must either live under the same dangers, restrictions and privacy invasions, or abandon their marriage. Children lose friends, homes, and the right to be free of mockery and assault and fear.

We don't speak out often. Being legally required to provide personal information to those who wish to kill us tends to stifle public discourse. If a death threat is made, we cannot protect ourselves by staying with relatives or in a hotel for a few days. The law requires we keep the potential killer updated as to where we can be found. And that potential killer would have more rights under the law, even if he murdered us, than we do as people trying to remain in compliance with ever-changing laws.

My husband was convicted decades ago of a sex crime against an adult. He served time, he participated in years of treatment during and after release, he spent additional years under supervision. Then a court, and a panel of mental health experts, deemed he was no longer a danger to anyone. Not medium risk, not low risk. No risk. He set out to do what hundreds of thousands of ex-cons do--build a new life--and he succeeded. We married and had a child. We worked hard, contributed to our community, raised our son, made plans for the future.

Then society demanded a do-over, and contrived to do so through "regulation." So another court decided there was no punishment attached to retroactive registration of sex offenders, nor in the highly publicized dissemination of their whereabouts. Even though we are no longer subject to criminal supervision, "civil" laws have taken our privacy, our right to live and travel where we choose, and our right to be free of harassment.

Politicians, the media, and the public make it clear to us: We are human garbage. Toxic waste. Unfit to breathe the air. Unworthy of life. Deserving of death at the hands of vigilantes.

Yes, I say "we," even though my husband is the only sex offender in the family. For years, the public, politicians, and certain advocacy groups have gotten away with failing to acknowledge the swath of collateral damage their law-making has inflicted. If a mere third of offenders are married, almost a quarter million spouses are recklessly placed in jeopardy by the laws. If a third live with a parent, almost a quarter million family members are at risk. If a third have a single child, almost a quarter million children are--daily-- endangered by public notification and the prevailing, rabidly encouraged public sentiment that any registered offender should be tormented at every opportunity. Our lives are ones of fear.

To those who say I knew what I was getting into by marrying a man with a sex crime in his past, consider this: We married five years before the first law that affected us was passed, and nearly ten years before the current crop became law. Ten years ago, no reasonable person would have predicted that, absent any wrongdoing in that time, we'd suddenly be violating the law to live in a home we own, to drive down certain city streets, to take a vacation without notifying law enforcement, to buy or rent a new home or hold a job without updating the public--all because of a decades-old conviction. All these penalties came to pass after our marriage, and after the birth of our child.

There is no way to appeal it. There is no escaping it. No matter what we do--no matter how well or how long we abide by the laws--we lose more and more rights and freedoms every day. And that loss is based upon pure hysteria and statistical manipulation. The testimony of mental health experts is ignored by politicians and the mainstream media. True recidivism rates are under-reported, or are not reported at all. Even victim advocacy groups and prosecuting attorneys are disregarded when they speak against these punishments. And discussing the consequences of the laws is, apparently, taboo in the public forum.

Some will say it would be shameful to repeal laws intended to protect children. I tell you the recklessness with which hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens have been triumphantly stripped of their privacy, family, and safety is shameful indeed. Politicians and advocates tell us that such "civil" abuse heaped upon sex offenders is worthy if it saves a single child. By default, they name the pain and loss and endangerment inflicted on other children worthy as well. Shameful indeed.

I don't ask that you welcome us with open arms. We ask for something far more simple: to be left alone, just as we were all those years in which we did nothing wrong under the law. However, if you demand that every offender be eternally punished for his or her past, then show the moral courage to hold yourself accountable for the present.

When you demand offenders be pushed out of your community, say out loud, "and their children should be hounded out of their home, too."

When you demand longer and broader notifications, state bravely, "and I want their children to be shamed whenever they leave their home, to live in terror of vigilante violence forever."

When you demand offenders be banned from schools, proclaim as well, "and I want their children to be mocked and beaten by their classmates, to never have a friend."

When you demand the government step in to 'protect the children,' say to the offender's child, "But you I will purposefully endanger. Your family I will destroy, and claim its destruction as my victory."

When you demand an offender be again punished for a decades-old crime, at least have the decency to say you're willing to inflict certain damage on thousands of children in exchange for the many-times disproved promise of better security for yours.

Don't like the way that sounds? Neither do we. But you have the option of turning away, of ignoring it, of justifying it with sound bites. We don't. We live according to the whims of civil madmen every day.

A Federal Criminal Conviction – The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Washington, D.C. – Charles Rangel (D-NY) stated during the introduction of his "Second Chance Act for Ex-Offenders of 2007" (HR 623) that federal law literally drives good people into prison because a federal ex-offender is never given a chance to show rehabilitation.

Rangel's bill provides that a one-time, non-violent offender who has completed all provisions of his sentence, a year of community service and who possesses a proven record of no alcohol or drug dependence is allowed to present a case to the federal sentencing judge asking for an expungement of the criminal conviction for non-law enforcement purposes. In other words, the conviction is still known to law enforcement but the expungement gives the ex-offender a second chance to reclaim their life.

Additionally, if the ex-offender is ever convicted of any subsequent state or federal offense the benefit is negated and the prior conviction record can enhance any subsequent sentence as though the expungement never happened.

Practically all states have a procedure that allows ex-offenders to seek re-entry to society through their good works and continued civility.* Some states even allow a federal conviction to come within its curative statutes.

The federal government has no such framework and federal ex-offenders are perpetually doomed to being in a sub-caste of humanity that, according to Rangel, is perpetually denied educational, housing and social benefits otherwise available to all.

One group, The Rehabilitated Project (www.rehabilitated.org) is working to ensure passage of HR 623. Congressman Rangel stated, "I commend the Rehabilitated Project and thank you for building a coalition of supporters for H. R. 623, The Second Chance Act of 2007." He added, "I thank you for marshalling the voice of the American people on this critical issue. Giving ex-offenders a `Second Chance' is in line with our demand that all individuals strive to find ways to cultivate themselves into productive members of our society."

He added, "The reality is at present, upon release, there are limited prospects for persons with criminal records. Each time they acknowledge their criminal pasts when completing job applications, they are likely to be turned away. `Second Chance' would remove this huge barrier and lower rates of recidivism by offering these individuals real opportunities for gaining legitimate employment."

It is thus easy to see why there is such a high recidivism rate in the United States. Yet, there is no relief valve under federal law to allow re-entry into society even after years of civility and continued good works by the ex-offender. Not even a presidential pardon!

Pardons have been issued so stingily over the last 20 years that under the current administration only 19, on average, are given yearly. Were the same rate maintained as during the 1920's and 1930's, over a thousand federal ex-offenders would receive presidential acts of clemency each year.

So, what HR 623 is attempting to do is simply level the playing field between state and federal ex-offenders and others whose wrongdoing is known, but for one reason or another, have not been criminally charged as is commonly afforded to illegal aliens seeking entry to this country.

Nationwide every year thousands of licensed professionals such as doctors, lawyers, real estate brokers and the like, are brought before their licensing board for one wrongful deed, or another. Many times this wrongdoing passes the threshold of criminality; yet, due to circumstances and the fact that our criminal justice system is overcrowded, criminal charges are simply not brought."

The power to approve continued licensing, despite wrongdoing, was delegated to these boards under legislative schemes such as the California Administrative Procedures Act. This act originally was just a copy of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. What the federal act did was to relieve elected officials in the 1880's, and since, of the need to run the day-to-day affairs of the varied and many agencies which then were being first created and which had become so numerous as to be unmanageable by the elected officials alone.

As an example, some agencies in California have even codified exactly what steps and conduct need to be shown in order to be declared "rehabilitated" sufficiently to continue with the licensed activity, including religious or voluntary community-based services. Every state in the Union has similar acts allowing professionals guilty of wrongdoing to be administratively chastised, yet continue to practice under terms and conditions set by the licensing agency.
HR 623 does exactly the same thing. It simply relieves the White House of having to concern itself with its opinion poll rating for being "soft on crime" until the end of a term, which is certainly not fair and it is certainly not just. Additionally, it will relieve the executive office the shame and embarrassment of highly-publicized mass pardons that have occurred at the very midnight hour of some administrations.

Rangel's bill puts the duty of determining whether an ex-offender deserves to be re-admitted into society into the hands of federal judges who are by education, experience and calling eminently qualified to make judgments about who has proven, or not, their case; that is, after all, what they do every day. It also lays claim to the proposition that if the forgiven person, this person who is being given a Second Chance, errs again through willful wrongdoing all of clemency allowed by HR 623 will immediately disappear.

Congressman Rangel summed it all up when he said, "In this Congress, together we can actively work to remove this barrier to employment and give these individuals hope instead of limiting their aspirations to careers in crime."