SHU solitary exercise yard. Credit: Nancy Mullane for KALW.
About a week ago, KALW ran a fascinating story about media access to California prisons. Nancy Mullane has been struggling to obtain permission to see California institutions from the inside.
This is particularly poignant, because a few days ago Governor Brown killed AB 1270, which would provide the media the ability to conduct interviews with specific inmates.
I recommend listening to the whole thing – Mullane’s observations about Pelican Bay, its staff, and the inmates, are insightful and fascinating.
Current polls show Proposition 36, the initiative to amend the Three Strikes Law to require that the third strike be not just any felony but a serious or violent felony, leading by a significant majority. In a previous post, we provided an analysis of the proposition, concluding that it was a step in the right direction, though we would have liked to see more reforms (including some hope for second strikes and a consideration of the simultaneous strike problem.) Today I’m thinking about the minority of Californians who still oppose Prop 36 and pondering the sources of said opposition.
As my colleague and friend Josh Page argues in The Toughest Beat, the original Three Strikes Law was heavily promoted by the CCPOA–California’s prison guard union–and victim organizations puppeteered by the union. Spearheading the law were families of victims of heinous crimes perpetrated by habitual offenders on parole. The original idea behind the law was not to deter potential criminals from committing crime; if we allow simultaneous strikes to be counted in the same trial, we’re pretty much dismissing the deterrent effect. Rather, the idea was to incapacitate; namely, to identify risky individuals and put them behind bars for life.
A Legal Analyst’s Office analysis conducted in 2004 stated that only a third of the then-Three-Striker population had committed their third strike offense against a person. The remainder two thirds had committed a nonviolent third strike–a drug or a property offense. Moreover, less than half of the Three Strikers had committed an offense that could be considered serious or violent. However, as the report stated, while the third offenses were often not serious or violent (and sometimes, according to distressing news reports, rather petty), third strikers do have more serious criminal histories than other state inmates.
So, let’s look at this from a prism of risk. Does a serious or violent criminal history consisting of two prior offenses predict that more violent might be perpetrated in the future, even if the person’s third offense is actually not a violent one? The answer to that question is fairly complicated. Some criminal offenses are better predictors of risk than others.
I’ve recently read Gavin de Becker’s The Gift of Fear.De Becker is a private consultant, specializing in violence prediction. The book examines various scenarios of violence–death threats, stalking, abuse, violence wrought by fired employees, stranger violence–and strongly advocates that readers pay close attention to their own intuition in situations that feel instinctually wrong or dangerous. De Becker’s point is that, in any given situation, there are many clues that might help a potential victim predict a violent eruption. Some of these clues may be difficult to verbalize, as the potential victim might only notice them briefly, but our intuition works faster than our logic; therefore, the gut feeling in itself, without the verbal articulation of the grounds for danger, is important.
De Becker’s message is well taken in the context of individuals and immediate violence. He is combating many years of socialization that implore us, especially women, to be “nice” and kind to strangers even when we feel something is awry, and the good will that might lead us to discount our instincts as stereotypes which must not be heeded. Being wise, rather than nice, could save our lives, which I think is an important message.
But it would be a big mistake to confound de Becker’s message with a message to vote no on 36 because our instinct tells us that people with two prior violent offenses are dangerous, and here’s why. First, there’s a big difference between predicting imminent violence at the interpersonal, immediate level, and predicting it at the policymaking level as an uncertainty that might occur sometime in the future. For the latter task, one has the luxury of employing statistical predictions that a layperson cannot access in a given situation. Also, assessing a particular situation based on its context is an entirely different task than trying to predict violence without any reference to time, place, and circumstances. The factors that come into play in the latter situation will necessarily be generalized and based on many years of statistical prediction – which is why most parole boards have come to rely on statistical software, rather than on individualized clinical predictions.
Second, it’s important to keep in mind that risk prevention in general only goes one way. Sure, if we lock up all convicts with a criminal history indefinitely we might end up safer; we eliminate the risk of false positives; our pity or compassion would be neutralized and we’d make no predictive mistakes. But what about all the people whom we may be locking up needlessly? And what about first-time offenders, for whom we have no such predictors?
And third, violence prevention is only one factor in designing penal policy. The third strikers we incarcerate for twenty-five years to life have already been punished for their two prior offenses. Retribution and proportionality are also important from a justice standpoint, as is the prospect of hope for release.
Which is why I wholeheartedly recommend The Gift of Fear – and voting YES on 36 – and do not see these messages as contradictory at all.
This morning’s fascinating story on the Chron brings us unexpected commentary about Prop 34: The voices of death row inmates themselves. And, as Bob Egelko tells us, they oppose the proposition.
Counterintuitive? Not really. Here goes:
It’s not that they want to die, attorney Robert Bryan said. They just want to hang on to the possibility of proving that they’re innocent, or at least that they were wrongly convicted. That would require state funding for lawyers and investigators – funding that Proposition 34 would eliminate for many Death Row inmates after the first round of appeals. Bryan has represented several condemned prisoners in California as well as Mumia Abu-Jamal, the radical activist and commentator whose death sentence for the murder of a Philadelphia policeman was recently reduced to life in prison. The attorney said California inmates have told him they’d prefer the current law, with its prospect of lethal injection, to one that would reduce their appellate rights. “Many of them say, ‘I’d rather gamble and have the death penalty dangling there but be able to fight to right a wrong,’ ” Bryan said. . . . Attorney Natasha Minsker, the Yes on 34 campaign manager, said the initiative would place now-condemned inmates “in the same position as every prisoner convicted of a serious felony in California,” with the same right to go to court. They would no longer automatically get state-funded lawyers for habeas corpus claims, Minsker said. The main purpose of those lawyers now is “to save a person’s life” from a wrongful execution, but that task would disappear if Prop. 34 passed, she said. No one has polled Death Row inmates on Prop. 34. But an organization called the Campaign to End the Death Penalty sent letters to 220 condemned prisoners in California and received about 50 replies, all but three of them against the ballot measure, said Lily Mae Hughes, the group’s director.
A few thoughts on this:
1. If anything, death row inmates’ opposition to the proposition strengthens the position of those who support it for reasons of financial prudence. What the inmates want is the hope of receiving quality litigation, which is exactly the expensive good that proposition backers, particularly those of the libertarian persuasion, seek to eliminate.
2. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we worried about EVERYONE’s innocence, not just that of capital inmates? I imagine after Prop 34 passes we will have to retool habeas resources in a serious way to improve litigation on behalf of lifers. And the next frontier is life without parole.
3. My pal Billy Minshall and I exchanged thoughts on this, and he speculated that, had anyone polled recently freed slaves in 1863 about abolition, we might have been surprised at the outcome. It’s very difficult to imagine a more fair world when you’ve been making the most out of a horrifyingly unjust reality.
————— Props to David Takacs and Billy Minshall for alerting me to this first thing in the morning. Cross-posted to PrawfsBlawg.
You might expect that these LWOP sentences are limited to the “worst of the worst,” but that is not the case. A young teen can be a bit player in a crime, e.g., act as a lookout while his buddies go in to steal beer from a convenience store. None of them is armed, and there is no plan for violence. Then it all goes haywire. The clerk pulls a gun, and one of the kids tries to grab it away. In the struggle that ensues, the gun goes off and the clerk dies. Under California’s “felony murder” rule, every person involved in that crime, no matter how minor their role, is equally guilty of murder, even if they did not plan or expect a murder to occur. According to the fiction of our law, the lookout is as much to blame as the person who pulled the trigger. About 45 percent of the inmates serving LWOP for a teenage crime were not the person who caused the death. Yet they will die in prison of old age, with no chance for release. But should these youngsters die in prison for something they did when they were so young? Wouldn’t it be better to re-evaluate them after serving a long stretch in prison and consider whether they have matured and improved themselves? We are conservative Republicans, and we believe that some people are so dangerous that we must separate them from our communities. That is what prisons are for. But sometimes we overuse our institutions. California’s teen LWOP is an overuse of incarceration. It denies the reality that young people often change for the better. And it denies hope to those sentenced under it.
This op-ed joins a long stream of previous statements from conservative politicians who express a willingness to deviate from the traditionally tough-on-crime stance on the right. And notably, while there is a savings strand here, there is also text about compassion and humaneness. Good stuff.
Yeah – you read it right. What follows is the press release:
*****
The statement calls for the cessation of all hostilities between groups to commence October 10, 2012, in all California prisons and county jails. “This means that from this date on, all racial group hostilities need to be at an end,” the statement says. It also calls on prisoners throughout the state to set aside their differences and use diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The Short Corridor Collective states, “If personal issues arise between individuals, people need to do all they can to exhaust all diplomatic means to settle such disputes; do not allow personal, individual issues to escalate into racial group issues.” In the past, California prisoners have attempted to collaborate with the Department of Corrections to bring an end to the hostilities, but CDCR has been largely unresponsive to prisoners’ requests. The statement warns prisoners that they expect prison officials to attempt to undermine this agreement.
“My long-time experience in urban peace issues, gang truces, prevention and intervention, is that when gang leaders and prisoners take full stock of the violence, and how they can contribute to the peace, such peace will be strong, lasting, and deep. I honor this effort as expressed in this statement,” says Luis J. Rodriguez, renowned violence intervention worker and award-winning author of Always Running: La Vida Loca, Gang Days in L.A. Rodriguez has helped broker gang truces throughout the US as well as in other parts of the world. This spring, Rodriguez was involved in a historic truce between gangs in El Salvador leading to a 70% drop in violence in that country. According to Rodriguez, “What is needed now—and where most peace efforts fail—is the meaningful and long-lasting support of society and government, in the form of prison reform, training, education, drug and mental health treatment and proper health care. We need an end to repressive measures that only feed into the violence and traumas.”
Azadeh Zohrabi of the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition sees the agreement as a positive development that stems from last year’s hunger strikes. “While living through some of the worst conditions imaginable, the authors of this statement continue to work for change,” states Zohrabi. “While the prison administration drags its feet on even the most basic reforms, these guys are trying to build peace throughout the system. That says a lot their humanity and hope.”
Advocates and the Short Corridor Collective are eager to spread the word as far and wide as possible and implement peace plans throughout California’s prisons and jails. “We must all hold strong to our mutual agreement from this point on and focus our time, attention, and energy on mutual causes beneficial to all of us [i.e., prisoners], and our best interests,” says the Collective. “The reality is that collectively, we are an empowered, mighty force, that can positively change this entire corrupt system into a system that actually benefits prisoners, and thereby, the public as a whole.” The PBSP-SHU Short Corridor Collective has strongly requested that its statement be read and referred to in whole. It can be found here.
*****
If this agreement will be respected by inmates in all CA institutions, it’s a major, major breakthrough. Interracial violence is often seen as a ubiquitous fact of life within walls. It also speaks volumes about the impact that the Pelican Bay hunger strike has had on organizing inmates, who are realizing that in order to end solitary confinement and debriefing they need to fight a common enemy, rather than each other. This is huge, and might hopefully bring CDCR to discard extreme incarceration practices if they cannot be justified as gang violence prevention measures.
An interesting bill lies on Governor Brown’s desk, awaiting his signature: AB 1270 would allow, and set procedures for, media interviews with prisoners.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, would dramatically change the parameters of free speech in prison.
Under the new bill, CDCR would be required to allow interviews with inmates on a pre-arranged and on a random basis, unless the warden determines that the interview “poses an immediate threat to public safety or the security of the institution.” The interview request should be presented within a reasonable time, and the interview itself requires the inmate’s consent, as well as a notification to the victim or his/her family ahead of time. The inmate is not to receive any form of remuneration for participating in the interview, and CDCR is not to change an inmate’s status or punish him or her for giving an interview.
Currently, media interviews in CDCR prisons with specific inmates are not allowed (visiting prison and speaking to inmates at random is allowed under certain conditions.). The Supreme Court’s decision in Pell v. Procunier (1974) upheld this regime, arguing that the existing provisions for media contact meant that there was no First Amendment violation.
Let’s think about a few potential applications of this. One of the concern folks might have is about sensational interviews providing wanton publicity for perpetrators of heinous crimes. Notifying the victim’s family is not, of course, procuring the victim’s family’s consent. And yes, it would mean more air time for tasteless, heinous and sensationalist media coverage. But how would that be different from the tasteless, heinous, sensational television we already watch?
Think about how much good it could do an innocent inmate if reporters would pick up the cause and pursue it, and how helpful it would be if, in addition to other footage, they could speak to the inmate him/herself. It’s enough to be reminded of the stunning impact that Paradise Lost, Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, and Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory have had on the West Memphis Three case (here’s a great interview with the filmmakers).
And think of how much more attention the Pelican Bay hunger strike would have received if the public got its news not just from CDCR officials, and some crumbs from what families got through letters. But under the new proposition, it’s likely that CDCR would still have the prerogative to decline the interviews based on institutional safety reasons.
A lengthy battle has been fought between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the federal Receiver, Clark Kelso. Long before Brown v. Plata, Judge Thelton Henderson placed the entire prison medical system in the hands of a federal receivership. There has been some noticeable improvement (some investigating reporting revealed mixed results), but the court, deciding that overcrowding in prison impeded more improvement, kept the receivership in place while ordering the State to decrowd prisons. The State has been repeatedly asking the court to end the receivership and criticizing the Receiver’s spending; the Receiver has consistently asked to sever health care from CDCR. And, as of yesterday, this is officially NOT OVER. The Los Angeles Times reports:
In an order issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson said he would require tougher reviews than the state wanted before agreeing to dissolve the receivership that has run inmate medical care for six years. “Evidence of progress made under the direction and control of the receiver does not constitute evidence of [the state’s] own will, capacity, and leadership to maintain a constitutionally adequate system of inmate medical care,” Henderson wrote. California officials have “not always cooperated with, and have sometimes actively sought to block, the receiver’s efforts.”
Would Judge Henderson be more willing to bring the Receivership to an end if the state seemed more ready and willing to comply with the population reduction order, which it now seeks to change? For the court, quality of services is inexorably tied to prison population. But if services improve as population dwindles, is that evidence of the state’s ability to provide quality health care, or a testament to the Receiver’s efforts?
But there’s more here. This is interesting to me because the debate over the quality of prison health care has drawn attention to a special population of inmates: The old and the infirm.
In their 1992 article The New Penology, Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon speak of a change from a correctional regime that aspired to deter or reform inmates to a managerial, actuarial, risk-management regime that merely aspires to efficiently warehouse inmates. This regime is characterized, in part, by “selective incapacitation” – creating a continuum of institutions to house people according to the risk they pose.
I submit that we still classify and categorize inmates, but these days our attention focuses on a slightly different criterion for incapacitation: Cost. Where our legislative energy has focused on groups we deemed, justly on unjustly, to be dangerous (like sex offenders and habitual offenders), we now consider the expense involved in incarcerating groups of people. This has been evident in the dynamic of incarcerating juveniles vs. adults, and it has also been evident in our approach toward Three Strikers. The latter are, in fact, a fairly small percentage of the prison population (about 8,000 inmates in total), but they have spent a long time in prison, and are old and sick. This is important because a stunning percentage of California’s correctional budget is spent on health care. Several states have considered, and enacted, provisions for geriatric parole (CA has done so most recently in jails as well.) The use of GPS tracking devices for ill inmates has become more prevalent. And, while members of the notorious Manson family still hold symbolic, horrified fascination that would impede their release even if they are very old and sick, we are more open to considering such solutions.
The intense battle between CDCR and the federal Receivership is an indication of the immense difficulties of administering passable health care to a large population, and as no end is in sight, legislature might need to think more seriously about handling its old and infirm prison population.
In 1974, California voters passed a constitutional amendment extending voting rights to all Californians with criminal records, save for those “imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.” Prior to the amendment, disenfranchisement was permanent in CA once you were convicted of a crime. The impetus for the amendment was, hard as it may be to believe in the days of public safety rhetoric and redball crime panic, the wish to help people regain their full citizenship after they complete their parole. In a landmark 2006 case, the CA Supreme Court interpreted this provision as follows: Folks in state prison, and under state parole, can’t vote. Folks in jail or under probation (or in jail for a probation violation) aren’t considered “imprisoned” and therefore can, and do, vote.
A new piece I’m working on (coauthored with Jessica Willis) for the upcoming Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium examines the application of this provision, and this interpretation, to a new population of offenders created by the Criminal Justice Realignment in California.
Let me present the legal dilemma. In the aftermath of Brown v. Plata, and in order to resolve the serious financial crisis faced by the state (corrections eat up about 7% of CA’s entire budget), the California Penal Code has been amended to sentence non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual offenders to do time in county jail rather than in state prison. Are these people “imprisoned” for the purpose of the constitutional provision? Constitutional provisions that give people fundamental rights should be interpreted broadly, right? Whenever there’s ambiguity, we should support people’s right ot vote, right? Wrong. The CA Secretary of State instructs felons that, if they are among the realigned group, they cannot vote.
Several civil rights organizations, and several folks doing time in jails or on community supervision, petitioned the CA Court of Appeals for an original writ allowing them to vote (full disclosure – yours truly and coauthor Jessica Willis wrote an amicus brief on behalf of thirty criminal justice scholars in support of the petitioners). The Director of Elections for the City of San Francisco – one of the respondents – actually agreed with petitioners that they should be allowed to vote, and merely asked the Court for instructions what to do. The court threw the case in petitioners’ faces with no reasoning. Petitioners took to the CA Supreme Court, and received pretty much the same response.
In the Article I go in depth into what the Court should have weighed and considered if it took these Californian citizens’ rights seriously. But in a nutshell, here’s what I think is going on: There are two visions of Realignment. You can see it as a technical way to resolve a budgetary problem and warehouse people on someone else’s dime. Or, you can see it as a real opportunity to bring people back to their communities, through a correctional method that actually might make sense for people who will eventually come out of prison and reintegrate into society. And by throwing the case out, the Court has opted, regrettably and apparently without much thought, for the former vision. A huge opportunity has been missed. People who could, and should, have been reintegrated into society; who could’ve channeled their experiences into civic engagement; and who could’ve started to care about their communities and neighborhoods will remain isolated and alienated.
In the movie Recount, a fascinating flick about the Bush v. Gore election, a person mistaken for a felon is sitting at home, watching Bush’s acceptance speech. His face is difficult to read. Is he angry? Sad? Disillusioned? Robbed of the promise of a voice or full citizenship? When you vote in November, think about the immense number of U.S. citizens behind bars, or under supervision, from whom this right has been denied. ———– cross-posted on PrawfsBlawg.
In the decades prior to the financial crisis, as Jonathan Simon writes in Governing Through Crime, no politician, regardless of party affiliation, could afford to sound “soft on crime.” Propositions running counter to the received wisdom that more punitive is better had to be marketed assmarter, more efficient, or safer law enforcement – and, of course, these drowned in a sea of punitive propositions. But one of the key features of humonetarian discourse – the correctional discourse in the wake of the financial crisis – has been a partial liberation for politicians from the tough/soft on crime dichotomy. The usual tricks for dressing nonpunitive propositions as, well, not nonpunitive, still apply, but now there’s justification to do so: Punitiveness is not financially sustainable.
Our friends at Sentencing Law and Policy posted a link to an “astute recent Washington Post piece” reviewing the GOP’s platform on crime after the RNC convention. The piece compares GOP criminal justice policies and ideals to those of yesteryear. The bottom line: Republicans are softer on crime. Here are a few snippets:
Policy experts agree that the omission [of the War on Drugs from the GOP platform] is significant. “This is less a ‘tough on crime’ document than you would have expected. And leaving out the War on Drugs [is] quite astounding,” says Mark Kleiman, a crime policy expert and professor at UCLA. “It’s a bit more of a libertarian attitude,” says Marc Levin, who runs a conservative criminal justice reform project called “Right on Crime” that’s attracted the support of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.
What’s more, the 2012 platform includes new provisions that emphasize the importance of rehabilitation and re-entry programs to help ex-prisoners integrate back into society—using language that Kleiman describes as “a lot less ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key.’” “While getting criminals off the street is essential, more attention must be paid to the process of restoring those individuals to the community,” the platform says. “Prisons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.” The document also criticizes the “overcriminalization of behavior,” though it doesn’t elaborate on the point much further.
Both Kleiman and Levin believe it’s partly the outgrowth of a prison-reform push on the part of GOP governors whose state budgets have been saddled with high incarceration expenses. In recent months, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Gov. Chris Christie have embraced crime reform legislation to support the kind of rehabilitation programs that the GOP platform now advocates, with some also reducing jail time for non-violent offenders. Conservative reformers like Levin are heartened by the changes. “We’ve gone a long way in four years,” he says, crediting the growing interest in more cost-effective ways to tackle crime.
This is not a coincidence. A coalition of conservative politicians, including recent signatory Jeb Bush, identifies as “right on crime“. The emphasis is on being fiscally prudent, which this post, again analyzing the RNC and the resulting platform, calls “reapplying basic conservative principles” to criminal justice. Yes, there are some punitive ideals advocated by the GOP – most notably with reference to gang conspiracies – but being comfortable
Who else feels comfortable being less belligerent on drugs? Well, Pat Robertson, for one. But if you want to get more serious, that the father of classic market economics (and inspiration of the Reagan Administration)Milton Friedman would find marijuana prosecutions a waste of resources is perhaps not surprising, but the timing of this review, and the focus on revenue, means that these times call for new approaches among conservative politicians.
I’ve focused on conservative politicians so far, but the same analysis applies to progressive ones. In 2007, when Simon wrote Governing Through Crime, progressive politicians could not afford to be “soft on crime.” That hasn’t changed. What has changed is that progressive politicians, like conservative ones, apply to financial prudence as reasoning. One interesting example is the marketing of Prop 19 (“regulate, control and tax marijuana”), which failed at the ballot, as a revenue-enhancing proposition. I spoke to folks at Tom Ammiano’s office; going into the election, support for the proposition significantly rose when they marketed the proposal as revenue enhancing. There is some indication that the proposition’s failure was due to its vague tenets (leaving the mechanisms of sales up to the individual counties) rather than due to the basic idea.
To sum up: I don’t thin politicians have become ideologically soft on crime. But the crisis is giving them a license to be cheap on crime, in a way that appears more genuine and does not damage their credibility.
