Should CA Learn from Mississippi and Rethink Solitary Confinement?

Mississippi State Penitentiary isolation cell.
Credit Josh Anderson for the New York Times.

A recent New York Times story, titled Rethinking Solitary Confinement, tells of Mississippi’s surprising reaction to violent incidents in the solitary confinement unit:

They allowed most inmates out of their cells for hours each day. They built a basketball court and a group dining area. They put rehabilitation programs in place and let prisoners work their way to greater privileges.


In response, the inmates became better behaved. Violence went down. The number of prisoners in isolation dropped to about 300 from more than 1,000. So many inmates were moved into the general population of other prisons that Unit 32 was closed in 2010, saving the state more than $5 million.


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

The article goes in depth into the creation of solitary regimes, beginning with the days of Eastern State Penitentiary (an institution we visited and reviewed a while ago) and chronicling the correctional authorities’ constant concern about gang warfare. And, as always these days, there’s a financial angle.

Segregation units can be two to three times as costly to build and, because of their extensive staffing requirements, to operate as conventional prisons are. They are an expense that manyrecession-plagued states can ill afford; Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois announced plans late last month to close the state’s supermax prison for budgetary reasons.

Juvenile Realignment Delayed

The Senate Budget Sub-Committee has decided to delay their approval for the Governor’s proposal to stop intake of juvenile offenders at the State Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) on January 1, 2013, shift responsibility for the juveniles to local governments, and fund local governments $10 million in 2011-2012 for the planning of the incoming youthful offenders. This is after Budget Sub-Committee staff recommended waiting to move on the Governor’s proposal to realign DJJ to the local governments until the May Revise.

Budget Sub-Committee staff noted “potential hurdles” in implementing the Governor’s proposal including: an increase in direct files; court commitment changes; “sight and sound” barriers for minors housed in adult institutions; and statutory changes, as counties can only house wards until age 21 while DJJ houses wards up to age 25.

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Executive Director Dan Macallair and Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program Director David Steinhart spoke about these items on a panel at the hearing. Macallair recommended pushing back the deadline for DJJ closure to 2015-2016 to allow more time for planning. He also recommended Ventura Youth Correctional Facility be closed, and encouraged the Legislature to take advantage of private foundation support. Steinhart proposed more housing options for older and more violent juvenile offenders. He also recommended penalties for counties that have high rates of direct files. Sumayyah Waheed of the Ella Baker Center also testified, noting concerns with the current progress on implementing the stipulations from the Farrell v. Cate case regarding unconstitutional conditions at DJJ facilities, including problems such as guard harassment and “room sweeps.”

BREAKING NEWS: Amicus Brief Submitted in Felon Disenfranchisement Case

“Vote” by Anthony Papa,
http://www.15yearstolife.com

Today I filed an amicus brief on behalf of a list of leading criminal justice scholars, supporting petitioners in All Of Us Or None v. Bowen. AOUON and other organizations have filed a petition asking that the Secretary of State allow people serving their sentences in jails post-realignment, or under community post-release supervision, to vote in the elections. In doing so, they rely on the California Constitution, which grants the vote to everyone except those “imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony”. The Secretary of State, however, guides inmates not to vote if they are felons, even if they are serving their sentence in jail.

Here’s the summary of our argument in support of the petition:

Following the California Criminal Justice Realignment, inmates convicted of non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual offenses will serve their sentence in county jails, rather than in state prisons. The legislative history of AB 109, as well as its language and the practices it directs and encourages, suggest that the legislature intended to use local facilities not merely as a cost-saving measure, but rather as a tool in recidivism reduction through community corrections, reentry and rehabilitative programming. Amici posit that the local setting of jails is an ideal locus for implementing community reintegration goals, and that civic involvement, including enfranchisement, is paramount to these goals. A broad interpretation of the right to vote as including all population in local jails—convicted of non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent offenses, felonies and misdemeanors alike—is fully congruent with these goals. Moreover, enfranchising a broader population, as a result of AB 109, would increase democracy and encourage participation of underserved low-income communities and communities of color in the political and civic process. Finally, Amici rely on empirical research findings to suggest that enfranchisement of all jailed and formerly jailed individuals can positively contribute to recidivism reduction, a socially and economically desirable outcome.

The full brief can be downloaded from Dropbox.

25 Years of Sentencing

The Sentencing Project has a new collection of essays out, celebrating 25 years of existence and envisioning the sentencing and corrections of the future.

Alan Jenkins’ essay features the following analysis of the changes in public opinion:

A 2006 survey by the National Center for State Courts, for example, showed that crime was regarded as the country’s
top problem by only 2 percent of Americans, while another 2 percent considered illegal drugs to be the top prob- lem. By contrast, in 1993, crime topped a majority of the U.S. public’s list.


According to the NCSC survey, and others, 58 percent of Americans favor prevention and rehabilitation as the best way to deal with crime over enforcement and punishment, and 8 in 10 believe something can be done to turn someone into a productive citizen after they’ve committed a crime. By a huge margin (76 percent vs. 19 percent), the public pre- fers to spend tax dollars on programs that prevent crime rather than building more prisons.


While the death penalty remains popular standing alone, a 2010 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center found that 61 percent of voters favor clear alterna- tives like life in prison with restitution to victims’ families.


And, more so than in past years, significant segments of the public also see bias based on race and income as real and troubling problems. Large majorities, moreover, see socio- economic bias in the system. These are still tough debates, but ones we can win.


Low crime rates, diminished crime reporting by many news outlets, rising budget pressures, and smart communica- tions by advocates have driven this shift in public opinion. That mix has made possible changes that seemed unthink- able a decade ago: reform of New York’s Rockefeller drug laws, reentry and drug treatment alternatives in Texas, res- toration of voting rights in Rhode Island, abolition of the death penalty in multiple states, lessening of federal crack/ powder cocaine sentencing disparities, and the bipartisan Second Chance Act.


Moving toward a model criminal justice system, then, is more achievable today than at any time in recent memory. Now is the time to build on public support and channel it toward more transformative change. That means adding a more effective and collaborative communications strategy to the innovative advocacy, organizing, litigation, research, and policy analysis that reformers are already pursuing around the country.

I think Jenkins is right and the tides are turning, but I can’t help but ask myself whether it really is profound ideological change or scarcity-induced pragmatism. Not that the latter can’t be a basis for change.

New SHU Regulations Published by CDCR

CDCR has just published their new regulations pertaining to the placement of inmates in SHU units and the process followed to get out of the SHU. The regulations do not say so explicitly–rather, they claim to rely on a report from 2007–but their timing cannot have been coincidental, given the promises given to hunger strikers at Pelican Bay and elsewhere.

The regulations group known gangs into two risk groups, referred to as STGs in the report. New gangs can be assigned to an STG through documentation about their activities.

As to the process of validating inmates as gang members, CDCR currently groups people into Gang Members and Gang Associates. The report adds two new categories: Suspects (folks not officially validated) and Monitored (folks who are in the process of disentangling their association with the gang and returned to general population). The current sources required to tie a given inmate to a gang remains essentially the same, except that the reliability/weight of sources is assessed based on a number of “points”, and a certain number of “points” is required for each category. Symbols are assigned two points; debriefing (snitching) sources are assigned three points; harder evidence, like documents and photographs, are assigned four points. Self confession is assigned five points, and conviction of an offense, as well as tattoos or body marks, entails six points.

It seems that the great novelty in the report is the gradual debriefing system it sets up. When gang members who went through the validation process are assigned to the SHU, they are to be shown a “gang diversion video” and instructed on the multi-step process required for leaving the SHU. Moving from step to step could take at least a year, as offenders have to show that they are progressing from step to step (currently, there is only one step, and there is a minimum of six years at the SHU). The passage of each step entails special privileges, such as television, phones, and packages of personal property. While inmates may study and take college exams on all levels, folks on Step 3 are eligible for enhanced rehabilitation programs, including anger management and group meetings.

Another important point has to do with gang groupings. STG-I gang members are routinely placed in the SHU, while STG-II gang members would only be assigned to the SHU if they were involved in severe and repetitive criminal activity.

The debriefing process is demystified, including the provision of the following information:
Reason for disavowing the gang
History of the criminal gang
Identity of other known gang members
Leadership structure within and outside of the prison Identity of person(s) ordering gang incidents
Reasons for gang incidents (if known) Gang symbols
Codes
Mail drops
Communication networks (mail, phones, notes, visits, etc.)
Enemies
Crimes (escapes, narcotics trafficking, weapons, etc.)
Misuse of legal and or religious programs
Associates/suspect information (family, friends, etc.) providing support for the gang. Community gang activities
Future plans for the gang

Should this plan be approved, it remains to be seen whether it has a salutary effect on SHU population and practices.

BREAKING NEWS: Felon Disenfranchisement Policy Challenged

Today, several Californian civil rights organizations filed a new lawsuit with the First District Appellate Court, arguing against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s policy of disenfranchising all felons, including those who, after realignment, serve time in jail.

And… CCC is involved! A group of criminal justice scholars, represented by yours truly, will be filing an amicus brief shortly in support of the lawsuit.

Here’s what is going on: As some readers may know, Californians imprisoned in state institutions, or on parole, are disenfranchised, but jail inmates and probationers have a right to vote. The realignment, as we know, puts many formerly imprisoned felons in county jails, for part or all of their sentence.

The legal language gives the right to vote to all inmates who are not “imprisoned”. Nonetheless, the California Secretary of State interprets the law as if the felons who will be doing time in jail should remain disenfranchised, and instructs the inmates accordingly. Several inmate rights organizations are now petitioning the Court of Appeals for an original writ, asking that voting rights be extended to everyone serving time in jail or on post-jail community supervision, whether felon or misdemeanant.

We are putting together an amicus brief on behalf of criminal justice scholars to support the petition. The main argument in the brief is that the Realignment was informed by a perspective of reentry and community-based corrections, and as such should encourage civic engagement. We also argue that jails, especially post-Realignment, are the ideal setting for encouraging reintegration through civic rights. The Realignment gives us the opportunity to make that argument on sound legal ground at least with regard to non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual offenders doing time in (or out on supervision from) county jails.

I will post the finished brief after filing. For now, here’s a link to the petition.

Examining Realignment: How Will We Know if it’s Working

Join the Association for Criminal Justice Research for its 75th Semi-Annual Conference March 22-23 at the Lion’s Gate Hotel in Sacramento (McClellan Campus). The theme is Examining Realignment: How Will We Know if it’s Working? Speakers include: Matt Cate, Diane Cummins, sheriffs, chief probation officers, DAs and judges, representatives from the LAO, PPIC, RAND, the Senate and many other organizations. For complete program information, scholarship applications, and registration, please contact Rebecca Blanton at rblanton@library.ca.gov.

New Paper on Realignment

Our friends at the Warren Institute have published a new paper by Rebecca Sullivan Silbert, titled Thinking Critically about Realignment in California, which you can read in full here. The nice thing about this publication is its clear and understandable language; Silbert breaks down technical complexities and makes this policy change much more accessible for all of us. Here are some highlights.

Silbert starts by delineating the difference between county jails and state prisons prior to realignment, including implications of jails’ smaller size, mandatory parole for state prisoners, and state costs stemming from the return to custody of parolees.

The paper then discusses overcrowding in state prisons, which it attributes to four factors: The gradual increase in sentencing, the labeling of more crime as violent and serious, the inability to cope with addictions and mental illness, and the mandatory parole mechanism with the potential return to prison for violations.

The main changes due to realignment are concisely discussed. They include serving one’s sentence in jail; split sentences between prison and jail, at judicial discretion;  having some state prisoners come under the auspices of community post-release programs in lieu of state parole; and sending parole violators to jail in lieu of prison.

The report then goes on to discuss the level of readiness of county institutions for the task of incarcerating more people and for longer terms, as well as the concerns about the medical and mental health needs of the new county inmates. Silbert then brings up concerns about “charging up” as well as about defense attorneys negotiating state prison because of the shorter post-sentence supervision implied.

The report does not discuss juvenile realignment, but there are plenty of other sources of information on that.