Search results matching tag 'news'

WB Targets Booming U.S. Prison Population With New Sitcom

arhunt — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:15:16 GMT

LOS ANGELES—Responding to the explosive growth of the U.S. prison population, WB executives announced Monday that the network will soon launch a new sitcom targeting the nation's approximately 1.8 million incarcerated TV viewers.

"America is fast becoming the most jailed nation on Earth, with prisons packed to capacity and a swamped, inefficient judicial system that is ill-equipped to keep pace with the ever-growing crime rate. Clearly, something had to be done," said WB vice-president of programming Grant Bachman. "And what better way to address this serious crisis than with the outrageous new comedy In Da Yard!, debuting this week as part of the WB's 'Lock-Down Thursdays'?"

"U.S. prisoners," Bachman added, "represent a powerful demographic that this nation's entertainment industry can no longer afford to ignore."

Described in WB promotional literature as "a hysterical look at the nutty goings-on in a typical American maximum-security federal correctional facility," In Da Yard! will give the nation's nearly two million convicts the chance to "follow the weekly adventures of a zany bunch of hardened killers, drug offenders, B&E men and wacky, psychotic rapos" just like themselves.

"It's basically a show about living and learning in the '90s in prison," Bachman said.

Advance advertising figures for the show are said to be "very promising," with several high-profile accounts already secured and airtime pre-sold for most of the show's initial six-week run.

"U.S. inmates spend more than $5 billion in cigarettes each year, using them to buy everything from toilet paper and de-lousing shampoo to playing cards and dice," said Bryce Kelso of Advertising Age. "They're a prime, untapped consumer market that any smart advertiser would want to reach. The fact is, every day this vast market continues to go untargeted is millions more dollars in lost revenue. That's a harsh economic reality, and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. It must be faced."

Added Kelso: "Do you realize that the average rapist is out on the street and in stores in just five years?"

The first six episodes of In Da Yard!, WB officials said, have been extensively focus-grouped on a wide variety of felons at some 70 maximum-security facilities across the U.S. The show has reportedly scored high among all major prison demographics, from armed robbers to child molesters.

Particularly popular among focus groups was the debut episode, in which main character Detroit Ray, sentenced to life without parole for the murder of his wise-cracking landlord, finds himself desperately trying to fend off impending group anal-rape in the prison shower.

"It's great, over-the-top physical comedy," WB president Dan Vittolo said. "And it really seemed to hit test audiences where they live."

Future plotlines include a side-splitting mix-up when Ray's buddy Jorge pretends to be his "***" to impress a visiting cellmate; Ray slashing the wrong guard "just because he's too proud to admit he can't see without glasses"; and a full-blown prison riot "gone totally haywire."

"I thought there was going to be a riot right there in the screening room after that one," Vittolo joked.

"We feel confident that we can provide the swollen, overcrowded ranks of the U.S. prison system with characters and situations they can truly relate to," said Miles Forrest, recent Harvard graduate and In Da Yard! head writer. "The difficulty of sneaking a spoon out of the cafeteria to sharpen on a concrete floor; the silly shenanigans that ensue when someone smuggles in heroin inside their rectum; the overworked, underpaid guards and their nutty, sadistic foibles; and the goofy rivalries between warring, tattooed prison gangs—whatever's funny."

What's more, In Da Yard! executive producer Ira Clausner said, the audience for such prison-themed fare will only grow in the coming years.

"The U.S. prison population has doubled in the past 12 years and will probably do so again over the next 12," he said. "With that kind of grim reality working in our favor, we can't lose. Numbers don't lie, and these alarming figures, the result of years of social neglect and public apathy, paint a very bright picture for the future of the WB."

Vittolo agreed. "The number of U.S. inmates now stands at an all-time high," he said. "We'd be fools to just stand around and watch things get worse without lifting a finger to capitalize on the situation."

Another Victim of California's Three Strikes Law

arhunt — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:24:58 GMT

Lock the door, throw away the key

A mother grapples with the hidden heartbreak of California’s ‘three-strikes’ law

By Rhonda Erwin
More stories by this author...

“If I didn’t know God, I couldn’t be alive,”Ramona Rivera. “I couldn’t live.” Walk a mile in Rivera’s shoes, and you’ll understand why.

When she was 27, Rivera gave birth to Robert, her one and only son. He became her world until he was arrested at 18. He spent the next 10 years in prison. When he was released, he enjoyed just one week of freedom before overdosing on drugs. After recovering in the hospital, he was sent back to prison, this time for life, thanks to California’s “three-strikes” law.

“I start praying and talking to my Lord, praying that someday he will turn my son loose, out of the bars,” says Rivera, who requested that SN&R not use her or her son’s real names for fear of possible retaliation by inmates or prison authorities against her son. “It hurts me so much. My son never really had a chance to live. I cried the first 10 years when he lived his youth in prison. I cried the last 10 years as he lived his adulthood in prison. I just keep crying.”

For the past 20 years, she has moved from city to city, following her son, who has been transferred to a half-dozen different prisons while serving his sentence. Robert Rivera has never really known life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. His mother gave up pursuing happiness long ago. She gave up living her life. But she never gave up praying her son will be free to pursue happiness. She never gave up loving her son.

Rivera says her son began using drugs in his early teens, around the same time his grandfather and favorite uncle died. He was extremely depressed and used drugs to escape the pain. She tried to get help, but at the time, the nation was still responding to the drug epidemic with Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign. Resources to prevent drug abuse were minimal. Drug arrests within underprivileged neighborhoods were plentiful, sentences to prison were pretty much guaranteed.

Drug rehab programs were overshadowed by a war on drugs geared toward incarcerating drug offenders. Instead of just saying no, Rivera says she needed someone to just say yes, to say, “Yes, your son’s life is valued; yes, we care that he lives.” The criminal-justice system that never said yes to her son is now saying no, he will never know freedom. No, he will never have a life outside of bars. No, Robert Rivera, you will not get the opportunity to pursue happiness.

Rivera’s odyssey began in 1987, when her son, then 18, was convicted of kidnapping his girlfriend in a Sacramento Valley town. In exchange for a guilty plea, the prosecutor offered Robert a two-year prison sentence. His mother counseled him against taking the plea bargain.

“I was afraid for him to go to prison and advised him not to take the deal,” Rivera remembers. “His attorney didn’t do anything.”

The case went to trial, and her son was found guilty and sentenced to seven years with one strike. She couldn’t help but notice the change prison brought in her son.

“Robert was young, he was afraid,” Rivera says. “But he wasn’t angry till he got to prison.” Behind bars, Robert received his second strike for possessing a knife. A seven-year prison sentence with one strike and the possibility of early release turned into a 10-year stretch with two strikes.

“I only had one child,” Rivera says. “I lost so much. I lost my son at an early age. I never had more children. I never had grandchildren. The judge, the lawyers, didn’t see Robert deserving to have a real life.”

Robert was released in December 1997 after serving a decade behind bars. His freedom was short-lived. “When Robert came home, he told me his heart was with me,” Rivera recalls. “He told me he wanted to stay with me and he wanted to stay home. But he said he was scared. He said he didn’t know how to live on the outside.”

A week after his release, Rivera woke up in the middle of the night with a feeling that something was terribly wrong. She walked to her son’s room, but he wasn’t there. She tried the bathroom door and discovered it was locked. She opened the door and found her son on the floor, overdosed on drugs.

“He looked to be dying,” she says. “I called 911, because I wanted my son to live. The police came first. The police wouldn’t let the ambulance in until they searched my house. They found a needle. I was scared Robert was going to die. I wanted them to hurry up and let the ambulance do CPR. I thought [the police] would help me.”

Eventually, the paramedics did perform CPR, and her son was taken to the hospital, where she kept a bedside vigil for the next two days.

“After two days, they told me I could leave,” she says. “But I didn’t want to leave the hospital. They didn’t understand. Yes, he was 28 years old, but I only had him for one week since he was 18. They said he was going to be all right. I thought they would help Robert and finally he’d get treatment. I didn’t know he’d be taken back to prison and given life.”

She had hoped that 10 years after “Just Say No,” her son would finally get the help he needed, that treatment would outweigh incarceration. Instead, a mother who was just beginning to breathe was informed her son, as per California’s three-strikes law, was being sent back to prison for 25 years to life. Her brief week of happiness gave way to another decade of misery as she once again followed her son from prison to prison.

“I shouldn’t have called 911,” she sobs. “Maybe if I wouldn’t have called for help, he wouldn’t have died because God would have let him live.”

Rivera believes people who commit crimes should be held accountable, but that the punishment should fit the crime. She’s not asking anyone to love her son. She believes God loves her son. She is asking that her son, who she says has given his life to Jesus Christ, finally be given his constitutional right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“He is still a human being, a person, no one ever really saw Robert as a person who deserves a life,” she says. “He lost so much of his life.”

Suppose, she wonders, God gave people just three chances—three strikes—and then just gave up on them, never forgiving them and putting them forever out of sight. Is it right to permanently take away the entire life and freedom of human beings based on a law which sometimes generalizes, doesn’t see people individually, doesn’t always take into account the nature of the crime or consider that some people do change? It’s difficult for Rivera, who deeply believes in God’s forgiveness, to make sense out of people who are unforgiving.

“I have to forgive people for the pain I feel because our Lord forgives us,” she says. “But it hurts knowing so many are so unforgiving. I don’t understand it.”

The stress and heartbreak of watching her son’s life waste away in prison has caught up to Rivera. She’s seriously ill and hasn’t visited her son since last October because she doesn’t want to worry him. Robert’s father died while he was in prison; he never got to talk to his father or say goodbye. She doesn’t want her son to know her health is failing, too.

“He is all that I have,” she says. “I am all that he has. He has no brothers or sisters. His cousins and family members don’t know him anymore. Robert was so young when he left to go to prison. He’s been in prison for so much of his life, if they write him, they don’t know what to say. I pray Robert will always know his mother is waiting for him to come home. I feel like I am going to die, there is so much pain in my heart, the pain grows more and more.”

She cries uncontrollably and says a prayer for her son Robert.

“I am 63 years old now,” she says. “I don’t want to die without ever really spending time with my only child.”

LEGISLATION: EARLY RELEASE

FreeJP — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:44:31 GMT

From: Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety (TiPS)
<matt@thecapitalalliance.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:04:21 AM
Subject: TiPS Periodic Update 2-15-08

You are receiving this update as a registered user of the Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety (TiPS) website.

If you are receiving this update as a forward from someone else, then take a moment to register (for FREE), to receive these directly, by going to www.forpublicsafety.com.

Subscribed (paid) users have full access to the entire site, and help to build our political power through their memberships which begin at just $5 per month. Be a part of the fastest growing union in California, join TiPS today.

LEGISLATION: EARLY RELEASE

Assemblyman Sandré Swanson (D-Oakland), has introduced AB 1965, a bill to require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish a program to allow prisoners who are at least 55 years of age, are incarcerated for a nonviolent offense, have a diagnosed chronic illness or disease that requires ongoing medical attention, have medical coverage, and meet other specified criteria to be released on early parole.

TiPS' whitepaper on how to fix California's prison crisis, which was distributed prior to last year's Lobby Day, emphasized the need to release the nearly 4,500 terminal and chronically ill inmates.

These inmates, most of them unable to walk on their own and are confined to their beds, pose no credible threat to public safety and do not belong in prison.

We are pleased by Assemblyman Swanson's response to this irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars and wanted to let our members know of this progress.

Mailing a Letter Will Cost a Penny More Starting in May

FreeJP — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:01:40 GMT

Mailing a Letter Will Cost a Penny More Starting in May

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mailing a letter will soon cost a penny more.   The cost of a first-class stamp will rise to 42 cents starting May 12, the U.S. Postal Service said Monday.   The price of the Forever stamp will go up at the same time, meaning those stamps can still be purchased for 41 cents but will remain good for first-class postage after the rate increase takes effect.

The post office has sold 5 billion Forever stamps since they were introduced last April and plans to have an additional 5 billion in stock to meet the expected demand before the May price change, the agency said.

The charge for other services, such as advertising mail, periodicals, packages special services will also change. Changes in the price for Priority Mail and Express Mail will be announced later, the agency said.

Postage rates last went up in May, 2007, with a first-class stamp jumping 2 cents to the current 41-cent rate.   In the past raising postage rates was a long, complex process involving hearings before the independent Postal Regulatory Commission, a process that could take nearly a year.  However, under the new law regulating the post office that took effect in late 2006, the agency is allowed to increase rates with 45-days notice as long as changes are within the rate of inflation for the previous 12 months.

The Postal Regulatory Commission calculated that rate at 2.9 percent through January, limiting the first-class rate to an increase of just over a penny.   Under the new law, postal prices will be adjusted annually each May, the Postal Service said. Officials said they plan to give 90 days notice of future changes, twice what is required by law.

While the charge for the first ounce of a first-class letter rises to 42 cents, the price of each added ounce will remain 17 cents, so a two-ounce letter will go up a penny to 59 cents.   The cost to mail a post card will also go up a penny, to 27 cents

Other increases set for May 12:   -- Large envelope, 2 ounces, $1, up 3 cents.   -- Money Orders up to $500, $1.05, unchanged.   -- Certified mail, $2.70, up 5 cents.   -- First-class international letter to Canada or Mexico, 72 cents, up 3 cents.   -- First-class international letter to other countries, 94 cents, up 4 cents.

Redemption and rehabilitation

FreeJP — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:34:31 GMT

Redemption and rehabilitation
San Francisco Chronicle: Editorial
January 18, 2008

Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty
for minors as cruel and unusual punishment, citing medical and
social-science evidence that teens lack the maturity to be held
accountable to the same degree as adults.

"From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings
of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists
that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 opinion for the court. The justices
acknowledged that their decision was influenced, in part, by the desire
to end the United States' international isolation on the issue.

All of those arguments also could be applied to laws that put juveniles
in prison without the possibility of parole, which still occurs in this
country. In fact, 99.5 percent of all juveniles who are sentenced
without a chance of release are in the United States.

It was instructive that Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, was initially
frustrated in his efforts to get a straight answer about how many
California inmates serving life without parole were convicted before
age 18. The prison system did not seem to know. Or care. These inmates
were written off as irredeemable without regard to their ages at the
time of their crimes.

"Basically, what we're saying is we're giving up on them ... they're
never going to see daylight again because they're so dangerous," Yee
said.

In some cases, a lifetime of incarceration may be justified. But Yee, a
child psychologist, said there is "evidence both neurological and
psychological" that young people who commit crimes are not necessarily
beyond redemption.

Finally, Yee received a number: 227 inmates. Of those, 59 percent had
no prior criminal record; 26 percent were participants in a robbery or
other felony that resulted in a homicide - but someone else was the
actual shooter.

Yee's Senate Bill 999 would eliminate life sentences without parole for
juveniles who are tried as adults. Instead, the maximum penalty would
be 25 years to life.

As Yee emphasized, "This bill does not give you a get-out-of-jail
card." As we have noted in our examination of other cases, California's
parole board is famously - and properly - judicious in deciding which
inmates are fit for release. In most years, less than 5 percent of
"lifers" who appear before the board are cleared for release.

Beyond that, a law passed by voters in 1988 gives the governor the
ability to veto the parole of anyone convicted of murder. As of
December, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had allowed the release of just
170 of the 771 parole-board recommendations that reached his desk.
Former Gov. Gray Davis allowed just six such releases during his tenure.

So there are plenty of safeguards against the release of unrepentant,
dangerous predators. This measure restores an element of judgment into
the equation. This bill also, to invoke the words of Justice Kennedy,
reflects the morality and wisdom of a society that recognizes that even
a terrible act at age 15, 16, 17 does not call for the dismissal of a
life. The Department of Corrections recently added "rehabilitation" to
its name. This is one way to advance that goal.

It won't be easy. Yee's bill squeaked through the Senate Public Safety
Committee on a 3-2 vote last year. Any loosening of sentencing laws
requires a two-thirds vote from each house. SB999 is expected to reach
the Senate floor later this month.

"It's a tremendous hurdle," Yee said, acknowledging the opposition of
law enforcement and victims'-rights groups.

However, it's the right thing to do for a society that respects medical
science and promotes the value of redemption and rehabilitation.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/EDROUGTKF.DTL

“Accelerated Release: A Literature Review” by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency is our site of the day

FreeJP — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:27:32 GMT

“Accelerated Release: A Literature Review” by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency is our site of the day
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency has released a report earlier this month, “Accelerated Release: A Literature Review” that couldn't be more timely, given the proposal by Governor Schwarzenegger to reduce California’s prison population to help deal with our state’s budget deficit crisis and also as an attempt to stave off Federal Court mandated releases and caps.
This 9 page study looked at peer reviewed articles, dissertations, state reports, policy reports, and national data on accelerated prisoner release programs and their impacts on public safety from 1981 to 2004. Included in this review is a 1970 experimental study in California of inmates released 6 months before their expected release date.
The findings in the 1970 California study: “A reduction of six months in prison terms has no statistically significant effect upon recidivism on parole within the first two years following release.” The study group members did not differ from those in the comparison in their likelihood of returning to prison, whether by a court conviction, for a new felony, or as a result of a parole violation short of a new conviction.”
This is in accord with findings from other states and Canada reported in this report.
There also is an important listing of what has worked in other accelerated releases that California policy makers should pay close attention to:
• Selecting nonviolent versus violent offenders for accelerated release.
• Using accelerated release as an incentive for nonviolent behavior in prison.
• Allocating probation officers to maintain contact with accelerated release groups, thereby promoting accountability.
• Linking accelerated release groups to community based services and programs concerned with housing, employment, substance abuse treatment, and mental health care.
Posted on January 14, 2008

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/accelerated_rel.html

Lethal injection is the wrong debate

FreeJP — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:14:16 GMT

Lethal injection is the wrong debate
Ray Krone
Monday, January 14, 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in Baze vs. Rees,
which challenges the constitutionality of execution by lethal injection.
While the court wrestles with technical issues concerning the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, there's a much
larger reason our country is rethinking the death penalty: the possibility
of sentencing to death and executing an innocent human being.
Unlike almost any American, I speak from experience.
I spent more than 10 years in Arizona prisons for a crime I didn't commit,
including nearly three years on Death Row. In 1992, I was sentenced to death
for killing a bartender, even though I was at home, asleep, when the murder
was committed.
In 2002, through the tireless work of my attorneys, I was the 100th person
to be exonerated and released from death row since the death penalty was
reinstated in the United States. Despite DNA evidence that exonerated me, it
took years before the prosecution grudgingly acknowledged it had no case
against me. If it had been up to the state of Arizona, I'd be dead today.
Who knows how many more innocent people sit on death row today, guilty of
nothing more than the fact that they couldn't afford a lawyer? And can
anyone honestly say with certainty that of the nearly 1,100 people who have
been executed in the past 30 years, not a single one wasn't innocent?
As my story illustrates, even with DNA testing there will always be a chance
an innocent person will be sentenced to death and executed.
Recently, the New Jersey Legislature and governor showed courage and common
sense when they abolished that state's death penalty. One of the primary
reasons cited was the possibility of executing an innocent person.
New Jersey Sen. Raymond Lesniak, one of the bill's sponsors, recalled the
case of Byron Halsey, who spent 22 years in prison for the murder and rape
of two children before being released after DNA testing linked another man
to the crime.
"There are hundreds of Byron Halseys throughout the United States who were
wrongly convicted of murder," Lesniak said. "No doubt, some were sentenced
to death and executed."
Meanwhile, in December, at the same time the bill to abolish the death
penalty was making its way through the New Jersey legislature, three more
former death row prisoners were released. Michael McCormick (Tennessee),
Jonathon Hoffman (North Carolina) and Kenneth Richey (Ohio) had spent a
combined total of more than 40 years on death row before being freed.
Sen. Lesniak summed the problem up best when he said, "It's impossible for
human beings to devise a system free of the risk of human error."
The last time I checked, our criminal justice system was devised and run by
human beings.
And instead of equal justice under the law, in far too many capital cases we
see incompetent legal representation, racial discrimination and
prosecutorial misconduct. These blemishes to our justice system are
problematic, to say the least. But when a human life is at stake, such
potentially fatal flaws are an embarrassment to a nation that considers
itself the standard bearer for human rights.
So while the U.S. Supreme Court contemplates whether or not killing a person
with a particular combination of chemicals is cruel and unusual punishment,
all of us should recognize a much larger, more obvious fact: If sentencing
to death and possibly executing an innocent person isn't cruel and unusual
punishment, nothing is.
Quite literally, I'm living proof of that.

Resources
The Death Penalty
Information Center links.sfgate.com/ZCBA
Witness to Innocence links.sfgate.com/ZCBB
Ray Krone is director of communications for Witness to Innocence, an
organization of exonerated former death row prisoners and their family
members. He lives in York, Pa.

This article appeared on page B - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Editorial: Early release of prisoners has to be considered

FreeJP — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:51:55 GMT

Editorial: Early release of prisoners has to be considered

Prison costs are a big part of fiscal crisis; controlling them is part of the solution

Published 12:00 am PST Thursday, December 27, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6

Print | E-Mail | Comments (6)| Digg it | del.icio.us

With California facing a $3.3 billion deficit in the current fiscal year and a $14 billion deficit the year after, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should be looking at all possible options for bringing spending in line with revenues, and visa versa.

K-12 schools. Higher education. Environmental protection. County welfare programs. All face cuts of 10 percent or more under a proposal the governor is pushing. Schwarzenegger has declared a fiscal emergency and called for the Legislature to launch a special session (yet another one) to respond to the budget gap on Jan. 10.

If this is truly a fiscal emergency, then nothing should be sacred. That should include pledges of "no new taxes." It also should include the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which each year consumes an ever-increasing portion of state spending – leaping from $3.8 billion to $9.8 billion over the past decade.

As part of a broader package of spending cuts, Schwarzenegger has floated a one-time, accelerated release of lower-risk offenders in the final 20 months of their terms. The aim is to reduce the prison population by 22,000, both saving money and relieving overcrowding.

The governor also is considering changes to the parole system. Offenders on parole would not be returned to prison on technical violations (such as failing a urine test). This would reduce the prison population next year by 6,249 inmates, and reduce prison costs over the long run.

Such proposals are not novel, nor are they unprecedented. In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan reduced the prison population by 13 percent through an accelerated release of selected prisoners.

But Reagan operated in a much different era, when lawmakers were less apt to exploit public fears over crime and stifle all discussion over prison reform.

All that has changed. Today, the prison guards union and victims' rights organizations are a powerful combo, and few politicians have the courage to buck them. Quite predictably, some lawmakers of both parties are gunning to shoot down Schwarzenegger's trial balloon before it even gets out of the policy shop.

One of these is Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana, who was quick to declare the governor's proposal "DOA." Another is Republican Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, an Orange County Republican who has made a career of stoking fears about "early release" of prisoners.

To be sure, any proposal to reduce prison populations will need to be fully vetted. Key questions will need to be answered, such as who would qualify for early release. Already, about 115,000 offenders are released to parole from prison every year. What follow-up programs would help 22,000 in the proposed early release successfully re-enter the community – and not end up back in prison?
The response of Spitzer, Solorio and their legislative brethren so far seems designed to quash, instead of illuminate. In doing so, these lawmakers are using scare tactics to serve the interests of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

The prison guards union fears the loss of 5,854 state positions with the governor's proposal. Although some politicians make noise that "everything should be on the table" in solving the state's fiscal troubles, few are actually willing to embrace that principle if it means confronting a well-funded political apparatus. No wonder the state is in a fiscal crisis.

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/592852.html

As the Prison Budget Goes, So Goes the Budget Deficit

FreeJP — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:49:59 GMT

As the Prison Budget Goes, So Goes the Budget Deficit

By: Brian Leubitz

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:13:43 AM PST
And both are skyrocketing. That we are unable to control our prison spending will lead to just one more in a laundry list of budget disasters in the coming years, but nothing in our budget has been so spectacularly mishandled like the prisons. They are our third rail: we are terrified of doing what is best in terms of public policy because the issue might be misunderstood by the voters. But ignorance of the voters can't be a justified excuse if we are drilling the wrong policy messages into the minds of voters.
There are a number of reasons for the growth in the prison budget, but not all of them are necessarily tied to the growth of the prison population:

The prison population has grown by 8% since 2003, to more than 173,000. But the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's budget has exploded, increasing 79% to $8.5 billion, and is expected to top $10 billion next year.
Prison spending now is greater than that for any other major program except public schools and healthcare for the poor. The nonpartisan legislative analyst's office projects 6% annual increases in prison spending for the next five years as a new prison and dozens of building additions are constructed and opened. (LA Times 12/26/07)
So, we're trying to build out of a disaster that has served to only increase the dangers to public safety. And in order to correct our past sins, we are having to spend to fix the prison healthcare system. And spend. And spend some more. I'm not saying that we shouldn't; we need to fix that system, it was disgusting and needed to be overhauled. But the problem is that we can't bring ourselves to the inevitable solution: real sentencing reform.
And I have another solution that would help the budget and the prison system immensely: Stop the Legislators Runner. Seriously, take away their pens, ban them from writing initiatives, put a cap on legislator initiatives, toss them in prison (I bet they have lots of friends there), whatever. They are having a devastating effect on public safety and the state budget. Jessica's Law has already had disastrous effects for cities like San Francisco, where sex offenders are now just declaring themselves homeless. And now they are getting ready to put another initiative on the ballot:

Another initiative is being readied for the ballot next year by the authors of last year's measure: Sharon and George Runner, two Republican lawmakers from Lancaster; she in the Assembly and he in the Senate. The proposed initiative, which has not yet qualified, would require the state to spend nearly $1 billion to combat gang crimes and lengthen some prison sentences.
"People are trying to do one-upmanship to claim 'I'm tough on crime,' and it has a cost to it," said Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), who oversees the corrections portion of the state budget.
The Runners are idealogues who have obviously either failed to grasp that ToughOnCrimeTM has totally failed, or they are so cynical as to manipulate our prisons, the lives of thousands of Californians, and billions of our general fund dollars for their own political gain.
It is this type of cynicism that has gotten us to where we are. It is not this type of cynicism that will resolve the issues. If the Governator has the courage to address prison population, I will be duly impressed. Because if we do nothing, we are not only failing the prison system as an institution, but we are failing ourselves in the form of public safety and economic efficiency

2008 looms as year of reckoning on California's prison crowding

FreeJP — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:48:37 GMT

2008 looms as year of reckoning on California's prison crowding
By: DON THOMPSON - Associated Press

SACRAMENTO -- The crisis-fueled momentum that produced a nearly $8 billion prison-spending plan earlier this year has lost some of its steam, leaving the state vulnerable to federal judges ordering an early release of inmates.
California has fallen behind in its race to relieve the overcrowded conditions in its state prisons by adding thousands of cells, and time is running out to produce results.

A special panel of federal judges will decide in 2008 whether the state should be forced to address its overcrowding by releasing some prisoners early.

"This is a chain of broken promises," state Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, said of the state's construction and parole delays. "I think the court is going to look at it and say, 'There's no commitment here to do anything."'
A three-judge panel was created in July by federal courts in Sacramento and San Francisco, and is charged with solving a problem that has eluded lawmakers and state prison officials for years.
The judges plan an initial trial to decide if crowding is delaying efforts to improve inmate medical services and mental health care. If they find that to be the case, they would conduct a second trial to decide how to release inmates to relieve the crowding.
They also could cap the prison population, perhaps keeping thousands of convicts at county jails that, in many cases, have their own space crunch.
Conservative state lawmakers who support the building program say they plan to fight any decision to let prisoners out on the street before they have served their full sentences.
"These three justices want to release prisoners early. I don't see any doubt about it," said state Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, who chairs the Assembly Select Committee on Prison Construction and Operations.
Spitzer also opposes a plan by Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary James Tilton to free nonviolent, well-behaved ex-convicts from parole after six months instead of the usual three years.
Ending supervision early means fewer ex-convicts would be sent back to state prison for parole violations. It's the first in a series of parole changes that national experts say is critical to reducing California's prison population.
"You don't change your policy to appease ultraliberal judges when we're going to take this to the (more conservative) Supreme Court," Spitzer said, predicting an extended legal fight if the three judges decide to release inmates early.
The state's network of 33 prisons has capacity for 100,000 inmates but is now overflowing with more than 172,000.
Machado, who leads the state Senate's prison oversight efforts, is critical of corrections officials for moving too slowly to adopt parole reforms and other provisions in a $7.8 billion prison- and jail-building program. It was approved by the Legislature in April and subsequently signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The corrections department originally projected it could have the first new cellblocks built by early 2009, but now projects construction will take an extra year.
One reason is that lawmakers did not give the department the fast-track authority it requested, said Deborah Hysen, the department's chief deputy secretary for facility planning and construction management.
In addition, the original cellblock designs had to be redrawn to include more space for rehabilitation programs, and the department is adding more high-security cells.
Building at some prisons will require extensive infrastructure upgrades, such as extending water and sewer lines, projects that take extra time and money.
The department also is reconsidering its plan to add the cells within each prison's secure perimeter because it appears quicker and cheaper to build most of the lower-security housing outside the main prison walls, Hysen said.
"Glitches, hiccups, delays -- I wouldn't characterize it in that fashion," she said. "They are just dates that were unrealistic in some cases."
The law provides money to build cellblocks at existing prisons to hold an additional 16,000 inmates, and new mini-prisons called "re-entry centers" for another 16,000 inmates who are nearing release.
Tilton, the corrections secretary, said his department is moving aggressively to add space.
The department won a brief reprieve when the three-judge panel delayed its scheduled February trial until later in the year.
"The more time we get from the courts, the better we expect the results will be," department spokesman Seth Unger said. "We're making steady progress in implementing these reforms."
The department faces a funding cut because of the state's projected $10 billion to $14 billion budget gap, but Unger said construction will not be effected because it relies on bond money.
The three-judge panel is likely to be most concerned about conditions for current inmates and whether overcrowding is preventing them from getting the services they deserve, said Elizabeth Alexander, director of the National Prison Project for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"It's understandable to me that the state says it's going to take time," Alexander said. "But if I'm a federal judge, I'm going to ask, 'How many people do I let die in the meantime?"'
On the Net:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: www.cdcr.ca.gov
Read AB900 at www.assembly.ca.gov

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/12/28//news/state/15_36_2012_26_07.txt