The Tea Party Movement objects to big government.

The newly-launched Coffee Party declares itself free of either party’s rigid ideologies but guided by reason. (I’ll drink coffee to that.)

But, as Doug Berman points out at Sentencing, Law & Policy, neither drink-related party seems to be interested in taking on one of the biggest government growth industries of all:

I continue to wonder if (and hope that) the new tea party movement will take on the growth of government and government inefficiencies in the operation of massive modern criminal justice systems. …And… Unfortunately, it seems that so far the so-called Coffee Party is also decaffinated when it comes to engaging with criminal justice issues, which comprise among the most consequential forms of government interaction with citizens and also is among the most massive forms of government control and expense.

Of course, the vast majority of persons who have the luxury of the extra time and energy to get involved with the new Coffee or Tea Parties are not likely to have significant experience with state or federal criminal justice systems. Still, any and all politically savvy persons must recognize that an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money is spent on modern criminal justice systems. Moreover, any new party that is concerned about government spending on programs with uncertain returns ought to be asking hard questions about the costs and benefits of mass incarceration and marijuana prohibitions and a host of other related criminal justice issues.

Meanwhile, in the Democrat-controlled congress we hear the similar sound of….nothing.

A year ago, Senator Jim Webb introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act, which would form a commission that would study our criminal justice system from top to bottom. But despite bipartisan support, lots of press, and lots of enthusiasm, the House of Representatives has yet to introduce a companion bill.

Last Tuesday, Webb renewed his push.

“We start with two pieces of reality,” Webb said in Washington on Tuesday. “The first is that we are a country that’s got 5 percent of the world’s population and approximately 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We are doing something different than other countries and something not necessarily correct.”

Yes. And whatever one’s political beverage, it’s time to face that fact.—and to do something about it.

Like California, a number of budget-strapped states are crafting legislation that allows certain inmates to use rehabilitative programs to earn time off their prison and jail sentences.

And as in California, in other states, the very same usual suspects are freaking out and predicting a crime wave in reaction to the various earned early release programs that are being instituted.

Refreshingly, however, at Stateline.org, the online publication affiliated with the Pew Center on the States, there is a wonderfully impartial rundown of what the states are doing in the way of incentivized early release—and the reactions against such policies.

Here’re a couple of clips:

As to whether accelerated-release programs lead to more crime by those who are released, research shows otherwise. A review by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency of at least 12 studies, for example, found unchanged or lower recidivism rates among prisoners who benefited from accelerated-release programs in states including Illinois, Wisconsin and Florida.

[BIG SNIP]

“Length of stay has nothing to do with the recidivism rate,” Todd Clear, the incoming dean of the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University in New Jersey, says. “If I let someone out (early), I’m not increasing the chances of them committing a crime. I’m just changing the date.”

Despite the studies, politicians and corrections officials are keenly aware that a single, well-publicized crime by an inmate who has been granted accelerated release can call entire programs into question, virtually overnight. In California, for instance, outrage over the state’s good-time credits has been exacerbated by the early release of a Sacramento County inmate who was arrested in connection with an attempted rape less than 24 hours after walking free.

For that reason, Clear believes, early-release initiatives are a recipe for political disaster. “The minute you let a bunch of people out early, you own everything they do,” he says

Sadly, yes. You do.

LA TIMES REPORT ON ABUSE IN JUVIE PROBATION LOCK-UPS PROMPTS ACTION—MAYBE

In the wake of the LA Times report on staff abuse of young inmates within LA County’ juvenile probation facilities, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas called for expansion of the Probation Department’s internal affairs staff.

Well that’s a start. Let’s hope there’s some follow-through.

And don’t forget, the LA Times report is the beginning, not the end of the problems.

CUTTING PRISON PROGRAMS HURTS US ALL

The Sacramento Bee’s guest column by Orson Aguilar articulates why the state should reject its penny wise and pound foolish plans to slash its rehabilitative prison programs.

The $250 million that California is about to save by slashing vital rehabilitation programs for prisoners will cost us many times that much money.

The money we think we’re saving will cost us many times over in more crime, more drug abuse and ruined lives.

Rehabilitation and alternative programs can save lives. I know. One of them saved mine.

I grew up in Boyle Heights, a rough section of East Los Angeles, in the 1980s. Poverty, gangs, drugs and violence plagued our community. But I was lucky enough to stay out of most of it – until one night, at age 19, I did something stupid.

A friend and I were attacked by a group of teens. In the struggle, I fired a shot from a handgun, scattering the crowd but striking one of the assailants in the forearm. Luckily, he was not seriously hurt. My friend and I also escaped with only minor injuries.

But I was charged with a felony. My friends urged me to fight the charges on grounds of self-defense. Instead, I took responsibility for my action. I pleaded guilty to felony assault with a deadly weapon.

Read the rest here.

ACLU’S RAMONA RIPSTON ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT

The ACLU’s longtime and extremely respected director, Ramona Ripston, has announced that she will retire a year from now. Ripston was the first woman to hold a leadership position in the organization. Some of her accomplishments include:

…Ending segregationist policies at the Los Angeles Unified School District, helping to spur meaningful reform in the, for years, notoriously hard-headed LAPD, fighting successfully for voting rights for Latinos, and providing leadership in battles for equal rights for the disabled, immigrants, gays and lesbians, and the homeless.

“Ramona Ripston has spent her entire career giving a voice to the voiceless,” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said. “With the ACLU of Southern California as her megaphone, she worked tirelessly to protect the constitutional rights of the poor, disabled, homeless, and gays and lesbians, among many others….”

Yep, that’s about right.

All of us who live in Southern California, owe her a huge debt of gratitude—even those who have opposed her. We have all of us benefited beyond calculation from her passion and her commitment to our collective humanness.

SENTENCING PROJECT LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE

Anyone interested in justice issues likely knows the Sentencing Project.

They have just launched a new website that is replete with great new interactive features. Reporters and others with criminal justice-related research needs, take note.

My friend Joe Domanick is part of a new online criminal justice journal called The Crime Report.” It should be an every day destination for anyone who is interested in the many-faceted world of criminal justice.

This week Joe has a two-part story about the drop in crime in America-–and about what has, and what has not, caused it.

In Part I he looks at the role of smart policing and at the change in gang culture in California, including the tighter grip that the prison gangs have on the gangs in the street.

In Part II he talks to an A-list lineup of experts who nearly to a person agree that the one strategy that cannot be credited with the crime drop, is the ramping up of incarceration.

Here’s how the story begins:

During the 1990s, the favorite solution to reducing crime was incarceration. That is, mass incarceration: mandatory minimums and 25-to-life three-strikes sentences for stealing a slice of pizza. The consequence today is more than two million people behind bars, the world’s largest per capita incarceration rate. No one among the experts I spoke with, however, suggested that as a factor in 2009’s crime drop.

Quite the opposite.

“The dramatic increases in incarceration did contribute to the crime decline in the 1990s,” says Richard Rosenfeld, of the University of St. Louis-Missouri. “The bulk of the evidence shows that. But from 2000-2009, the rate of incarceration slowed. In New York, for example, it’s flat or in decline. So the current decline can’t be ascribed to incarceration.”

John Jay Professor David Kennedy agrees. Recent incarceration rates have been marginal,” he says, while decreases in crime have been dramatic; so any new increases “are likely to be grabbing low level [criminals]. Anything going on is taking place at the margins in terms of incarceration, and is not very powerful.”

Carnegie Mellon University Prof. Al Blumstein also dismiss incarceration as a factor. “We’re close to equilibrium in terms of changes in incarceration,” he says. On the average, the inflow is roughly equal to the outflow. We’re way down to less than one percent increase [in imprisonment], whereas for most of the ’80 and ‘90s the rate was going up by 6 to 8 percent a year.“

Meanwhile, Todd Clear, a noted criminologist from John Jay College, points to mass incarceration’s corollary: lengthy prison sentences. “The length of stay in prison in England and hasn’t changed that much and England’s violent crime rate has gone down very similarly to that of U.S; same with Canada,” he says. “The increasing length of prison stay in the US has been a pattern for about 20 years, so I’m not persuaded that that’s a big cause of the current decline.”

Read on.

I would love to have been at this event Wednesday night. The LA Times’ Carol J. Williams reports that U.S. Supreme Court Justice (and wildly powerful court swing voter) Anthony Kennedy addressed a crowd of LA lawyers with courtly humor—except for the part where he took a couple of hard round-house swings at the state’s prison policy and at the CCPOA, the prison guards union.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy criticized California sentencing policies and crowded prisons Wednesday night, calling the influence that unionized prison guards had in passing the three-strikes law “sick.”

In an otherwise courtly and humorous address to the Los Angeles legal community, Kennedy expressed obvious dismay over the state of corrections and rehabilitation in the country. He said U.S. sentences are eight times longer than those issued by European courts.

“California now has 185,000 people in prison at $32,500 a year” each, he said. He then urged voters and officials to compare that expense to what taxpayers spend per pupil in elementary schools.

“The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” Kennedy said of the measure mandating life sentences for third-time criminal offenders.

POW! JAB! POW! POW!

Interesting. Particularly so in that the Supremes still have one more big case to hear in the near future regarding California’s prisons and the panel of three federal judges who are attempting to force a reduction in the state’s prison population.

MEANWHILE, THE LA CITY COUNCIL DELAYS PLANNED BUDGET-DRIVEN LAYOFFS IN RESPONSE TO EMOTIONAL PROTESTS BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND PRESSURE FROM VARIOUS EMPLOYEE UNIONS

As to how the council is going to trim the necessary $$$ off the budget, it is not clear. David Zahnizer and Phil Willon have the gory details.

On Thursday, the LAPPL—the LAPD’s union— vigorously protested the upcoming release of between 5000 and 6500 prisoners starting on January 25, which is this coming Monday.

Here is how one of the resulting stories opens:

Starting January 25th, thousands of dangerous criminals will be released early from California state prisons – and for the first time in nearly 30 years, sent back to local communities without any supervision,” stated the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

“The County of Los Angeles will be dramatically impacted, with over 5,000 felons to be released to our city,” said Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) President Paul M. Weber.

And so on.

Now admittedly, if an extra 5000 or more newly released inmates were to be disgorged in California, the majority showing up in LA (as is always statistically the case) given our current job market (or lack thereof) even for non-felons, plus the cuts to the state’s social services….It is not a cheery prospect.

However, my read of the law that goes into effect next Monday—SB 3X 18—the piece of legislation that will supposedly trigger the above-mentioned flood of felons, it suggests nothing of the kind. (Here’s the CDCR press release about the law that will kick in on January 25.)

As outlined by the CDCR, the purpose of this prison reform bill, passed during the height of the legislature’s budget wrangling last year, is to reduce the California prison population by at total of 6500 inmates over a year’s time. (Not a huge reduction, but something is better than nothing.)

However, the reduction is to be accomplished through three new strategies, which primarily have to do with sending fewer people to prison, and not with bouncing menacing hoards of inmates out early.

The strategies include:

Parole reform that will:

1. Help reduce the crippling number of technical violations of parole that have tens of thousands of inmates cycling needlessly in and out of prison (on our dime) for infractions such as testing dirty in a mandatory drug test, or missing a meeting with a parole officer.

2. Eliminate parole for certain inmates, in order to provide better and more rigorous supervision for the parolees who most need it. This would be in lieu of what we do now, which is to insist on non-rehabilitative, ineffective supervision for everybody that is provided by over-burdened parole officers who are far too swamped to help or control any of those who crowd their respective caseloads.

3. Establish and expand drug and mental health reentry courts for parolees who can most benefit from such highly-structured treatment to prevent recidivism.

In addition, the new law raises the bar on certain low-level property crimes.

And, yes, there is one thing in the about-to-be-instituted program that has to do with what may legitimately be called early release. It is an earned credit incentive system in which certain kinds of inmates can choose to earn day-for-day credit by participating in rehabilitation programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism.

Others will be given credit for working in fire camps (which already only accept the cream of inmates) and a few related programs. Those inmates will earn the right to get out a little earlier—and, with any luck, in better emotional shape—than they would have without the earned credit system.

This is not prisoner dumping, nor is it likely to cause the crime wave we’re hearing so much about.

But if I’m missing something here, please prove me wrong.

PS: In a statement released last night, the Police union has opposed the release of the Onion Field killer. For the record, I do to. For some people life should be life.

We finally received the necessary brand-spanking new power pole in my Topanga neighborhood, and thus the magic of electricity has returned to my very own personal house.

This is a handy thing, because I am scheduled to be on The Filter tonight (Tuesday) at 7:30 on digital channel 4.2, (or online here) with a replay Wednesday on KNBC Channel 4 at 11:30 a.m.

And I just don’t see the necessary remote broadcast working all that well without electrical power.

The show will cover a lot of topics, but I’ll be talking about the latest wrinkle in the governor’s so-called prisoner release plan and the U.S. Supreme court’s Yes/No ruling on the matter.

In California, there are approximately 23,000 prisoners serving life sentences who are technically eligible for parole. Of course, being eligible does not necessarily mean inmates are suitable for parole. Some need to remain permanent guests of the state for their own and everybody else’s good.

Yet, even when a prisoner does not show evidence of being a further danger, the notoriously conservative California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation parole board rarely approves an inmate for release and so California’s lifer population continues to balloon (and age).

“When California courts sentence somebody to life with parole, it turns out that’s not possible after all,” Joan Petersilia, Stanford law professor and one of the country’s experts on parole policy told the New York Times’ Solomon Moore.. “Board of parole hearings almost never grant releases, and that’s the reason that California’s lifer population has grown out of proportion to other states.”

In the rare instance that an inmate does make it through with a positive recommendation (only around 1 percent are recommended for parole out of the thousands seen each year), the board has usually done a fairly thorough job of considering the matter. And even after approval, there will be another 120 days of painstakingly rechecking and researching the inmates background, and disciplinary record. The board will also examine any information received from victims and victims’ families, plus any other public comment that might come forth, searching for the slightest reason that the person should not be let loose among the rest of us. If after all this, the parole board still thinks it’s time to hand the inmate their $200 gate money and send them on their way, one would think that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would go along with the recommendations of his appointed board.

But he doesn’t—particularly if the inmate in question has committed murder.

In his tenure, Arnold Schwarzenegger has allowed four convicted murderers to be paroled. (Gray Davis was worse. He let 0 be paroled.)

For example, Margo Johnson, 48, has served 24 years of a life sentence for a 1984 murder. The NY Times reports that Johnson has been recommended for release four times by the state parole board, but the governor “rejected the board’s recommendation each time.”

It was therefore heartening to find that talented independent radio journalist Nancy Mullane has Soros Foundation grant to produce a two-hour, four part radio documentary on this issue called “Life After Murder.” It will debut in April of this year.

In the meantime, one story out of Mullen’s project had its debut on This American Life this past week.

It’s about a man named Don Cronk who shot and killed a man in a home burglary gone hideously wrong. He was righteously convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years-to-life in prison with the possibility of parole. More than a quarter of a century later, he was facing his seventh parole hearing. Mullane tells the story.

(Note: The show has a prologue and two acts. The Mullane/Cronk parole story is Act 1.)

It is a compelling and very human tale about the issue of murder and parole. So listen.

PS: Carol J Williams of the LA Times reports on the history of California governors and their parole boards as well as an ongoing legal challenge on the issue.

PPS: Act two of This American Life has exactly zero to do with corrections or parole or Arnold Schwarzenegger but is a long personal essay by short story writer Wells Tower, and it is—wonderful.

NOTE: On an unrelated note, in Tuesday’s LA Times, Senator Ted Kaufman called for a broad, blogger-included federal shield law for journalists. Thank you, Senator Kaufman.

[NOTE: The photo above of the cage was taken by Michael Montgomery at Pelican Bay Prison, not at Chino. But the Chino enclosures are thought to be similar.)

After last August’s 1300 inmate, eleven-hour riot at California Institute for Men in Chino—informally known by its location “Chino—CDCR officials congratulated themselves for how well they handled the riot and its aftermath.

Now, Steven Cuevas of LA’s NPR station, KPCC, has uncovered some allegations by dozens of prisoners, made in letters and telephone calls to their families, which suggest that after the riots inmates were kept outdoors in literal cages—enclosures about 20-feet long and 10-feet wide—for days at a time, stripped to thier underwear, without blankets or running water, some of the men needing medical attention.

On Monday’s Airtalk Cuevas will talk about what he has learned and the allegations that prisoners and their families have made to CDCR officials—and now to the press.

Last week, Michael Montgomery of California Watch put up his own report about letters he had read from inmates who recounted the same alarming allegations and more. Here’s a clip:

…Now, inmates themselves appear to be entering the debate, with claims that prison staff inflamed racial tensions, failed to take adequate measures to contain the violence and left many prisoners zip-tied and in extreme conditions for hours after the riot was over.

A new Web site has posted more than 50 letters and comments which it claims are from inmates – most still behind bars at Chino – who witnessed the riots. The letters are emotional and filled with graphic details but are anonymous. Here’s one sample from a man identified only as inmate 1081:

My story is just as drastic as the others. Three nights in a cage with 10 other men. And no water, no restroom facilities. I have kidney problems. It was torture for me.

When Cuevas first went to Chino a month ago to ask officials about the allegations, one official denied them altogether. In subsequent inquiries officials admitted to keeping men in the cages for an hour or so, but no longer.

KPCC has posted an audio montage of the men’s letters—on its website, and they tell a very different story.

There will be much more information to come on this issue. Count on it.

(In the meantime, read some of the letters for yourself.)

Once big question that I know Michael Montgomery is planning to dig into—namely: when did officials know of the allegations and what did—or didn’t—they do about them.

The Obama Administration has promised to overhaul and better oversee the sprawling warrens of immigration jails and prisons that are scattered in small and large facilities across the country. Indeed, in the past year they have dispatched teams of inspectors tasked with analyzing conditions in each one of those facilities. Presumably as a consequence of that scrutiny, many of those facilities no longer house immigration detainees.

But since 2003, after ICE was created, and many more people were subject to detention—either because they were awaiting deportation, or they were fighting deportation orders—there have been a string of deaths, 107 counted officially, that have been it appears deliberately shrouded in mystery, kept from public view, reported the New York Times on Sunday.

In 2008, the Washington Post’s Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein wrote about a “system of neglect” that often resulted in unneeded death, including the harrowing death of the uncle and surrogate father of award-winning novelist/memoirist Edwidge Danticat.

In order to do the report the WaPo obtained thousands of medical records, which they spent months in analyzing until they could sort out a pattern.

Now, the NY Times and the ACLU have obtained more reams of records about those deaths through the Freedom of Information Act, including “scathing investigative reports that were kept under wraps, and a trail of confidential memos and BlackBerry messages that show officials working to stymie outside inquiry.”

The Times and WaPo’s accounts of the deaths are deeply troubling. It seems that getting sick inside this system is a dangerous business. But what is also troubling is that many of the officials who seemed the most active in obfuscating and obscuring the facts and causes of these deaths, are still prominently in place.

Read on.

(THE PHOTO is by Robert Stolarik for The New York Times and shows the family of Nery Romero in Elmont, N.Y., in 2007, after he was found hanging in his detention cell.)