LA COUNTY SUPERVISORS AGREE TO PAY SETTLEMENT IN JAIL MISCONDUCT CASE

On Tuesday, the LA County Board of Supervisors said they would be paying a settlement of $722K to Dion Starr, a Men’s Central Jail inmate who, during the supervising deputy’s absence, was stabbed 23 times by three other inmates while awaiting trial on a minor charge. (In 2012, the Supreme Court rejected Sheriff Lee Baca’s appeal to be protected from personal liability in Starr v. Baca. Read the backstory here.)

This isn’t the only costly LASD settlement in recent times, either. Last month, a federal jury found Sheriff Baca personally responsible for punitive damages in a jail beating case. And just two weeks ago, a different federal jury awarded $740K to five inmates in another excessive force case.

Supe. Gloria Molina, who “chose not to support the [Dion Starr] settlement,” had this to say:

I do not have a problem defending lawsuits and supporting settlements for our law enforcement personnel, deputies, and managers who act in good faith and within policy. I do have an issue, however, both ethically and as a fiduciary of the public’s money to continue to defend alleged force actions by law enforcement personnel when those actions are inappropriate…

I chose not to support the settlement, even though it was a good business decision, as most settlements are…

Money spent in the defense of employees who do not act in the scope of their duties is not appropriate. The sheriff must thoroughly investigate the cases in his department, legal and otherwise, to get to the root cause and to start addressing these issues…saying you embrace change is not enough. In my opinion, the sheriff’s failure to seek appropriate corrective actions for each and every claim of excessive force…whether in our jails or our patrols, raises significant issues of potential liability and threatens all of the work this board has done over the years as prudent stewards of taxpayer resources. This is especially true when the department continuously finds that every action in the department is “within policy,” when juries continue to find otherwise…

MUST-READ EDITORIALS: GIVING THE LA FOSTER CARE COMMISSION A DEADLINE EXTENSION, AND THE DEFINITION OF “RECIDIVISM”

On Tuesday, the LA County Board of Supervisors voted to extend the life of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection by three and a half extra months, until April 18, 2014, when the panel will be required to submit a final report on dysfunction within the foster care system. (For backstory, go here.)

In a Monday LA Times editorial, our pal, Robert Greene explains why the commission deserves some extra time to finish the job.

Here are some clips:

The commission is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: It’s examining the entire network of agencies and institutions, public and private, that deal with abuse and neglect of children in Los Angeles County, to determine the degree to which they actually solve real problems and the degree to which they instead trip over one another’s feet. It must next take what it has learned and craft a set of critiques and recommendations that transcend politics and power bases and can lead directly to improved results for children at risk.

[SNIP]

Despite the many previous audits, reviews and reports, there really hasn’t been anything quite like this effort. Previous efforts confined themselves to examining the Department of Children and Family Services, or focused on the county’s legal liability or some other particular aspect of the child welfare system.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection does something entirely different. Its effort was never intended to be either an inquest into Gabriel Fernandez’s death or a dissection of the department, although there were plenty of critics demanding just such a thing. The commission’s task is to outline why, despite all of those previous reports and reform efforts, avoidable child deaths keep happening.

The commissioners are finding their answers, to judge from the testimony of witnesses and the discussions among commissioners so far, chiefly in two places: in the bureaucratic silos that keep teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers and others from reporting warning signs of child abuse or neglect (or that keep any such reports from getting action by social workers); and the political push and pull on the Board of Supervisors that all too often results in at least the impression, and often the reality, that the rules that social workers must follow are in flux and that the directions under which department leaders operate can change at any moment.

That latter point provides two more reasons to keep the panel working. First, the chief argument of Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Don Knabe in opposition to the motion creating the commission was that the buck stops with the board, the board made a management change at the Department of Children and Family Services and is monitoring progress, and it is the board, and not some outside commissions, that should oversee and correct the department.

But if the child welfare system extends beyond the department and even county government, as it does, it requires a point of view from outside the county; and if the barriers to an effective system include the Board of Supervisors itself, as they do, the board cannot be counted on to provide its own critique.

And here’s another excellent LA Times editorial we didn’t want you to miss—this one on California AG Kamala Harris’ new DOJ recidivism division, the definition of “recidivism,” and why the statistics are misleading. Here’s a clip:

One bit of popular lore that Californians often hear regarding our criminal justice system is that the state has an extraordinarily high rate of recidivism — the nation’s highest, at somewhere between 65% and 75%. That figure is cited in legislative hearings, community meetings and news conferences, and in fact was repeated last week by Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris as she unveiled a new division in her office to deal with the problem.

[SNIP]

In common parlance the word is generally taken as the criminal justice analog of the medical term “relapse.” A person who has cancer and is treated, for example, but is later diagnosed again with the disease is said to have relapsed, and likewise a criminal offender who commits another crime is said to have recidivated.

But what if the cancer patient catches a cold? He’s sick again, but has he relapsed?

Of course not. It would be both alarming and comical to insist that every cancer patient who ever again has to call in sick or take an aspirin has relapsed, if the word is to have any useful meaning…

So does California define recidivism as a kind of relapse? Sometimes. Our chief anti-recidivism law, known popularly as “three strikes,” applies only to those instances in which a person convicted of a serious or violent felony is later convicted of another serious or violent felony. But other statutes and guidelines, used for other purposes — such as declaring our recidivism rate the nation’s highest — apply to a felon or misdemeanant who is later convicted of any kind of crime, or not convicted but merely arrested, or not even arrested but tests positive for drug use, or not even that but is cited by a parole agent or probation officer for failing to show up on time for an appointment.

[SNIP]

It is in part the high rate of return to incarceration due to so-called technical violations that makes California so different from the rest of the nation and makes our recidivism rate seem so high. Returns to prison are a useful measure for officials who need to know how many inmates are likely coming back, and when, but not so useful for gauging how much risk a former inmate poses to his neighborhood or how likely he is to commit another felony.

When technical parole violations are stripped out and the measure of recidivism is a new crime with a new arrest and a new conviction, the way we calculate the number for three-strikes offenses, California’s recidivism rate is closer to 50% — not good, but just about the same as most other states.

THE BENEFITS OF INMATE FIREFIGHTING CAMPS

Inmate wilderness firefighting crews have shown to be viable, cost-effective options for states with dwindling forestry budgets and growing fire problems. The prison crews are also valuable rehab and reentry tools, allow inmates to be spend time in nature, and provides them with skills and experience they can use in firefighting jobs outside of prison. (Both the CDCR and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department utilize these firefighting camps.)

The NY Times’ Fernanda Santos has the story. Here’s how it opens:

When the air was hot and the woods were parched last summer, the peak of the wildfire season in the West, these trained wilderness firefighters fought 13 forest fires in Arizona, including the one in June that half-destroyed the nearby village of Yarnell and killed 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, an elite team. On a crisp morning this fall, they were using chain saws and pulaskis — a firefighting tool that combines an ax and an adz — to chop overgrown bushes in a private development here, offering a measure of fire prevention for houses built in the wild.

Their home base is the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, but when asked where they are from, the reply is simply “Buckeye,” the name of the town where the prison is located. If there are other questions, they call it a “gated community” and leave it at that.

“That we’re inmates is the last thing on anybody’s mind,” said John Chleboun, 33, who has been serving time for burglary at the Lewis complex and is entering his second year with the crew.

As federal agencies have cut costs during the budget standoffs in Washington, further decreasing the size of a firefighting work force that has already been reduced by 40 percent since the 1980s, the burden of fighting wildfires has been shifted to states and local jurisdictions, even as they struggle under the weight of a sluggish economy. Prison crews, cheap and dependable, have emerged as a solution as wildfires burn bigger, hotter and longer each year and take up a growing portion of the United States Forest Service budget. (In 2012 alone, federal agencies spent $1.9 billion on wildfire suppression, just shy of the record, set in 2006.)

[SNIP]

States log significant savings, paying inmates a small fraction of the reimbursement fees paid to federal agencies for using their teams to fight fires or the price of hiring private companies to do the work the prisoners do in the off-peak season, like picking up trash along highways in Nevada, maintaining hiking trails in Colorado, and thinning forests and removing dried vegetation all across the region.

California pays inmates $1 per hour for work in emergencies like fires and floods, saving the state an estimated $80 million per year, according to forestry and fire protection statistics. In Nevada, where inmates work for the same pay, they bring in around $3.5 million in annual revenue from the nonfirefighting projects for which they are hired, said Jody Weintz, who manages the program for the Nevada Division of Forestry. (Noninmate firefighters earn around $10 an hour, as well as hazard pay and overtime.)

PROGRAM TO TRAIN TWIN TOWERS INMATES FOR FUTURE JOBS WITH TECH START-UPS

A relatively new business tech program for inmates at San Quentin State Prison expanded this month to serve inmates at LA County’s Twin Towers Jail. Participants take classes twice a week for six months where they learn how to create and launch tech companies—from actual experts.

If inmates graduate the course, they are guaranteed paid internships upon their release from prison or jail. The program has been a successful anti-recidivism tool thus far: the five released San Quentin graduates are all employed in the tech sector.

KPCC’s Martha Mendoza has the story. Here’s a clip:

The rigorous, six-month training teaches carefully selected inmates the ins and outs of designing and launching technology firms, using local experts as volunteer instructors.

“We believe that when incarcerated people are released into the world, they need the tools to function in today’s high-tech, wired world,” says co-founder Beverly Parenti, who with her husband, Chris Redlitz, has launched thriving companies, including AdAuction, the first online media exchange…

“I figured, ‘We work with young entrepreneurs every day. Why not here?’” [Redlitz] recalled.

After discussions with prison administrators, Parenti and Redlitz decided to add a prison-based firm to their portfolio, naming it for the precarious journey from prison to home: The Last Mile.

Now, during twice-a-week evening lessons, students — many locked up before smartphones or Google— practice tweeting, brainstorm new companies and discuss business books assigned as homework. Banned from the Internet to prevent networking with other criminals, they take notes on keyboard-like word processors or with pencil on paper.

The program is still “bootstrapping,” as its organizers say, with just 12 graduates in its first two years and now a few dozen in classes in San Quentin and Twin Towers. But the five graduates released so far are working in the tech sector.

They are guaranteed paid internships if they can finish the rigorous training program, which requires prerequisite courses, proven social skills and a lifetime oath to lead by positive example.

NEW PROGRAM TO HELP LA’S HOMELESS MOMS GET BACK ON THEIR FEET

A new program will provide 60 homeless mothers with desperately-needed housing, mental health services, and help finding employment with funds raised by Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services and LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. The program is an extension of Project 50, a homelessness initiative created by Supe. Yaroslavsky to locate and house Skid Row’s 50 most at-risk residents.

The LA Daily News’ Susan Abram has the story. Here are some clips:

Named for Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the $1.8 million wing inside the Didi Hirsch Via Avanta building on Glenoaks Boulevard was hailed by county leaders and nonprofit groups as proof that collaboration can help solve one of the biggest problems in the region.

[SNIP]

About 54,000 people were counted as homeless in Los Angeles County this year, an 18 percent increase compared with the last survey in 2011, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. About 15 percent of the county’s homeless are from the San Fernando Valley, which also is an increase, especially among families, the LAHSA figures show.

To help the homeless, Yaroslavsky championed Project 50 in 2010, an initiative to identify Skid Row’s 50 most vulnerable and chronically homeless, and get them housing, medical care, mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment so they can live off the streets. But the supervisor acknowledged that it’s a massive undertaking, especially in Los Angeles, which continued to see an increase among the homeless this year compared to 2012, according to a recent report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Didi Hirsch program is an extension of Project 50, organizers said.

Didi Hirsch President and Chief Executive Officer Kita S. Curry said the new wing will help 60 women with children for six months. Afterward, the women will move into housing, thanks to vouchers secured by Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services.

A SUSPICIOUS SUICIDE AND A SHODDY INVESTIGATION: DEATH OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S GIRLFRIEND STILL LEAVES TROUBLING QUESTIONS

In September 2010, in St. Augustine, FL., a young mother died from a wound inflicted by her boyfriend’s sheriff’s dept.-issued handgun. The young deputy, Jeremy Banks, said he heard the gunshots from several rooms away, and found his girlfriend Michelle O’Connell bleeding to death.

Investigated by Banks’ own department, the crime scene DNA was left untested, the neighborhood uncanvassed, family and friends uninterviewed, and O’Connell’s suspicious death was quickly pronounced a suicide. And, although new pieces of the puzzle turned up and pointed to Banks, including alleged domestic violence, efforts made to re-open the case were stamped out.

The NY Times’ Walt Bogdanich and Glenn Silber have an excellent interactive narrative of the case and the aftermath. (A PBS “Frontline” documentary produced concurrently with the article will premiere Tuesday, Nov. 29, at 10:00p.m., but has already been released on the PBS website.)

Here are some clips:

At 11:25 p.m., the three St. Johns County officers arrived at 4700 Sherlock Place, a one-story suburban house in this historic seaside community. A young deputy, Jonathan Hawley, was already there. “Oh my God,” he cried, seeing a young woman he knew lying on the bedroom floor, an inert, bloody mess.

Michelle O’Connell, 24, the doting mother of a 4-year-old girl, was dying from a gunshot in the mouth. Next to her was a semiautomatic pistol that belonged to her boyfriend, Jeremy Banks, a deputy sheriff for St. Johns County. A second bullet had burrowed into the carpet by her right arm.

Ms. Maynard quickly escorted Mr. Banks, who had been drinking, out of the house. “All of a sudden he started growling like an animal,” she said. With his fists, Mr. Banks pounded dents in a police car.

“I grabbed him and tuned him up,” another deputy, Wesley Grizzard, recalled. “I told him, I don’t care if you’re intoxicated or not, you better sober up.”

Within minutes of the shooting on Sept. 2, 2010, Mr. Banks’s friends, family and even off-duty colleagues began showing up, offering hugs and moral support. He huddled with his stepfather, a deputy sheriff in another county, before a detective interviewed him in a police car.

With his off-duty sergeant listening from the front seat, Mr. Banks gave this account: Ms. O’Connell had broken up with him and was packing to move out when she shot herself with his service weapon. He said he had been in another room.

Ms. O’Connell’s family, immediately suspicious, received a starkly different reception from the authorities. Less than two hours before she died, Ms. O’Connell had texted her sister, who was watching her daughter: “I’ll be there soon.” Yet when her outraged brother tried to visit the scene, officers blocked his way. The family’s request for an independent investigation was rebuffed, as was one sister’s attempt to tell the police that in the months before she died, Ms. O’Connell said she had been subjected to domestic abuse by Mr. Banks.

Before the sun rose the next morning over this place that calls itself “the nation’s oldest city,” the sheriff’s investigation was all but over.

Ms. O’Connell, the sheriff’s office concluded, took her own life. Detectives were so certain in their judgment that they never tested the forensic evidence collected after the shooting. Nor did they interview her family and friends, who would have told them that she was ecstatic over a new full-time job with benefits, including health insurance for her daughter.

Over time, though, the official narrative began to change. The sheriff asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to re-examine the case, and investigators found two neighbors who said they had heard a woman screaming for help that night, followed by gunshots. Their account prompted the medical examiner to revise his opinion from suicide to homicide, a conclusion shared by the crime reconstruction expert hired by state investigators.

Eventually, however, a special prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute and closed the case early last year. But that was hardly the final word. The state law enforcement agency asked for a special inquest into the death, saying significant questions remained. The sheriff, David B. Shoar, struck back in support of his officer, prompting an extraordinary conflict between two powerful law enforcement agencies.

And through it all, the O’Connell family continued to believe that the sheriff’s office, investigating one of its own, had blinded itself to the possibility that the shooting was a fatal case of domestic violence.

Domestic abuse is believed to be the most frequently unreported crime, and it is particularly corrosive when it involves the police. Taught to wield authority through control, threats or actual force, officers carry their training, their job stress and their guns home with them, amplifying the potential for abuse.

Yet nationwide, interviews and documents show, police departments have been slow to recognize and discipline abusers in uniform, largely because of a predominantly male blue wall of silence. Victims are often reluctant to file complaints, fearing that an officer’s colleagues simply will not listen or understand, or that if they do, the abuser may be stripped of his weapon and ultimately his family’s livelihood.

[SNIP]

The Times examined the case in collaboration with the PBS investigative news program “Frontline,” reviewing police, medical and legal records, interviewing dozens of people connected to the case, and consulting independent forensic and law enforcement experts.

The examination found that the investigation was mishandled from the start, not just by the sheriff and his officers, but also by medical examiners who espoused scientifically suspect theories that went unchallenged by prosecutors. Because detectives concluded so quickly that the shooting was a suicide, investigators failed to perform the police work that is standard in suspicious shootings, including collecting and testing all available evidence and canvassing neighbors.

(We highly recommend you go read the rest of this lengthy, but entirely worthwhile, article.)

BILL TO REQUIRE FAKE GUNS TO BE PAINTED IN BRIGHT COLORS TO BE REINTRODUCED

Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) plans to reintroduce a bill that would require all fake guns—BB, airsoft, etc.—to be manufactured in bright colors. The revived bill comes in the wake of the recent fatal shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a Sonoma County deputy who mistook his airsoft gun for an assault rifle. (Read more about the shooting, and the previously failed legislation, here.)

The LA Times’ Patrick McGreevy has the story. Here’s a clip:

The death of Andy Lopez in Santa Rosa, who was carrying a replica of an AK-47, might have been prevented if deputies could have determined the gun was not a real assault weapon, lawmakers said.

“When officers must make split-second decisions on whether or not to use deadly force, these replica firearms can trigger tragic consequences,” said Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles). “By making toy guns more obvious to law enforcement we can help families avoid the terrible grief of losing a child.”

De Leon plans to reintroduce a measure he wrote in 2011 that would have required BB guns to be painted a bright color.

That bill was requested by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck in response to an incident in which 13-year old Rohayent Gomez was shot and left a paraplegic when police mistook his replica firearm for a real weapon. That bill failed passage in an Assembly committee.

CALIFORNIA AG HARRIS LAUNCHES INITIATIVE TO FIGHT RECIDIVISM

California AG Kamala Harris announced Wednesday that she will be spearheading a new division of the California DOJ to research the state’s sky-high recidivism rates and to bring in grant money to expand effective programs across county lines. (Way to go, Kamala!)

KPCC’s Rina Palta has the story. Here’s a clip:

Her overall message was that, thus far, the system has been more focused on tradition than outcomes. She pointed out the state’s notoriously high incidence of former prisoners committing new crimes within three years of release – referred to as the “recidivism” rate. Recidivism in California has hovered above 60 percent, sometimes reaching as high as 67 percent in recent years.

“If we were talking about a business that had a failure rate of that number, we would reorganize, we would reexamine and we would guide our approach by a well proven method which asks us to think about what is the return on our investment,” Harris said.

Instead, she said, the system’s been all about “business as usual,” meaning that it is dependent on imprisoning repeat wrongdoers, at a cost of about $47,000-per-year, per prison inmate. Harris said cutting the recidivism rate by just 10 percent could save the state $233 million annually.

The attorney general said that a new division of the state’s DOJ – which will be paid for with current resources – will act as a clearing house for aggregating data and reports on innovative, successful programs around the state. DOJ staff will also help local law enforcement agencies find grants to fund such projects and develop technology to bring law enforcement into the digital age.

“You’d be shocked at how obsolete we are,” Harris said.

Rina Palta also reported Harris’ new initiative in Thursday’s California Report episode, linking it to realignment. Here’s a clip from the transcript:

When realignment rolled out two years ago, the hope was that counties would develop innovative ways of handling such offenders. The problem, Harris said, is no one’s been tracking any of that progress.

[Harris:] Why not take advantage of what we can do—look at the issues statewide, and then highlight the best practices capable of replication?

Harris said her first task will be creating a way of measuring recidivism rates in each county.

Even the seemingly minor task of establishing a state-wide definition of recidivism will be an important undertaking for the division. Here’s a small clip from the Associated Press:

“We have a huge state with 58 counties with 58 different ways of doing things,” said Dean Flippo, president of the California District Attorneys Association, who added there may be 58 definitions of recidivism.

“How do we measure if every one of us are measuring under something different?” he asked.

YOUTH SOLITARY IS NOT A TRIP TO THE “REFLECTION COTTAGE” OR A “TIME OUT,” SAYS ACLU

The ACLU released a new report on juvenile solitary confinement this week detailing the crushing mental, physical, and developmental effects isolation has on young people, in particular. Here’s a clip from the report’s accompanying article:

“I developed techniques to survive. I’ve learned to play chess with other [kids] through a six-inch wall to keep myself occupied. But for others, it breaks them, makes them either violent or suicidal.”

These are the words of Lino Silva, who had been incarcerated in a juvenile facility for over seven years when she wrote them. The “it” she mentions is solitary confinement, a practice that juvenile facilities routinely use on the approximately 70,000 kids in this country who are in their care on any given day.

For Lino, the conditions of solitary were so devastating she believes many of the kids subjected to it will not be able to “function anywhere other than adult prison.” She writes:

Being in a room over 21 hours a day is like a waking nightmare, like you want to scream but you can’t. You want to stretch your legs, walk for more than a few feet. You feel trapped. Life becomes distorted. You shower, eat, sleep, and defecate in the same tiny room. In the same small sink, you “shower,” quench your thirst, wash your hands after using the toilet, and warm your cold dinner in a bag.

For children, a short time alone may sometimes be necessary to defuse a moment of crisis. But this does not give license to juvenile facilities to hide their practice of subjecting kids to prolonged isolation behind seemingly innocuous euphemisms like “time out,” “room confinement,” “restricted engagement,” or a trip to the “reflection cottage.” These terms mask the fact that hours of isolation can be extremely damaging to young people.

The report also calls on lawmakers and detention facilities to ban solitary confinement of minors and to collect meaningful data on use of isolation practices. Here’s a clip from the report:

Solitary confinement of children under 18 should be banned. This practice can be ended by state legislators, local officials, and juvenile facility administrators. Other, shorter-term isolation practices should be strictly limited and regulated because of their harmful and traumatic effect on children and because they are often accompanied by other serious deprivations (like denial of education).Children should never be subjected to any practice that involves significant levels or durations of physical or social isolation. Isolation should only be used as an emergency measure and for as short a duration as necessary. Separation practices to protect, manage, or discipline youth should be used sparingly and should never rise to the level of solitary confinement…

Governments rarely systematically collect data on the use of solitary confinement or other isolation on young people in juvenile detention facilities—or make public what is available. Reforms to solitary confinement and isolation practices must be accompanied by monitoring of isolation practices, recording of data, and public reporting about policies and practices as well as data about their use. Such transparency is necessary to give public and elected officials, and the general public, the information required to meaningfully engage in debate and appropriate oversight.

CHICAGO’S HISTORY OF KIDS’ NIGHTMARISH FALSE CONFESSIONS

Cook County, Illinois—Chicago, in particular—has the most proven false confessions in the entire United States. (For our previous post on 60 Minutes’ “false confession capital” story, go here.)

Steve Drizen, a Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern, and his colleagues, turned up 18 shockingly detailed contaminated confessions from juveniles from 1986 to 1999 in Cook County. In a story for the Huffington Post, Drizen says his prior assumption that all false confessions were accidental, resulting from shoddy police-work, is long-gone. Here are some clips:

Many of Cook County’s false confessions have involved juvenile offenders. My colleagues and I at Northwestern University School of Law’s Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth have documented at least 18 false confessions from children under the age of 18 between 1986 and 1999. All of these false confessions were to murders, rape-murders, or rapes. All of the false confessors were black.

Most of these false confessions were highly detailed, often containing facts of the crime that had not been released to the public and thus could only have been known by the true perpetrators. The fact that these juveniles supposedly knew this “inside information” became the centerpiece of the State’s cases and the main reason why most of the defendants who took their cases to trial were wrongfully convicted.

Because DNA and other evidence has proven them innocent, we now know that these defendants did not have specialized knowledge of the crimes to which they confessed. Police officers and prosecutors contaminated their confessions by feeding the details to them.

Law professors who have studied false confession cases, including me, have suggested that contamination is inadvertent, the result of sloppy police interrogation practices like using leading questions, showing suspects crime scene photos, or taking them to visit crime scenes. Such tactics leak details to innocent suspects who use them to cobble together seemingly credible confessions after their wills have been broken by hours of coercive questioning. But after reviewing the content of some of Cook County’s juvenile false confessions, I am no longer persuaded that all such contamination is accidental.

In Cook County’s juvenile false confession cases, police officers and prosecutors have taken confession contamination to a new level. Not only did they feed facts to suspects, they scripted entire narratives for them. These story lines often contained false characterizations of the crimes, the defendants and their motives and even made-up bits of dialogue between the defendants that were clearly designed to demonize the juvenile defendants, inflame the passions of jurors, and ensure that jurors would convict them.

And here are two disturbing accounts of kids’ contaminated confessions (but do go read the others):

In April 1997, 14-year-old Don Olmetti confessed to shooting to death a Chicago school teacher in the school’s parking lot — a confession later proven false when evidence showed that Olmetti was sitting in class at the time of the crime. At Olmetti’s bond hearing, a Cook County prosecutor, pointing to Olmetti’s confession, urged the court to deny him bond, arguing that Olmetti lacked remorse because he “took the bus home afterward to take a nap and watch cartoons.”

This same cartoon-watching callousness appeared again a year or so later in August 1998 in perhaps Chicago’s most infamous juvenile false confession case. In that case, a Chicago detective obtained a confession from a 7-year-old boy in which implicated himself and his 8-year-old friend in the murder and sexual assault of 11-year-old Ryan Harris. According to the detective, the boy said that after killing her, he “rode his bike home and watched cartoons.”

But Illinois is working to prevent future false confessions:

The good news is that Illinois has taken steps to fix the problem of confession contamination. Laws requiring the electronic recording of the entire interrogation of all homicides and other serious felonies will now expose contamination if it exists and allow judges and jurors to see what, if any, details were fed to unknowing suspects.

WHEN A “MODEL” PRISON BREAKS BAD

What has caused so many of our nation’s prisons to abandon any attempt at rehabilitation in order to keep large numbers of prisoners in isolation, or near isolation, in “Special Housing Units” (SHUs} or in “Special Management Units,” (SMUs)?

Justin Peters, writing for Slate, looks at that question with an analysis of what happened to the the prison at Lewisburg, PA, that in the 1930s started out as a model of innovation, and that now typifies the trend toward SHUs and SMUs.

Here’s a clip:

Last month, I wrote about Marion, the notorious federal prison that helped pave the way for all the supermax-style facilities that are so popular today. Though Marion was under lockdown for an astounding 23 years, the prison itself became a medium-security facility in 2006, and is no longer a repository for the most troublesome prisoners in the federal system. That honor arguably now belongs to USP Lewisburg, a Pennsylvania facility where violent or obstreperous federal inmates get sent for ostensibly short-term “attitude adjustment” stints. (Before transferring out, inmates are expected to complete a four-stage, 18-to-24-month resocialization program that can actually last much longer than that.) USP Lewisburg might be the worst place in the federal prison system, so bad that some inmates there actually dream of being transferred to the famously isolating Supermax facility in Florence, Colo.

A recent article from the journal Environment and Planning D: Society and Space helps explain how Lewisburg got that way. The article, by Bucknell University geography professor Karen M. Morin, recounts the transformation of USP Lewisburg from a progressive facility to an isolating and restrictive “Special Management Unit,” or SMU—a shift that mirrors the evolution of the U.S. prison system in general. (Morin is also a member of the Lewisburg Prison Project, a nonprofit group that advocates for prisoners’ rights.) Whereas model prisons 75 years ago were designed to rehabilitate prisoners, the best-known prisons today seem specifically designed to drive their inmates mad.

Read on.

Also read Peters’ October 23 story in Slate about how, in 1983, two horrific murders at the United States Penitentiary near Marion, Ill, ushered in America’s infatuation with Supermax prisons.

In addition, take a look at the report released earlier this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) at the request of a Congressional committee that wanted to know more about why the US Bureau of Prisons was making increasing use of SHUs and SMUs, and whether all this isolation made the prisons safer.

In their report, the GAO stated it wasn’t at all sure that widespread use of isolation did increase institutional safety and pointed to the five states that had reduced their reliance on the segregated units.

“While these states have not completed formal assessments of the impact of their segregated housing reforms, officials from all five states told us there had been no increase in violence after they moved inmates from segregated housing to less restrictive housing. In addition, Mississippi and Colorado reported cost savings from closing segregated housing units and reducing the administrative segregation population.”

WHY BIG DATA MATTERS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICIES

This is one of those issues that one would hope would be obvious:: In order to make good criminal and juvenile justice policy (or any kind of policy, for that matter) we need good numbers—specifically, we need stats that tell us which policies work, and which do not.

Yet, incredibly, all too often, lawmakers and others fail to bother.

Take, for instance, the matter of realignment. For all the money, stress and time spent on the state’s two-year-old prison realignment policy, there was no provision in the law for any kind of evaluation to determine what part of realignment worked—either on a statewide level, or in the individual counties—and what did not.

Yes, some federal dollars and foundation money has found its way to Stanford, allowing Joan Petersilia and company to do limited research. But it isn’t the kind of money needed for meaningful programatic evaluation. So, in its most recent report, Stanford was left to make do by asking various “stakeholders’ around the state—law enforcement, probation, district attorneys and such—for their opinions of how things were going with realignment. (And we wrote about the resulting report earlier this month.] All very well and good. But—as Petersilia would be the first to point out—opinions are not numbers.

Brian Goldstein (of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice) elaborates further on the numbers issue in his short but must read essay.

Here’s a clip:

Data analysis is the basic metric to measure the success or failure of public policy. Absent useable data, researchers, policymakers, and the general public cannot accurately judge whether an approach is working and must make uneducated guesses. For example, national polling finds that people often mistakenly exacerbate crime trends. In 2011 a majority of Americans believed crime was getting worse as the country was experiencing a steady 15-year decline. Crime data is the only way to fight the undue influence of misperception and anecdotal evidence.

Corporate America recognizes the need to develop long-term strategies for collection and utilization of data. Books on “Big Data” top bestseller lists and statisticians, such as Nate Silver, have well-deserved influence over electoral politics, business, and health practices. Unfortunately, government has been slow to use data analysis for decision-making.

Data collection standards remain a central issue in California-albeit one that rarely gets the attention it certainly deserves. California’s data collection systems, specifically in the criminal and juvenile justice field, demands continued attention and resources to best serve our state.

Specifically, Goldstein points out the failure to collect usable data that plagues California’s Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)—AKA the board that is specifically tasked by state law with such data gathering. To wit:

“The [BSCC] board shall seek to collect and make publicly available up-to-date data and information reflecting the impact of state and community correctional, juvenile justice, and gang-related policies and practices enacted in the state…” California Penal Code Section 6024-6031.6.

So do they?

Goldstein says, No. Not really.

In March 2013, the BSCC released the Third Annual Report to the Legislature on the Youthful Offender Block Grant. The report tracks YOBG expenditures, with a total $93.4 million given to California counties in FY 2011-12. However, with the release of the report, the BSCC admits significant challenges in tracking performance outcomes. They note,

“The nature of the data collected precludes our ability to draw inferences about cause and effect relationships between services and outcomes….

Collecting unusable data is unacceptable. Governor Brown, state legislators, and policy advocates must ensure that the BSCC has the staffing, resources, and leadership necessary to meet its mandate on data collection.

Yep. What he said.

INNOVATIVE SOLANO COUNTY FINDS SMART WAYS TO HELP HIGH RISK LAW BREAKING KIDS

Speaking of numbers: The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) has just released a new report that looks at the innovative juvenile programs in Solano County that specifically address high risk youth.

In the report, CJCJ analyzes seven years of data to determine how Solano’s programs have affected the post lock-up outcomes of the kids they served. The report also compares Solano’s cost per kid with those of the state.

Here’s a clip from a story on Solano’s programs by Selena Teji, CJCJ’s Communications and Policy Analyst:

…In 1959, Solano County dedicated itself to taking responsibility for its high-risk youth. Fouts Springs Youth Facility was built as a regional alternative to reliance on the state youth correctional system, and it accepted youth who had serious, violent delinquent histories and who had failed to successfully complete other placements. The decision to create a local custody option for high-risk youth was developed out of a recognition that youth eventually return to their communities, which made reentry planning and aftercare essential components of effective juvenile justice programming. Unfortunately, the state has not been able to provide adequate reentry services to the youth in its care due to the sparsity of its facilities and parole services.

A new study of youth served by Fouts Springs from 2005 to 2011 shows that not only was the program more successful than the state facilities, with a 35 percent recidivism rate compared to the state’s 75 percent recidivism rate, but it was also significantly cheaper to operate. Fouts Springs cost approximately $32,100 per youth for its average length of stay, whereas an average placement in the state youth correctional facilities costs around $778,500. While counties paid a nominal $213 per month to commit youth to the state facilities until 2012 (when a larger flat rate fee was introduced), a commitment to Fouts Springs would set a county back $4,200 per month. The fiscal disincentive paired with the decrease of youth crime statewide lessened the demand for a regional program and resulted in the closure of Fouts Springs in 2011.

Yet, Solano County has continued to aggressively pursue adaptable, individually-focused, holistic approaches to serving justice-involved youth…

Read the rest of the story at the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange.

$50,000 REWARD GOES TO $100K FOR INFORMATION REGARDING HIT & RUN DEATH OF POPULAR LA COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER

The Los Angeles City Council put up the first $50,000 and now LA County Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Gloria Molina pushed for another $50,000 to be added to the pot, in the hope of uncovering information leading to the arrest of the hit-and-run driver who caused the death of a well-like LA County Probation officer, high school coach, and father of three, Kenneth Hamilton last month.

CBS-2 News has more on the story. Here’s a clip:

Kenneth Hamilton, 54, was leaving his job at the Eastlake Juvenile Facility around 6 a.m. on Oct. 28 when he was hit at the intersection of Soto Street and Lancaster Avenue in Boyle Heights.

He died instantly, the Los Angeles Police Department said.

“Someone out there knows something, saw something or may even know the driver who fled,” Chief Probation Officer Jerry Powers said. “The reward money is a reminder that Los Angeles has not forgotten, the LAPD has not forgotten and that this crime must be solved and the driver brought to justice.”

Police identified the suspect vehicle as a late 1990s silver four-door Honda Civic DX from a side mirror that was sheared off in the crash.

“This is like losing one of our own,” LAPD Det. Michael Kaden said.

Anyone with information was asked to contact Det. Kaden at (213) 972-1837.

A SAN DIEGO JAIL’S ENCOURAGING NEW PROGRAM FOR VETERANS

San Diego County’s Vista Detention Facility has a separate wing (called the N-Module-3) for veterans who find themselves on the wrong side of the law. The N-Module-3 program “Veterans Moving Forward” offers the incarcerated vets—often wrestling with any combination of PTSD, substance abuse, and other issues—a chance to deal with the the struggles of life after active duty that helped put them behind bars, through daily classes, and by being in the company of other veterans.

The LA Times’ Tony Perry has the story. Here’s a clip:

Thirty-two veterans serving sentences or awaiting trial have volunteered to live in the module separate from the other prisoners and participate in classes meant to increase their chances of making a law-abiding return to civilian life.

“We’re all dedicated to making this work, nobody wants to go back,” said Jeremy Thomas, 22, who served with the Marines in Afghanistan and lost his left hand when a roadside bomb exploded.

Each of the veterans has agreed to take classes Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. to assist with problems of post-traumatic stress disorder, anger management, substance abuse, parenting and other issues.

“We hope that by putting them together we can rekindle that esprit de corps they had when they were serving their country,” said San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore, whose department runs the jails. “It’s a great population to work with.”

The program was spurred both by a sense of obligation toward the veterans and also an increased need to reduce recidivism to accommodate the state’s prison realignment program that threatens to overwhelm the capacity of local jails.

“We’ve got to do things differently,” Gore said.

Angela Simoneau, a social worker for the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Diego, said she and others participating in the program will be watching for numbers to support expanding the program to other local jails. “Data is on everyone’s mind,” she said.

And here’s a snip of what’s being done for incarcerated vets in LA County and the California prison system:

The California prison system does not house veterans separately from other prisoners but does encourage formation of veterans-only discussion groups at its 34 institutions, a spokesman said. VA “reentry specialists” regularly meet with prisoners on the verge of being released to tell them of benefits and therapy programs.

In Los Angeles County, where the Sheriff’s Department runs the largest jail system in the country, 291 prisoners are housed in veteran-only dorms where they participate in programs including Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous and classes in art, computers and relationship counseling.

The most recent national data is, unfortunately, almost ten years old (and doesn’t offer county jail statistics): a 2004 DOJ report revealed that one in ten federal and state prisoners had prior military service. Programming for these locked up veterans is a good step toward reducing recidivism in California’s overcrowded facilities and an important tool to help vets successfully return to civilian life.

FORMER 3RD-STRIKERS: A YEAR INTO PROP 36′S REFORMS

Since California’s three-strikes reform legislation passage about a year ago, over 1,000 people have been resentenced and subsequently freed.

KQED’s Michael Montgomery kept in touch with three men released under the measure. In this California Report story, Montgomery says Prop 36′s results are generally good so far, but many of the former third-strikers have served so much time, they are not put under county or state supervision, and often miss out on crucial reentry programs.

Here are some clips (but you should also listen to the podcast):

Convicted of stealing two car alarms from a Walgreens store, Richard Brown spent 18 years in prison under California’s notorious Three Strikes law. Then, quite suddenly, he was standing outside the gates of San Quentin earlier this year, a free man.

“They told me to get off the property,” he says. “I asked if there was a phone booth or something. They said no.”

For Robert Watts, who served 13 years for receiving stolen property, getting out of prison involved an emotional legal tangle with local prosecutors who insisted he was an unredeemed career criminal and should remain behind bars.

“It was unpleasant,” he says. “But at least it’s over.”

For both men, freedom came as the result of Proposition 36, the ballot initiative approved last year by voters in every county in California.

The measure changed the 1994 law that had allowed judges to impose life sentences for low-level felonies such as petty theft and drug possession. The new law focuses on serious and violent crimes. It’s also retroactive, allowing current inmates whose third strike was non-violent and non-serious to petition the courts for resentencing and possible release.

Opponents of the measure have argued that the original Three Strikes law worked well and contributed to a dramatic fall in violent crime over the past two decades. Granting some inmates early release, they said, would lead to a spike in crime…

But so far, Prop. 36 does not appear to be endangering public safety, according to a recent report by Stanford Law School and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Citing state data, the report concluded that of the more than 1,000 inmates released from prison under the measure, fewer than 2 percent have been charged with new crimes. By comparison, the average recidivism rate over a similar time period for non-Prop. 36 inmates is 16 percent.

[SNIP]

Several former three strikers say their challenge has been coping with life on the streets without the structure of prison and support normally provided to newly released felons.

Most three strikers who qualify for release have served so much extra time they’re not placed on parole or probation. Often that means that don’t have access to substance abuse, mental health and other re-entry programs as well as housing.

“They give you $200 and kick you out, and they don’t give you any type of papers to indicate that you can go down to this program or (that) program,” said Brown. He considers himself lucky to have a job, home and support network.

“For many people coming out, it’s a nightmare,” he said.

SCOTUS DISMISSES CASE CHALLENGING ALABAMA JUDGES’ ABILITY TO OVERTURN JURY DEATH PENALTY DECISIONS

On Monday, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case of an Alabama man who was sentenced to life in prison by a jury, only to have it overridden by the trial judge who then sentenced him to death. (Alabama is one of only three states that allows judges to reverse a jury’s decision in death penalty cases.)

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented.

The Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen says the court should have heard the case (Woodward v. Alabama) and ceased the state’s use of “judicial override.” Here are some clips:

If (as Alabama has done) you give judges the power to override jury verdicts in capital cases, and if (as Alabama also has done) you then make those judges accountable to public opinion by having judicial campaigns and elections, you are going to end up (as they have in Alabama) with judges who disproportionately feel it is in their self-interest to sentence people to death even when a jury has recommended a sentence of life.

Citing the trenchant work done in this area by Bryan Stevenson and the Equal Justice Initiative, Justice Sotomayor wrote that such a scenario must be unconstitutional…

One Alabama judge, who has overridden jury verdicts to impose the death penalty on six occasions, campaigned by running several advertisements voicing his support for capital punishment. One of these ads boasted that he had “‘presided over more than 9,000 cases, includ­ing some of the most heinous murder trials in our history,’” and expressly named some of the defendants whom he had sentenced to death, in at least one case over a jury’s contrary judgment…

By permitting a single trial judge’s view to displace that of a jury representing a cross-section of the community, Alabama’s sentencing scheme has led to curious and potentially arbitrary outcomes. For example, Alabama judges frequently override jury life-without-parole verdicts even in cases where the jury was unanimous in that ver­dict.In many cases, judges have done so without offering a meaningful explanation for the decision to disregard the jury’s verdict. In sentencing a defendant with an IQ of 65, for example, one judge concluded that “‘[t]he sociological literature suggests Gypsies intentionally test low on standard IQ tests.’”

Another judge, who was facing reelection at the time he sentenced a 19-year-old defend­ant, refused to consider certain mitigating circumstances found by the jury, which had voted to recommend a life­ without-parole sentence. He explained his sensitivity to public perception as follows: “‘If I had not imposed the death sentence I would have sentenced three black people to death and no white people.” (citations omitted by me).

(There’s more. Read on…)

Photo taken from the San Diego Sheriff’s website.

On Monday a panel of federal judges, in a surprising and heartening move, gave the Brown administration still one more month to work on coming up with a solid reform-minded plan to reduce the state’s prison population. The idea is to create a statewide program of reentry and rehabilitation programs that will slowly drop the population permanently by cutting down on return customers. This plan, if Brown & Co can hammer it out, would be in lieu of an extremely costly expansion the state’s prison system, through contracts with private prisons. .

The LA Times’ Paige St. John has more on the story of the Monday extension. Here’s a clip:

A panel of federal judges has given Gov. Jerry Brown an additional 28 days to come up with long-term solutions to the state’s prison crowding problems.

In an order issued Monday, the judges moved the deadline for California to remove about 9,600 inmates from state lockups to Feb. 24, adding almost a month to their last deadline of Jan. 27. It previously was Dec. 31.

They also ordered the state to continue negotiating for solutions with lawyers representing California’s 134,000 prisoners.

Monday was the deadline for a state appeals judge, Peter Siggins, who was assigned to mediate those confidential talks, to report on the two sides’ progress. Based on Siggins’ confidential update and recommendations, the federal panel ordered the negotiations to continue, with another update due Nov. 18, the jurists said in their signed order.

NATION’S POLICE CHIEFS WANT CRIME & JUSTICE COMMISSION

And..while we’re on the subject of the need for a smarter focus on reentry and recidivism, on Saturday in Philadelphia, at the four-day conference for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Philadelphia’s Chief Charles Ramsay called for a national commission to assess crime and justice in the United States, noting that the last time such a panel existed was in the 1960′s under Lyndon Johnson. Ramsey also noted that most other national law enforcement groups were calling for the commission as well.

The Crime Report…has the story. Here’s a clip:

...The IACP [International Association of Chiefs of Police] supported a proposal by former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to create a commission on criminal justice, but it fell three votes short of the number necessary to approve it in the Senate in the last Congress. Currently, U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) has proposed a commission to study the federal criminal justice system. In other remarks Saturday, Ramsey said that sufficient community resources must be assembled to provide services to inmates released in a drive by many advocates on both the left and right to reduce U.S. prison populations, or law enforcement’s “hard efforts to reduce crime may disappear….”

While WLA agrees that the overuse of commissions can be a waste of time, sometimes the right commission at the right time is exactly what is needed.

Webb’s proposal of the creation of a criminal justice commission is just such a case. After nearly 30 years of an unbalanced use of incarceration, there is a real push for intelligent criminal justice reform on the part of those looking most closely at the matter on both the left and the right. Yet, reform is still in its nascent stages. Thus a crime and justice commission could focus that early momentum in ways that could matter.

MORE ON GOVERNOR’S VEXING VETO OF “COMMUNITY SCHOOLS” REFORM BILL

The Center for Public Integrity’s Susan Ferris has been following the problems created by unnecessarily transferring kids to alternative “community schools”—especially when they live far from the schools that all too often keep track of the students poorly, causing them to slip through the educational cracks.

Experts on the topic are very unhappy at Jerry Brown’s veto of a bill that would have reformed the program.

Ferris explains.

Here are some clips:

California Gov. Jerry Brown has upset school discipline reform advocates by vetoing a bill that would have made it tougher to transfer students to alternative “community” schools. Brown said he was deferring to “the skill and good faith” of local educators.

Reform advocates, including some prominent educators and law-enforcement officials, say such student transfers are sometimes poorly planned, and carried out before a child gets proper counseling or other services at home schools. They also claim too many transfers end up depriving struggling students of an equal education and increase risks they will drop out rather than succeed.

The proposal that Brown vetoed on Oct. 12 was Senate Bill 744 authored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat of Bell Gardens. Lara said he’s concerned by estimates that more than one-third of the tens of thousands of students moved into alternative community campuses every year end up dropping out.

The majority of these students are from low income families and are Latino or black. Some are moved into the alternative campuses as punishment for violating school rules. Many others are involuntarily transferred to alternative settings because they’re behind academically or judged to be truant.

Lara’s bill would have stopped involuntary transfers of homeless students to alternative campuses. And it would have required that transferred students’ home districts confirm there is actually space for students at alternative schools and that those campuses can handle the students’ needs. The proposal would have also prohibited community schools from imposing new requirements that block students from returning to their school of origin once original transfer terms are met.

SB 744 would have also required that students involuntarily transferred be reassigned to community schools that are “geographically accessible.”

Earlier this year, the Center for Public Integrity reported on the hidden reality of California students reassigned to county-run community schools so far away — 20 to 40 miles from their homes – that their working parents were unable to transport kids to and from campuses.

Parents told the Center they felt forced to put children on home-study programs that allow county schools to collect five days’ worth of attendance-based funding for students, but leave kids at home most of the week to educate themselves. Other students whose parents are farmworkers never made it to far-off alternative schools, and had to drop out.

One of them, a 14-year-old girl, was readmitted to her regular school this month only after an intervention by local community organizers and publication of the Center’s reports. Erika Brooks of the Dolores Huerta Foundation, a community-organizing group in Kern County, said the cases of two other students languishing out of school are still under review.

There’s lots more so read on here.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS HEAR TESTIMONY ON SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

In a meeting between the California Senate and Assembly public safety committees on Wednesday, lawmakers heard testimony from CDCR officials, inmate advocates, and a former Security Housing Units (SHU) resident on the humaneness and practicality of solitary confinement in state prison. The hearing, hosted by State Senator Loni Hancock and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, came after a historic 59-day state-wide prisoner hunger strike over SHU conditions and protocol, among other things.

(For some of the backstory, go here.)

KPCC’s Rina Palta has the story. Here’s a clip:

“I wonder if there’s been any reduction in gang membership as a result of putting so many people in SHU,” Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner said to officials from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

“I don’t know that that’s the case at all,” said CDCR Deputy Director Michael Stainer. Stainer said CDCR lacked the resources to keep real data that would track the results of policies like the SHU.

Stainer also said it’s too early to tell whether a policy change that’s granted the release of about 343 SHU inmates to the general prison population so far has had any negative effects on prison safety.

“We need this informational gathering system to judge whether or not these policies are effective,” Stainer said.

Stainer estimated housing an inmate in a SHU costs about $15,000-$20,000 more per year than housing an inmate in a high-security general population yard.

Lawmakers also questioned prison officials about conditions inside the SHUs — whether inmate complaints about food are justified, whether inmates are allotted visitations and whether mentally-ill inmates can participate in group therapy sessions.

CDCR Deputy Director Kelly Harrington explained that inmates participate in group therapy while in individual, cage-like “treatment modules.” Similarly, SHU inmates in some prisons, like Corcoran, exercise in outdoor cages.

“I’ve got to say this,” Ammiano said. “There’s just so many comparisons to a zoo. Feeding terms, ‘treatment modules.’ I don’t know, we’ve got to do something about that.”

California Congressional Representatives Tony Cardenas and Karen Bass sent a letter Wednesday before the hearing, cheering on the state Senators and Assemblymen and stressing the importance of these hearings. Here’s a clip from the letter, which WitnessLA obtained:

We are very pleased to hear that you will be holding a Joint Hearing in the Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committees on the conditions in California prisons. As leaders in California’s state legislative bodies, you have an important platform with which you can review these pressing issues and encourage changes to our correctional system that promote effective rehabilitation of California’s prison population.

We have serious concerns with the solitary confinement of inmates, often for indefinite periods of time. Beyond the question of whether the physical and social isolation of individuals in a cell for 22-24 hours per day qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, it has been recognized as leading to or intensifying mental illness among inmates. In fact, individuals in solitary confinement attempt suicide at higher rates than those who are in the general population, further showing that this practice is counterproductive to rehabilitation efforts.

BILL TO INCREASE EX-INMATES’ ACCESS TO MEDI-CAL

AB 720, a bill still awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s deliberation, would suspend inmates’ Medi-Cal while they are behind bars, rather than the terminating their coverage as current law dictates. It would also allow inmates to enroll in Medi-Cal that will kick in upon their release.

An LA Times editorial calling on Gov. Brown to sign AB 720, says the bill would help reduce gaps in medical care for California’s mentally ill, lower recidivism rates, and save counties money.

Here are some clips from the editorial:

When people leave jail without medical coverage, their ailments often go untreated and they wind up in the emergency room with more expensive, acute problems. The ultimate cost usually ends up being covered by taxpayers in any case because hospitals can sign them up for Medi-Cal retroactively. What’s more, former jail inmates who suffer from mental health issues and substance-abuse problems but who don’t receive treatment are more likely to end up back in jail, according to studies of jail populations in Florida and Washington.

[SNIP]

The changes are sensible and will increase the continuity of care while reducing recidivism. Currently, many people fail to re-enroll in Medi-Cal when they are released from jail, often because they are too ill, mentally or physically, to navigate the process.

The bill could also help counties save money by providing local law enforcement agencies greater flexibility in managing their jail populations, especially those inmates who are mentally ill but not considered dangerous. In L.A. County, an estimated 15% of inmates suffer from some form of mental illness, and taxpayers spend about $160 a day to house them — nearly twice the cost of housing other inmates. If more of those inmates were covered, the county might be able to release them and divert them to more effective and less costly programs.

REFORM PACKAGE TO INCREASE FOSTER AND HOMELESS YOUTHS’ ACCESS TO COLLEGE

Before the present government shutdown, the Senate Committee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions (HELP) held the first in a set of hearings on higher education.

Foster care journalist/advocate Daniel Heimpel, in his publication, The Chronicle of Social Change, explains how the hearings will provide a podium for foster child advocates to push a reform package to make attending college more feasible for foster and homeless youth.

Here’s a clip from Heimpel’s story:

While yet to be scheduled, subsequent hearings will cover issues such as college affordability, student access and financial aid, and will influence the re-authorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), which governs the disbursement of federal monies to universities and student assistance programs.

[SNIP]

“We need all hands on deck when it comes to these young people,” said Barbara Duffield, policy director at the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth.

Duffield, who has already corralled 17 national groups including the Alliance for Children and Families and the National Alliance to End Homelessness, is advocating for reform package that would improve outcomes for foster and homeless youth by removing barriers to financial aid, making college more affordable and building up supports for college retention.

One of the recommendations calls for federal programs to better identify, recruit and prepare homeless and foster students for college. This would entail amending the TRIO and GEAR-UP programs — which are both administered by the Department of Education and aim to improve college access and retention of disadvantaged and first generation students — to explicitly include students in foster care and those who are homeless.

“I have certainly heard many [foster] youth say that they didn’t even know college was a possibility,” said Jessica Feierman, a supervising attorney at the Juvenile Law Center, one of the advocacy groups supporting the recommendations. “Unless someone reaches out, they often won’t know they have this option. Including these provisions is extremely valuable.”

Even in a state like California, which is often pointed to as a leader in helping foster youth through high school and onto college, the majority of students in foster care remain woefully underprepared for college.

Only 45 percent will graduate from high school compared to 79 percent of the general student population, according to a report released in May. While three quarters of foster youth in one California survey reported the goal of attending college, national studies have shown that only 3-11 percent will ever receive a bachelor’s degree.

LA COUNTY SUPES VOTE TO PUMP $90M INTO JAILS

On Tuesday, the LA County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved $89.8M three-year jail fund to carry out many of the reforms recommended by the Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence in September 2012. (We would still sure like to see a very rigorous forensic audit done on the Sheriff’s Dept., in general, and the custody division, specifically, but that’s just us.)

The LA Times’ Abby Sewell has the story. Here’s a clip:

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has faced federal scrutiny and a barrage of lawsuits over allegations that there has been a pattern of mistreatment of inmates by jailers and deputies.

The money approved Tuesday will go to hire 130 staff members, including more supervisors in the jails, lieutenants to oversee use-of-force investigations, internal affairs and training staff, and to install more cameras to capture the actions of inmates and guards.

Separately, the board is moving to hire an inspector general for the Sheriff’s Department as recommended by the jail violence commission. Supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas and Gloria Molina have also proposed setting up a permanent citizens’ oversight commission, but the proposal has so far failed to get support from the rest of the board.

And by the way, on Wednesday, LA County Superior Court Judge Michelle Rosenblatt blocked an attempt by the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs to prevent the LA Times from publishing LASD deputies’ background screening files. (Read about the decision here.)

ACLU SAYS PRISON PLANNING MEETINGS SHOULD BE OPEN TO PUBLIC

Quite a number of people are unhappy with the secrecy that Gov. Jerry Brown is operating under regarding state’s efforts to lower the prison population by 9400 inmates, including his new deal with the for-profit prison company Corrections Corporation of America.

The ACLU has sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown asking him to grant the public access to his currently closed-door meetings about how the state will comply with the federal court order. (Go here for WLA’s Sunday post on Gov. Brown’s costly proposal to lease for-profit prisons to house inmates.)

The LA Times Paige St. John has more on the issue. Here’s a clip:

Details of the plans are being hashed out away from public view — even Assembly Budget Committee Chairwoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) said last week that she was in the dark on the matter.

[Updated, 11:28 a.m. PDT Aug. 26: Brown's office would not respond to questions about the lack of public discussion. Instead, said spokesman Jim Evans, "the administration is working on a range of options with the Legislature to comply [with] the court order while maintaining public safety.”]

“It is crucial this policy receive a complete and thorough review giving constituents and stakeholders a chance to express their opinions,” ACLU of California officials Francisco Lobaco and Kimberly Horiuchi wrote in a joint letter delivered to Brown late Friday. They called for public legislative hearings.

They argued that Brown is about to make an “ill-advised expenditure of critical tax dollars” to fix problems present for a long time.

CALIFORNIA PROBATION DEPTS. CREATE INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO KEEP THOSE SUPERVISED UNDER REALIGNMENT FROM RE-OFFENDING

Probation departments across California are developing new re-entry programs and resources—from “motivational interviewing,” to “re-entry pods,” to day-reporting centers—offered to offenders under county supervision through realignment. Although it is too soon to tell which strategies are effectively combatting recidivism, it is heartening to see more being done to aid inmates with the transition back into their communities.

Gillian Flaccus of the Associated Press has the story. Here’s a clip:

When Yen Ly was released from behind bars this spring, she assumed it wouldn’t be long before she began committing credit card fraud again to keep up with bills while feeding a devastating meth habit.

This time, however, was different. Five months later, the 29-year-old single mother who had been convicted twice for identity theft is a fulltime beauty school student, performs community service and has consistently tested clean for drugs.

Ly also is on the leadership committee of a special center where low-level ex-cons can take classes, learn parenting skills, get job training and complete drug and alcohol counseling — all in the same place. She said the program gave her structure and confidence and helped her grow as a parent.

“I feel as if they’re giving me a second chance and I’m not going to waste it,” Ly said. “I’ve gone this far and I don’t want to go back.”

Ly is one of thousands of lower-level felons in California being supervised by local authorities instead of state parole officers under a recent law that overhauled the state’s criminal justice system. Under the so-called realignment law, counties — and not the state — now bear the responsibility for housing inmates convicted of most non-serious, non-sexual and non-violent felonies and for watching them after their release.

[SNIP]

As a result, counties have been developing new strategies to keep felons from re-offending, which would now land them in already-overcrowded county lock-ups instead of state prison.

In less than two years, county probation departments more accustomed to handcuffs than hand-holding have entered a new world in which buzzwords such as “motivational interviewing” and “cognitive-behavioral therapy” are routine, and role-playing and journal-writing for ex-cons are an accepted part of doing business.

Probation departments in many counties, including Orange, have used the state funding that accompanied realignment to set up day-reporting centers where offenders can get everything from job training to parenting tips to help getting a new driver’s license. Others have created networks between county mental health departments, law enforcement, homeless shelters and local substance abuse treatment programs to respond to inmates’ needs.

WWLA? SHOW ON FOSTER CARE HOUSING SHORTAGE IN LOS ANGELES

Monday night, KCRW’s Warren Olney, on his show Which Way, LA? hosted a discussion with the LA Times’ Garrett Therolf, the director of the Department of Children and Family Services Philip Browning, and Andrew Bridge of the Child Welfare Initiative in response to Therolf’s Sunday report on California’s critical lack of sufficient beds for foster care children. (For WLA’s previous post, go here.) Here’s a very small clip (but do go listen to the whole thing):

Olney: Garrett reports that it sometimes takes a hundred calls from a social worker to place a child. Mr. Browning, why does it take so many?

Browning: Well, one of the problems is that we don’t have as many foster parents as we need. About five years ago, we had 2000 state-licensed parents. Today, we have 540. Five years ago, we had about 4500 homes through the agency concept, this year—this month—we have less than 3000. So, we’ve had almost a 50% drop in our capacity…

SHERIFF’S CANDIDATE UPDATES

Recommended listening: KABC radio’s Doug McIntyre interviewed LA County Sheriff candidate Patrick Gomez on his show Monday morning. (Fast-forward to about the 6:50 minute-mark for Gomez’s interview.)

BILL WOULD GIVE MANY CALIFORNIA JUVENILES SENTENCED AS ADULTS FOR MURDER A SECOND CHANCE

SB 260, a bill authored by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), would build on last year’s SB 9, the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act, by giving a second chance to many inmates who committed crimes as teenagers and were tried as adults and sentenced to adult prison.

The bill is “on suspense“ in the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. Members of the Committee will decide if the bill will move forward or die next week.

AP’s Don Thompson has more on the bill. Here’s a clip:

The bill by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, expands on legislation signed into law last year that gives a second chance to inmates who committed murder before they turned 18 and were sentenced to life without parole.

Hancock’s bill covers other offenders and requires the Board of Parole Hearings to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles” and to signs that they have matured in prison. Parole commissioners also would have to individually counsel offenders about the steps they should take to earn their freedom.

Under the bill, SB260, inmates who committed such crimes as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as teenagers would be presumed eligible for parole after 15 years unless officials believe they present a threat to public safety. Inmates also could ask for release after serving 25 years for first-degree murder if the sentence included the possibility of parole.

“If you’re a 15-year-old when you’re convicted of even a very serious crime, by the time you’re 35 you’re going to be a different person,” Hancock said in an interview. “Those who don’t significantly change in prison are not going to be eligible for this program or this opportunity.”

The bill has the backing of Scott Budnick, executive producer of “The Hangover” comedy movies, who has gained national attention for mentoring juvenile offenders through his nonprofit Anti-Recidivism Coalition [which WLA reported on here].

Here’s a clip from the bill text:

The Legislature finds and declares that, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama (2012)…”only a relatively small proportion of adolescents” who engage in illegal activity “develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior,” and that “developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds,” including “parts of the brain involved in behavior control.” The Legislature recognizes that youthfulness both lessens a juvenile’s moral culpability and enhances the prospect that, as a youth matures into an adult and neurological development occurs, these individuals can become contributing members of society.

The purpose of this act is to establish a parole eligibility mechanism that provides a person serving a sentence for crimes that he or she committed as a juvenile the opportunity to obtain release when he or she has shown that he or she has been rehabilitated and gained maturity…

SHERIFF BACA’S SENTENCE-REDUCING CLASSES BILL MAKES IT THROUGH SENATE

And on the local level, Sheriff Lee Baca has requested a bill that would allow inmates serving time for non-violent offenses to cut time off their sentences by taking classes to help them prepare for reentry into communities.

The bill, AB 624, was passed by the state Senate but must now be approved by the Assembly before reaching Governor Brown’s desk.

Patrick McGreevy of the LA Times has the story. Here’s a clip:

A bill requested by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca was approved this week by the state Senate. It would allow county jail inmates to earn sentence-reducing credits if they complete classes to improve their employability, literacy or social skills.

Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) said it makes sense to allow credits for non-violent felons sent to jails instead of prisons under a state realignment plan.

“Let’s equip sheriffs with tools to help inmates function better before they’re released back into our communities,” Mitchell said recently. “New skills, better behavior, improved employment prospects will, hopefully, reduce recidivism and make communities safer.”

LANCASTER COUPLE SHOT BY LASD TEAM AWARDED $4.1 MILLION

Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia, the once-homeless couple shot by an LASD “COPS HIT” team that was looking for a parolee who had AWOLed from drug rehab, was awarded $4.1 million by a judge who ruled their civil rights were violated. (WitnessLA previously reported on the incident here.)

KTLA has the story (and a video).

And for back story on the Lancaster shooting, read this notable LA Weekly April piece by Patrick Range McDonald.

RECOMMENDED READING: RACE AGAINST TIME FOR ANONYMOUS TEENAGE GUNSHOT VICTIM

The LA Times’ Thomas Curwen has an excellent chronicle of a UCLA Medical Center trauma surgeon’s fight for a young gunshot victim’s life. Here are a couple of clips:

The season of shootings has begun on time. Last year, from July through September, this Torrance hospital treated 107 gunshot victims, the highest number in the county.

This year, four GSWs — medical shorthand for gunshot wounds — arrived on the first day of summer. One was a suicide and three were assaults. Three died and one would probably be discharged in a few days.

Now, on June 23, two more have come in, both teenagers, both assaults. They walked through the front door at 2:25 a.m., no EMTs, no police. The hospital staff calls it the homeboy ambulance service: patients brought in with injuries often from gang shootings.

Putnam can see that one of the boys will be OK. He has a clean wound through the shoulder.

The boy with the nickel-sized bullet hole is far worse, and they know nothing about him. No name, no age, no family. For now, they call him Zinc, one of the pseudonyms the hospital uses for its John Does.

[SNIP]

The emergency room team washes the boy with an antiseptic. He has been intubated and anesthetized. Blood transfusions have begun.

“Sticky blues,” Putnam calls out. No time to wait for the antiseptic to dry. Nurses drape blue cloths around the boy until he disappears, with only a torso remaining.

Putnam, dressed in surgical scrubs, gloves, cap and headlamp, makes the initial incision from sternum to pubic bone, bowing around the navel.

Chief resident Carrie Luu follows the scalpel with a “Bovie,” a pen-shaped tool that cauterizes the open blood vessels with electrical current. The air smells of singed flesh; tendrils of smoke rise into the lights.

(Go read the rest.)

Photo courtesy Andrew Bardwell.

“GIDEON’S ARMY”—THE PLIGHT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

On Monday, HBO aired a terrific new documentary called “Gideon’s Army” that takes a look at the world of public defenders, attorneys representing those that cannot afford to hire their own defense attorney.

The NY Times and the NY Daily News both raved about the film. (WitnessLA has seen it, and we like it, too.) Here’s a clip from NYT’s Stephen Holden’s review:

The title of Dawn Porter’s stirring documentary, “Gideon’s Army,” refers to the legion of idealistic public defenders fighting for equal justice in a land where not everybody can afford a high-priced defense attorney. That army is named after Clarence Earl Gideon, who was arrested in 1961 for stealing soda and a few dollars from a pool hall in Panama City, Fla.

Convicted of theft after representing himself at trial, Gideon appealed the verdict to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in a landmark 1963 decision, Gideon v. Wainwright, that the right to counsel in criminal court is fundamental to the American system of justice.

The decision ushered in a nationwide system of public defenders representing clients who are too poor to pay for their legal defense. Today the disparity between the haves and have-nots is such that most of the 12 million people arrested in the United States each year will be represented by one of the country’s 15,000 public defenders.

[SNIP]

The film devotes most of its attention to Travis Williams and Brandy Alexander, public defenders in Georgia who dedicate their lives to representing America’s underclass. It is emotionally grueling work in which both struggle to maintain their humanity. In the words of Mr. Williams, who handles 120 cases at a time and has no room left for a personal life, “Everybody’s in an emergency state.”

(By the way, HBO will be airing it again Wednesday morning at 11:15a.m. and at 8:00p.m., and it is also on HBO On Demand.)

WHY LA COUNTY NEEDS TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM ON SPLIT SENTENCING—NOW

Through split sentencing, a person convicted of a non-serious felony serving time in county jail under realignment, would serve part of their sentence in jail and the other part on probation in the community. This sentencing alternative is not widely used in LA County, but is seeing success in the surrounding counties.

An LA Times editorial explains in clear terms why “split sentencing” would be a helpful tool to chop at LA County’s recidivism rates and free up beds in the jails. Here are some clips:

Today, defendants convicted of felonies defined by law as violent, serious or sexual continue to go to state prison; and despite widespread public misunderstanding and assertions to the contrary by officials who ought to know better, defendants convicted of lesser felonies also go to state prison if they have rap sheets that include past violent, serious or sexual offenses.

But since October 2011, newly convicted “non-non-non” felons — those whose offenses are not violent, serious or sexual — with no current or previous record of serious convictions go to county jail. Just like their counterparts in state prison, they will serve their time, get out and return to their communities.

And then what? The addicted and the mentally ill will most likely remain untreated; they and other inmates badly in need of life skills, anger management counseling or similar programs will leave jail at complete liberty, with an unstructured reentry into society. Their prospects for success — shunning trouble, getting work, leading productive, crime-free lives, leaving their neighbors safe — will be about the same as those of felons returning from state prison: not good.

[SNIP]

AB 109, the criminal justice realignment laws adopted in 2011 that gave counties new responsibilities over low-level felons, also proposed a reinvention of the reentry process to deal with criminal recidivism. Defendants could receive what is known as a “split sentence,” with a portion of the time to be served in jail and another portion to be served in the community, under supervision by probation officers who would monitor mandatory participation in rehabilitation and other programs. The period served under supervision in the community, after release from jail, is known as a “tail.”

[SNIP]

So how tightly is the state’s largest jurisdiction, Los Angeles County, embracing the opportunities presented by split sentencing? This county is bottom of the barrel, with a supervised tail in only 4% of sentences.

The reasons for the failure to use this proven tool are unimpressive. Defense lawyers and prosecutors are used to bargaining over custody time, not negotiating for tails. Defendants would rather do their time and return to the streets at full liberty. Prosecutors would rather maximize custody time than require post-custody programming. Judges defer to the lawyers’ plea bargains when sentencing. The focus is shortsighted, aimed at efficient processing, not structured reentry or breaking the cycle of recidivism. The leader of a committee made up of local law enforcement officers, judges and county service providers told the Board of Supervisors last week that he expects no change in the number of split sentences here.

(Go read the rest of this worthwhile editorial.)

MILLER V. ALABAMA AND THE PATH TO APPROPRIATE SENTENCING FOR KIDS

A year ago, SCOTUS ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing for children was unconstitutional, but did not strike down LWOP for youth altogether.

Jody Kent Lavy, director and national coordinator for Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, says in an op-ed at the Post and Courier that while Miller was an important win in the fight for fair sentencing for kids (whose brains are not fully developed and should not be treated the same as adults), there is still a long road ahead. For instance, while some states have thrown out sentencing kids to LWOP, the federal government has done little to address the issue. Here are some clips:

A year ago last week, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that it is unconstitutional to impose on a child a mandatory sentence of life without parole. The court stopped short of striking down all life-without-parole sentences for children but required that judges consider a child’s maturity, home environment, role in the crime, potential for rehabilitation and other key factors before ordering this harsh penalty.

Miller was the third Supreme Court ruling in three years to reaffirm the notion that children who run afoul of the law cannot be treated the same way as adults without consideration of their status as children because science tells us — as all parents know — they are fundamentally different.

[SNIP]

Miller struck down the statutes in at least 29 states, many of which have considered changes to comply with the ruling. Some states have focused on approaches that would impose the next-harshest available sentence. A few states — including Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Washington and Wyoming — have pursued compliance more broadly, seeking reforms that provide periodic reviews of sentences for youths convicted of serious crimes. This approach reflects the notion that children should be held accountable in ways that ensure they will have a second chance at life, increasing the likelihood that they will be motivated to change and be productive members of society when they return home. The federal government, however, has been silent about addressing this issue.

The Campaign for Fair Sentencing for Youth also has this relevant report on the issue.