California Budget Juvenile Justice Prison Policy State Government State Politics

Correcting Corrections

prison-bars

SHOULD WE RISK MAKING CALIFORNIA’S PRISONS BIG BIZ?

(Short answer: No.)

In his State of the State speech on Wednesday (Schwarzenegger’s last) the governor was impassioned about wishing to spend more on higher education that we do on prisons, which is very laudable.

However, there is one surefire way to cut the corrections budget in order to free up money for our CSUs and UCs: When we send people to prison, we need to do what is necessary to insure that, when they get out, they don’t come back again. We’ve got a 70 plus percent recidivism rate in the state. Imagine if we could cut that by a third; what a fiscal difference that would make!

We also need sentencing reform. (Just yesterday, one of my lawyer friends told me about the case she’d witnessed earlier in the week in which two women who were sentenced to 32 months in prison for stealing what was, at the most, $25 worth of pillowcases from Walmart. Lock them up, sure. But for more than 2 years? Not smart. )

But is the governor proposing any such reforms? Nope.

He’s got another way to reverse the corrections v. college budget problem. He wants to privatize the California prison system.

This is…how to put it?… a truly hideous idea. Think a profit-driven Blackwater running the state’s lock ups. (Do we really want to actively incentivize NOT rehabilitating prisoners?)

Here and here you’ll find some of what happened when federal immigration facilities got privatized.

State Assemblyman Ted Lieu has it right:

Religious institutions across the board condemn private prisons as both inhumane and ineffective. The Presbyterian Church USA stated that “Since the goal of for-profit private prisons is earning a profit for their shareholders, there is a basic and fundamental conflict with the concept of rehabilitation as the ultimate goal of the prison system . . . for-profit private prisons should be abolished.” Catholic Bishops in a resolution stated that “We bishops question whether private, for-profit corporations can effectively run prisons. The profit motive may lead to reduced efforts to change behavior, treat substance abuse, and offer skills necessary for reintegration into the community.

Private prisons are also dangerous, both to prisoners and to the public. In 2003 a report by Grassroots Leadership detailed a range of failures by CCA, [Corrections Corp of America] a for-profit private prison company, including: failure to provide adequate medical care to prisoners; failure to control violence in its prisons; and escapes.

Legislators are, thankfully, skeptical. (And the union—the CCPOA—is aghast. For once I agree with them)


HOW FAR DO HABEAS RIGHTS EXTEND?

Last year three detainees being held in the U.S. prison at Bagram Air Base 40 miles north of Kabul, Afghanistan, challenged whether the Habeas rights accorded prisoners in Guantanamo should extend to other prisons where the U.S. is holding captives. In response, Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the detainees whose circumstances, he said, justified access to U.S. courts to challenge their ongoing detention. The Justice Department appealed the ruling, and the appellate case came to court this week.

Thus on Thursday, three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struggled to parse out what was really meant by the Boumediene decision, which in 2008 granted Habeas rights to those held Guantanamo.

SCOTUSBlog has one good analysis of the parsing that is taking place.

Then the story in Friday’s WaPo describes the decided uneasiness with which the three judges are grappling with the lower court’s decision.

And if you still want more,
the Blog of the Legal Times has a nicely pithy take on Thursday’s arguments.


TWO MORE JUVENILE LIFERS

On Wednesday, two young men, Steven Menendez, 17, and Jose Garcia, 19, were given sentences of 50 to life for the 2007 murder of 16-year-old Danny Saavedra, who was playing basketball when he was shot. Menendez and Garcia were 14 and 16 years old when they got into a car with a 26-year-old gang member who did the shooting. Menendez and Garcia have always contended they had no idea that the gangster was up to until the firing began, that he told them the group would “go look for girls.”

The Youth Justice Coalition and some other juvenile advocacy groups have been following Menendez and Garcia’s case very closely, and were very disheartened by the sentencing.

The mother of the murdered boy feels justice was served.

The LA Times Molly Hennessy-Fisk has written a short but well-balanced story that points beyond itself to the question of whether we are really better off for handing out such long sentences to juveniles offenders such as Menendez and Garcia.


“HE’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU”

And in what is far and away my favorite legal decision of the week, on Thursday a panel for the 2nd Circuit opined about what constitutes a “significant romantic relationship.” The case had to do with a condition of parole for a middle-aged guy with no previous record of domestic violence, sexual offenses, or anything related, who had been labeled a sex offender when in the course of an unrelated arrest for some financial shenanigans, cops found among the guy’s porn collection, three DVDs of child porn. (Okay, so, yeah, that does certainly legally qualify him as a sex offender.)

The problem came when, as a condition of his parole, the guy, whose name is Lamont Reeves, was required if he entered into a “significant romantic relationship,” to notify the object of his affections about the nature of his offense.

Mr. Reeves appealed that portion of his parole conditions. The 2nd Circuit judges sided with Reeves, and mentioned both Jane Austin’s Mansfield Park and the film, “He’s Just Not That Into You,” among other works to make their collective point. To wit:

We easily conclude that people of common intelligence (or, for that matter, of high intelligence) would find it impossible to agree on the proper application of a release condition triggered by entry into a “significant romantic relationship.” What makes a relationship “romantic,” let alone “significant” in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be “significant.” The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings. See, e.g., Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Marriage of Figaro (1786); Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (Thomas Egerton, 1814); When Harry Met Sally (Columbia Pictures 1989); He’s Just Not That Into You (Flower Films 2009).

Well said, 2nd Circuit! (The full opinion may be found here.)

(Thanks to the always wonderful Howard Bashman at How Appealing for the legal and literary discovery.)

33 Comments

  • So let’s say you get into one of these “romantic relationships” Celeste and your new love doesn’t tell you he’s had a past problem with viewing “kiddie porn”. You later find out and do what? You’d be ok with that? Isn’t truth a part of this type of relationship? I wouldn’t think someone would have to lay out there whole sex life but something criminal or out of the ordinary isn’t something you think should be brought to your attention in this type setting?

    This line of yours, (Okay, so, yeah, that does certainly legally qualify him as a sex offender.) is something I’d expect from Mark Leno who thinks possessing a little bit of child porn is ok but an educated woman like you? The guy watches “kiddie porn” Celeste, any idea how much of that can fit on 3 dvd’s?

    Geez.

  • Surefire, you might want to read the opinion. It has a lot of details that I didn’t have the space to include.

    Of course I agree with your points, on a relational level. But not on a legal level. There are a whole heck of a lot of things I’d be mighty upset if someone with whom I was involved kept from me, a conviction for owning kiddie porn prominently included. For instance, I’d kinda want to know if he had a past as a bigamist, a hit and run driver, an endangered species poacher, or an embezzler. But I wouldn’t expect such disclosures to be adjudicated.

    More than anything, this is an issue about language. And I quite agree with the justices that the language of the parole condition was, by its nature, too indistinct to be equitably enforceable. Plus I just plain liked the wording of the ruling.

  • http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/detention_center_blues/

    “The potential for abuse worsened as the number of undocumented immigrant detainees exploded from 5,532 in 1994 to 20,000 in 2001. Faced with mounting costs, INS began contracting with private companies, states and counties. But the resulting patchwork of federal, private and local responsibility created even less accountability, says Dow, and in effect helped further shield INS from public scrutiny.”

    *************************

    I now see how illegal immigrants help provide jobs in the USA.

  • Here is one way to reduce drug related arrests, I’m sure El Monte will no longer have any drug users and drug dealers.


    http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_14144108


    EL MONTE – Speaking Thursday at the funeral Mass of Agustin Roberto “Bobby” Salcedo, Cardinal Roger Mahony urged the city’s elected leaders and community to make the city drug free as a tribute to the slain educator.

  • One governor knows how to run a state.

    Montana Governor Orders Cut in Spending (and,he’s a Democrat?!!)

    The Governor, a Democrat, called the spending cuts “pro-active measures to make sure we live within our means.” Imagine that. More remarkable is that Montana is one of three states—North Dakota and Texas are the others—without a budget deficit.

  • WTF, you have to expect a little zaniness from the Cardinal who built the `Our Lady of Perpetual Sexual Abuse.’

  • Well Woody, the flip side of Montana balancing its budget is, it did so by ending the California-style Prop 13 where property taxes are fixed to when you bought the house, which made property taxes skyrocket upto 100-fold, and seniors are losing their homes or selling because they can’t afford the new taxes; real estate prices are plummeting. Even though they were nowhere near L A’s to begin with, but it’s a canary in the mine for those wanting to abolish Prop 13 altogether. The state is being blasted all over for this.

    Just MAYBE you should do a little research and get a fuller background on issues before you post the first “ah-ha, so there! California!” link that pops into your head.

  • SBL, I don’t need to do any more research to see that cutting spending is a good step to balancing a budget. What you brought up is an entirely different issue. But, since you’re so concerned about people losing their homes, you surely support the permanent elimination of estate taxes so that heirs don’t have to sell family farms to pay the government for the inheritance tax.

    Your “ah-ha” moment with me was pathetic.

  • Quick question, Woody; who is the driving force behind the elimination of the estate tax?

    Hint: it ain’t Bill Gates.

  • Woody, you’re touting Montana for balancing the budget by raising taxes in a draconian way, on elderly citizens – something you oppose as a core principal. You’re the one who’s making a “pathetic” comment as usual.

    Usually I leave you to reg or the others, but once in a while you really are so pointlessly illogical as well as blinded by dogma, you ask for it to be pointed out to you. When like your brainless masters Limbaugh and Colter you go on denouncing global warning as a socialist plot, and evolution as a silly theory and so on, we leave you to it, as an argument AGAINST your side. BUT once in a while you just ask for it. .

  • Woody, check out Montana and CI-99, which would have capped annual property tax hikes at 1.5% and allowed reappraisals only when property was sold (as in CA with Prop 13) not every 7 years. This measure never made it onto the ballot, in what progressives hail was a victory against regressive taxation. Combined with various “one-time only” taxes the way Montana balanced its budget is actually something a true conservative like yourself should decry not hail, IF your endless CA-bashing had any logic behind it.

    As I said on the thread re: Beverly Hills schools & permits, I think Prop 13 should be tweaked so that affluent people in mansions paying a pittance in taxes can’t also exert such political sway against their city’s building/commercial development plans that they kill all sources of tax revenue even as they demand exemplary services, but I don’t agree with those who want to totally abolish Prop 13, which reg and others on this blog, including I think Celeste, have advocated. I can respect anyone’s right to differ or hold other opinions but in this case it just struck me that you’re making no sense, or even less than usual.

  • who is the driving force behind the elimination of the estate tax?

    It is congress failing to extend the sunsetted Bush tax reform. But it doesn’t eliminate it – it just eliminates it for 2010, after which it comes back in its full, confiscatory glory in 2011 – 65% and very low exceptions.

  • Thanks to the Democrats, if you’re a senior citizen and want to pass what you built onto your kids rather than the government, you better die in 2010.

    – – –

    Ann Coulter must have met SBL.

    “If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said — unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.”

  • Woody, do you realize that the quote you selected to epitomize Coulter’s pithy wisdom actually makes her sound like even more of a loon than we all know she is? What “liberals” is this loon referring to, as limited to those topics? The only ones still willing to talk to her, I guess.

  • We’re always better off having gangsters off the street for long periods of time Celeste.

    In reading the article this about sums it up for me.

    “These were two admitted gang members who went into rival gang territory, and they drove around not once but twice, slowed down and shot and killed a 16-year-old boy who had no gang connection,” Robison said.

    But supporters of Garcia and Menendez said they did not deserve such harsh sentences.
    ————–

    Of course mom and dad and their little gangster pals would think it was harsh. Gang supporters would also feel that way, life is just so unfair. If, as is claimed, they were admitted gang members they knew what was up, anyone who thinks othewise is a moron or a liar.

    A dead young man is what I see, not a gangster just someone’s kid. Why chance they’d get involved in the same type event again? Adios, have fun in the joint.

  • I understod your point on the nursing issue SBL, and mistakes have been made due to language limitations. Since our society is rapidly turning into “tribes” not forced to communicate in one language in even the most important of occupations, mistakes have and will be made causing loss of life.

    Basically the government doesn’t have the balls it needs to do the right thing.

  • As for your response on Reeves parole condition Celeste, I don’t think judges should be making a determination based on how a subject is handled by books and movies? It seems to me the justices are more concerned with making sure Reeves can still date and be happy than they should be. I don’t think that’s their role, sounds like the judge is from Match.com.

    The following is from the opinion…

    Nothing in the record suggests that he has been a threat to a romantic partner. In short, on these facts, we are hard-pressed to see how the notification requirement is reasonably necessary to protect someone with whom Reeves might choose to associate. Nor is it at all apparent that
    such a notification requirement will promote his rehabilitation. To the contrary, the requirement
    would almost certainly adversely affect, and could very well prematurely end, any intimate relationship he might develop, placing him at a greater risk of social isolation and thus impair, rather than enhance, his rehabilitation.
    ———-

    Parole conditions are placed for the purpose of imposing on the offender a set of rules that makes it very clear that he or she is to act in a lawful, even “exemplary” manner or risk further incarceration. That’s what a “tail” is for.
    The rehab is already addressed in his order of continued counseling and all the opinion does is show some judges care more about scum like this than not only the average citizen, but any female that might unwittingly enter this guy’s life.

  • Religious institutions across the board condemn private prisons as both inhumane and ineffective. The Presbyterian Church USA….

    Yeah, just take a look at those “religious institutions” that are losing members in droves because they substituted liberal political thought, taught at the seminaries, in place of God’s word. Those institutions do not represent the mainstream body of believers. The reference to them has no more significance than if the author had used the ACLU.

    – – –

    Social justice? USC’s Pete Carroll, Seahawks agree on five-year deal

  • Admittedly it’s only January, but we may have our winner in the “Dumbest Quote of 2010” contest, and it’s….drum roll please….Celeste Freemon’s hand-wringing that we shouldn’t privatize California’s prisons because it might interfere with the “rehabilitation” they currently provide.

    Parachute down to earth, CF.

    But Happy New Year anyway!

  • I’m not anti-immigrant Mavis and you’re a shallow jackass for implying it, but in the most important of occupations where a clear and concise knowledge of language is essential, communication errors have costs lives. In your la-de-da PC world it apparently doesn’t matter one bit, but does to people harmed by these mistakes.

  • “you’re a shallow jackass”

    Classy. Good to see the personal insults are back after a brief hiatus.

  • The silly world of the PC dominated. Mavis can take pot shots at me without one bit of fact to support her and I fire back and I’m throwing the insult? Learn to read Walter.

    This is where weak people always retreat to when they can’t answer with truth.

  • Current Threats to University of California Don’t Come From the Outside – $3 Million Extravagant Spending by UC President Yudof for University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau to Hire Consultants – When Work Can Be Done Internally & Impartially
    During the days of the Great Recession, every dollar in higher education counts. Contact Chairwoman Budget Sub-committee on Education Finance Assemblywoman Carter 916.319.2062 – tell her to stop the $3,000,000 spending by Birgeneau on consultants.
    Do the work internally at no additional costs with UCB Academic Senate Leadership (C. Kutz/F. Doyle), the world – class professional UCB faculty/ staff, & the UCB Chancellor’s bloated staff (G. Breslauer, N. Brostrom, F. Yeary, P. Hoffman, C. Holmes etc) & President Yudof.
    President Yudof’s UCB Chancellor should do the high paid work he is paid for instead of hiring expensive East Coast consults to do the work of his job. ‘World class’ smart executives like Chancellor Birgeneau need to do the hard work analysis, and make the tough-minded difficult, decisions to identify inefficiencies.
    Where do the $3,000,000 consultants get their recommendations?
    From interviewing the UCB senior management that hired them and approves their monthly consultant fees and expense reports. Remember the nationally known auditing firm who said the right things and submitted recommendations that senior management wanted to hear and fooled the public, state, federal agencies?
    $3 million impartial consultants never bite the hands (Chancellor Birgeneau/ Chancellor Yeary) that feed them!
    Mr. Birgeneau’s accountabilities include “inspiring innovation, leading change.” Instead of deploying his leadership and setting a good example by doing the work of his Chancellor’s job, Birgeneau outsourced his work to the $3,000,000 consultants. Doesn’t he engage UC and UC Berkeley people at all levels to examine inefficiencies and recommend $150 million of trims? Hasn’t he talked to Cornell and the University of North Carolina – which also hired the consultants — about best practices and recommendations that eliminate inefficiencies?
    No wonder the faculty, staff, students, Senate & Assembly are angry and suspicious.
    In today’s Great Recession three million dollars is a irresponsible price to pay when a knowledgeable ‘world-class’ UCB Chancellor and his bloated staff do not do the work of their jobs.
    Pick up the phone and call: save $3 million for students!

Leave a Comment