a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Not too much else is happening and I’m still hung up on solving the revolving door of parole, so here’s a poll. What is the solution to this problem and as part of the solution, what do you believe should be the extent of the state’s involvement?

Should the state’s role be limited to incarceration and minimal effort at rehabilitation? Should the state be required to provide enough spots in programs for all inmates? Should the State have to go a step further and ensure that released inmates do not re-offend by providing them employment for a limited period, till they get back on their feet?

Clearly, some people can make it on their own on the outside. Maybe they have been convicted of minor offenses, maybe they have strong family support and jobs waiting for them. A greater number of inmates, however, don’t have a hope. No job, no employable skills, no family and no money. Who, then, should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that they do not re-offend? It would be in everyone’s interests that they stay on the right side of the law (well, except maybe corrections).

Make your choice (and explain in the comments if you feel like it).

 Loading ...

Image license info here.

Watching Koppel’s “Breaking Point” last night [previous coverage here], one of the issues that stood out to me was the recidivism in California and the number of parole violators that were back in prison. Someone, maybe it was Koppel, maybe a counselor or even an inmate perhaps, described it as a “revolving door”.Lawmakers look at this revolving door - high recidivism rates - and point to a need for stricter laws. Parts of the public also subscribe to this view. “Look at these criminals! We let them and what do they do? Go right back in! Harsher penalties! Three strikes and you’re out! Life, life, life, death”.

This is a misguided view. The real problem is that nothing happens to these inmates in overcrowded jails. What I mean by that is when they leave they’re essentially the same person that walked in the door. All that has happened is the passage of time, knowledge of how to commit more crimes and perhaps a sexually transmitted disease or two.

Consider this (and I’m writing from memory): There are 500 spots in all types of “rehabilitation” programs at CSP - Solano and over 10,000 inmates. These spots include GED classes, drug rehab classes and vocational programs.

As those on the outside will acknowledge, GED and vocational classes aren’t worth much, but they’re better than nothing. Yet, over 90% of inmates don’t even have access to any such program. They sit around the yard (calling themselves “yard dogs”), working out and the only way they can make any money is the drug trade. Overcrowding has placed such a severe burden on resources that frequently inmates will be paroled without ever taking a single rehabilitation class in prison.

Take the case of Travis Tippets [first in the slideshow] (whom the show followed after his release on parole). He had to be paroled to his last residence: his father’s house. He doesn’t have a license (two prior DUI convictions) and has felony convictions. He also had a drug habit but received no counseling or rehab. He also was unable to get into any vocational class (except one three years prior to his release in welding or some such thing). He lives in an economically repressed area, where there isn’t much industry and what little there is conducts background checks.

He either has to walk to work or take a bus. Either option will not get him anywhere for the normal start time of 9am. Is it any surprise that he will violate his parole?

So, what then, are they we to do? If we cannot increase prison program capacity and availability, then we are setting these inmates up to fail. We cannot, then, point the finger back at them and say “you’re no good, go back to jail”. That’s a dishonest position.

I suggest the following (or a variation thereof): The State employs paroled inmates for a period of two years following their release. Pick an industry, set up offices throughout the state and hire parolees. The State has control over them (call it a modified form of probation), pays them slightly above minimum wage and puts them to work. Give them access to rehabilitation programs on the outside and make them productive citizens. The State’s responsibility to keep the streets safe can work in several ways. It we want to ensure that criminals are not on the streets engaging in criminal conduct, then we need to ensure that they have no incentive to do so and have the necessary tools to cope with the stresses of life.

It’s entirely possible. If the State has the resources to spend $43,000 a year on Travis Tippets in jail, then it can certainly spend that money on paying Tippets to work on the outside and lead a responsible life. He learns a trade and after two years is employable. He also doesn’t feel discarded, forgotten and reviled.

Thoughts?

More on yesterday’s report. Judiciary co-chair Mike Lawlor weighs in:

That shows the disparities may be more between the rich and the poor, said state Rep. Mike Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

Connecticut’s white population is unusually rich, meaning more white offenders can afford the best attorneys and avoid prison than minority defendants, Lawlor said.

Uh, what? Rep. Lawlor, in case you didn’t know, your state (my state, our state) has one of the best public defender systems in the country. I would rather be represented by a public defender in this state. Please, do not disparage the brilliant attorneys working for our division so. Them’s fightin’ words - and a little heartbreaking

You want to know another reason why the racial disparity is such? Because we classify non-violent drug offenders are violent based on their past history and keep them in jail longer.

That’s not to say CT hasn’t taken steps:

The legislature in 2005 increased the amount of crack cocaine a person must carry to be charged with planning to sell drugs. A commission of legislators, officials and policy experts is studying sentencing reform, including possibly changing the state’s mandatory minimum drug laws.

Nearly two-thirds of defendants charged with mandatory minimum drug crimes are black or Hispanic, state statistics show.

“The overrepresentation of people of color in our correctional institutions has long been of great concern to me,” Correction Commissioner Theresa Lantz said. “While I can’t control who is placed in my custody, I strive to address literacy, employment skills, sobriety and housing during incarceration, so that these individuals are prepared for a productive re-entry to their communities.”

Sentencing disparities anyone?

The Sentencing Project has issued [blurb] its latest report [pdf] on State rates of incarceration based on race and ethnicity has some disturbing news for Connecticut. Connecticut is one of five states where African-Americans are incarcerated at twelve times the rate of whites.

That’s not all. Connecticut’s Hispanic to white incarceration ratio is three times the national average and is the highest in the nation at more than six times.

Some explanation for this:

Other states – Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island – maintain black rates of incarceration that are near or below the national average, but have white rates of incarceration that are less than half the national average. Thus, an average black rate of incarceration and a low white rate of incarceration results in a high black-to-white ratio.

Obviously a big contributor to this is the drug policy - especially the sentence enhancements for sale within school zones [previous commentary here].

What is more important and more interesting is whether there are racial disparities in sentences imposed. I asked about this before, but didn’t generate much discussion. Perhaps this time will be different. Are there such disparities? Can they be proven? Is there a remedy besides sentencing guidelines? Obviously, the statistics indicate that there might be something there, but is it quantifiable?

What should one look to in determining whether racial disparities at sentencing exist?

Finally, sentencing disparities in capital punishment rates are also documented. Where there’s smoke….

On a related note, here’s another study [full study] released today [release] by the Justice Policy Institute that finds that anti-gang legislation that advocates locking up gang members and other initiatives aimed at reducing gang violence doesn’t work; rather it adds to the gang problem.

HT: SL & P & Talkleft

Finally, the Connecticut legislature has passed a bill that goes a long way toward giving inmates gate pay. Currently, inmates in Connecticut are released from prison without any money whatsoever and are dropped off in the center of either of the large cities (Hartford or New Haven). Then, they are left to their own devices. I have long maintained that this policy is counter-productive, so I am quite glad to see that there is something being done.

The provisions are that 10% of all inmate earnings will automatically be transferred to a “savings” account, the contents of which will be available to the inmate at the time of release.

Battling recidivism rates and grappling with preparing thousands of inmates for release, several states have set up similar “discharge accounts” for inmates. The hope is that such a reserve, along with other measures, will facilitate a quicker transition to a law-abiding life, and, in turn, stop the recycling of inmates through the court and prison systems.

Obviously, as with all state laws that deal with inmates, there is a catch. Once the account reaches $1000, it will stop accruing money and the 10% will instead be deducted to reimburse the state’s cost of incarcerating the inmate.

Department of Correction Commissioner Theresa Lantz, who tried four previous times to push the law through the legislature, hopes mandatory savings will impress upon the system’s roughly 18,800 inmates the importance of setting aside money for re-entry, instead of “spending money on honey buns” in the prison commissary.”At least it will get the offender some pocket change,” Lantz said. “Hopefully they’ll use it for the right reasons.”

But ofcourse, this is a meager step (albeit a good first step). Inmates rarely make any money in prison even if they want to. The maximum they can earn in CT prisons is $1.75 per hour.

“Ten percent?” said Janette Rodriguez, another former inmate, who for years bounced in and out of jail but is now drug-free. “I think that’s crazy. Some people in jail, they make $5.35 a week.” Pay in the facilities can range from 75 cents a day to $1.75 an hour or slightly more, depending on the position.

Without any outside help, inmates with shorter jail or prison terms, like Anthony [another inmate], would have trouble earning enough to make a significant difference in quality of life, some former inmates say. The savings accounts will not bear interest, said Brian Garnett, a Department of Correction spokesman.

“If you could come out for $1,000, it just sounds like you’d have to be in there for years,” Rodriguez said.

That you would, Ms. Rodriguez, that you would.

One other important provision is the DOC working with DMV to provide inmates with some sort of identification upon release. For without ID, how is the inmate to cash the cheque? Overall, I like the idea, but it has a long way to go to be effective and truly useful.