inmate issues
Criminal justice reform wheels start turning again
Jan 8th
If it’s January, it must be time to get ready for the special session of the legislature. The only focus, as everyone probably knows, is how to fix the state’s criminal justice system which is so horribly broken. I mean, it’s in tatters. So much so that it’s almost a miracle that the wheels haven’t come off, inmates aren’t roaming the streets of our city in packs hunting little babies for Satanic rituals and the plague isn’t upon us.
So the Democrats released their proposals yesterday and the Governor followed up with her own today. I’ll mention the choice ones:
1. A new crime of home invasion, which would be a violent crime. It basically reads like this: “A home invasion occurs when an individual unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling which is occupied and such dwelling is located in any of Connecticut’s affluent suburbs. For the rest of you, it’s still a burglary.”
2. Re-working the “three strikes law” to make it more…workable. The Governor goes further and provides for a mandatory life sentence for third time violent felony offenders, which cannot be reviewed until 30 years have passed. The Dems want to make it a 25 year minimum, putting it on par with murder. There goes incentive not to kill.
3. The Dems want to establish tougher and more secure re-entry procedures for offenders returning to the community as they complete their sentence. The Governor doesn’t think re-entry is important enough to be considered during the special session, so she leaves it for the regular session. Good job. If we don’t ever let ‘em out, we don’t have to worry about re-entry!
4. The Governor then goes overboard with some bizarre victim amendments, like victims have to be notified before a plea offer is made and family members of the victim are also now officially victims. Whatever.
By the way, I don’t see a single proposal for increasing funding for Corrections (not that it isn’t the biggest money hog ever) or Correctional officers or more training or… I know…prevention. No, no. That’s too damn liberal. Sorry.
So there you have it. A whole lot of nonsense that still leaves a horrible taste in my mouth because this “urgency” came about only because three white people from an affluent suburb were killed. Yeah, I said it.*
I’m considering turning comments off for this post, but I’ll leave them on for now. Be warned, though. I have an itchy trigger finger on this one. I will close comments if I feel like it, without warning. It’s my blog. Deal with it.
*Now before any of you go saying “Oh you don’t care about people you killerhugger” and “how can you say that. three people died! it’s horrible!”, let me re-iterate (meaning I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again) that I don’t condone violence or crime. Obviously. No one does. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. So please understand that.
New study on prison rape
Dec 17th
The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a new study [pdf] over the weekend, this one reporting on sexual victimization in Federal and State prisons. The results:
- An estimated 60,500 inmates (or 4.5% of all State and Federal inmates) experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving other inmates or staff.
- Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates reported an incident involving another inmate and 2.9% reported an incident involving staff.
- Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates; 10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3%.
- Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence rates, 3 had prevalence rates of staff sexual misconduct that exceeded 10%.
The study itself is worth a read. Prison sexual assault is quite prevalent and needs to be addressed. Combined with the prevalence of STDs in prisons, at the very least States should make condoms available.
Life in the big house
Nov 18th
The New Haven Independent, which has very interesting coverage, recently interviewed a man who spent 3 days in New Haven Correctional (also known as Whalley Ave.).
Ventura’s tale offers a peek at the day-to-day impact of the state’s prison overcrowding problem.
He said the overcrowding had worsened drastically since he was in jail two years ago. He said cots have been set up in the cafeteria, the visiting room, the kitchen, the hallways. Fifty to 75 people were sharing one bathroom.
Ventura also charged that the overcrowding is a potential fire hazard, that inmates are sometimes given prison garb that is ripped or dirty, and that some of them are not getting proper medication. He complained that recreation is often canceled, that inmates don’t get enough food, and that he didn’t have a toothbrush or toothpaste while he was inside the jail.
A few days after that story was published, lawmakers toured a “sanitized” Whalley Ave.
“When you have inmates on the floor they have nowhere to lock up their personal property,” [a union rep] said. “The inmates are fighting over the bathrooms — when you have one toilet and 50 inmates, you can see it when they come back from chow — it’s an immediate run for the bathroom and a lot of times we have fights.”
Reporters were able to speak to inmates, although no cameras or recording devices were allowed past the front waiting area. Prisoners complained of unsanitary conditions, poor food, lack of recreation, and in many cases, lack of medical treatment.
But hearing tales of dirty linens and dirty, ripped uniforms — and seeing them firsthand — heightened concerns about MRSA, the antibiotic-resistant strain of staph infection that is spread in crowded, unsanitary conditions, and can be fatal. [The union rep] said it’s “running rampant” inside the jail.
All this comes on the heels of the Gov.’s parole ban and the swift explosion in the number of incarcerated inmates. Next week, the judiciary committee will start its public hearings on the the reform bills. It’s going to be an interesting week.
Looking at things the wrong way
Nov 1st
The Courant has this article today, seeking to make much of the under-utilized persistent felony statutes in Connecticut. All it does, instead, is underline the need for more rehabilitation programs.
Meet Richard D. Halapin Jr., a small-time career burglar and thief who earlier this year broke into his sister’s home and stole the family’s jewelry – including a wedding ring and her three children’s golden baptism crucifixes. The cherished items were sold to get money for a drug fix.
The perfect lead in, you’d think, to an article examining the rehabilitation programs in prison that help inmates like Halapin kick their habit and go on to lead productive lives upon release. Of course, the Courant, which is going the politician’s course and trying to look “tough on crime”, doesn’t walk through the open door. Instead they give us this: “[H]e may be the best living proof that an entire category of Connecticut laws – designed to increase punishment for “persistent offenders” – is under-used, at best, and at worst, useless.”
What a novel idea for a story! I’d imagine the pitch went something like this:
Journalist: “Boss, I found this woman in Naugatuck whose brother stole from her.”
Editor: “HOME INVASION! OMG! HEADLINES FOR ANOTHER MONTH!”
Journalist: “He’s a druggie and spent most of his life in jail.”
Editor: “OMFG! VIOLENT CRIMINAL! STATE LAW IS TEH SUCK!”
Okay, so not quite like that. But I’ve always wanted to use “teh suck” in a post.
Halapin’s sister and the state’s victim advocate say that he’s a symbol of failings in the state justice system.
Yeah, the failing being that the root of the problem is almost never addressed. Drug dependent inmates plead to non-drug dependent crimes, drug rehab programs in prisons are scarce and spaces are limited and it is left to the inmates to seek treatment upon release. Not to mention that they get jacksquat upon release.
It’s sad that the Courant missed this opportunity to examine the real problem leading to re-offending and instead chose to focus on the worn drum.
Previous posts on the topic of rehabilitation while incarcerated:
- What should the State’s responsibility be?
- Solving the revolving door of parole
- There are other reforms too
- Re-entry problems
- Gate pay for inmates a reality
History must teach us something
Oct 31st
Stan Simpson has this fine piece in the Courant today, urging legislators to learn from the State’s past and resist the urge to simply expand prisons as a solution to reforming the criminal justice system.
The last time the state went on a massive prison expansion escapade, it spent $1 billion to build 12 new prisons – the last in 1996. The overcrowding problem got worse, not better. Inmates were sent to out-of-state facilities.
Prison expansion was costly and largely ineffective. The state Department of Correction’s budget ballooned, from $92.4 million in 1985, with 5,379 inmates, to $605 million this year. In recent years, Connecticut got smarter and embraced prison-diversion alternatives for nonviolent offenders.
This recent enlightenment is what led to Connecticut being reported favorably in a private report released by the Pew Charitable Trusts back in February. Connecticut was one of two states, the other being Delaware, that was projected to have no increase in its prison population. That, obviously, no longer holds true. The policies that the State put in place and followed, however, are still valid.
“When an event as tragic as the Petits’ occurs, obviously, the first response is to identify why it happened and to do everything to prevent it from happening again,” said Ryan King, policy analyst for The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based prison reform advocacy organization. “Unfortunately, that response has traditionally been longer sentences of some kind, restricting parole release, those sorts of things. And the fact of the matter is there’s been very little empirical evidence that any of them have had the advertised effect.”
“The conversation that can’t be lost in this dynamic is that at the end of the day, creating and maintaining comprehensive re-entry services for individuals is a better way of increasing safer communities,” said Maureen Price-Boreland, a member of the governor’s task force and executive director of Community Partners in Action, which runs re-entry programs for former offenders.
Stan suggests that legislators should not overreact, but instead invest in job training, drug counseling and housing assistance programs, reserving prison beds for the “true incorrigibles”.
Now, will legislators listen?
Meanwhile, there was a community meeting in Hartford last night, where ex-offenders and their families confronted Gov. Rell Commissioner Lantz about the negative effects of the parole ban.
The Clean Slate Committee also made demands of Lantz. They asked her to guarantee that by Nov. 30, every inmate released from incarceration would be given a state-issued identification document and that the state review of all parolees and inmates eligible for community release programs would be completed by Nov. 21. They also asked that the governor establish a commission – to include former inmates, their families, advocates, public officials and two members of Clean Slate – that would work on parole and community re-entry.
Lantz agreed to establish such a commission, but said she could not meet the deadlines on the other two demands.
Rep. Lawlor asks for more resources
Oct 17th
In light of yesterday’s prison tour, Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike Lawlor has issued a statement asking Gov. Rell to provide more resources to the DOC. He renews his disbelief over Comm’r Lantz’s assertions before the judiciary committee that they have the prison population under control.
Yesterday I toured the Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution in Enfield at the request of the corrections officers who work there. After seeing the institution myself and having one-on-one conversations with many officers, there is no question that the situation there and elsewhere in the Department of Corrections is nearing a crisis stage due to the recent surge in inmate population.
Two weeks ago, Commissioner Lantz appeared before the Judiciary Committee in your place and told us that her department needs no additional resources in order to safely manage the population surge. I simply cannot see how that is true.
These conditions cannot be ignored. For the protection of the public and corrections staff, you must allow the front-line professionals in corrections and parole to tell state officials what they need to safely manage the inmate population and the offenders who are or who will be released into the community in the near and long term. We, in turn, must provide them with those resources.
Meanwhile (and there’s no link to this – surprise, surprise!), there are reports that there was a violent fight at Brooklyn Correctional last night that resulted in an inmate’s head being busted open. Inmates and COs have been warning that this overcrowding is creating a very volatile situation. Let’s hope someone takes heed before it turns ugly.
Or perhaps they should just look to this 2000 report prepared by our very own Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee, which concludes:
Prison overcrowding has a cyclical pattern in Connecticut — reaching a crisis point about every 10 years. The committee report showed most of the causes of prison overcrowding occurred outside the administration and jurisdiction of the Department of Correction and these complex issues and problems cannot be addressed by a single state agency. Specifically, the program review committee identified five main causes of prison overcrowding. They are:
- Despite the decrease in arrest and crime rates, the number of offenders in prison or jail continued to increase due to the “war on drugs”, increased funding for police, increased role of victims and victim advocacy groups in the court process, added bed capacity in the correctional system, recidivism and technical violations of probation and parole, harsher penalties for certain types of crimes, and narrowed eligibility for community release and alternative sanction options.
- Convicted inmates were remaining incarcerated for a greater portion of their court-imposed prison sentences as a result of the shift from an indeterminate to a determinate sentencing structure, elimination of “good time”, creation of time-served standards for parole eligibility, and the enactment of several “truth in sentencing” initiatives.
- The aggressive “tough on crime” approach supported by the legislature and adopted by the executive and judicial branches allows the criminal justice system to narrow its use of discretion and take a more conservative and less controversial approach to punishment.
- A lack of prison beds, especially high security and pre-trial beds, forced DOC to operate at capacity.
- Poor planning and a lack of an accurate population projection and offender needs analysis contributed to the cycle of overcrowding and hampered DOC’s efforts to adequately plan for new or expanded facilities.
In reviewing options available to manage and control growth of the inmate population, the committee found Connecticut cannot build its way out of a prison overcrowding crisis. However, prison expansion is one model to address prison overcrowding. This strategy has been Connecticut’s primary response to prison overcrowding over the past 20 years. It is the simplest but least effective and most expensive approach. Services in this model are concentrated primarily on the small percent (25 percent) of the offender population in prison.
If legislators are truly interested in the “best solution”, then they should perhaps look to the current overcrowding problems in Texas, wonderfully covered by Grits for Breakfast [latest post here].
The full press release is after the jump, if you’re interested.
Lawmakers tour overcrowded prisons at behest of COs
Oct 16th
At the behest of a disgruntled correctional officer’s union, lawmakers today toured Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution, getting a first hand look at the overcrowding.
Correction officers and inmates complained about overcrowding. Officers cited the governor’s changes to the prison system after a number of violent incidents involving parolees this summer[.]
Correction Officer Vinal Arthurs said it’s getting tough to manage the 118 inmates. “They’re bumping into each other. There’s no room,” Arthurs said. “We can’t handle it. The commissioner said we could handle it, we can’t handle it.”
Inmates gave a glimpse of what life has become:
Inmates at the facility said there are fights and arguments because too many inmates are crowded into small spaces.
Correction officers showed Eyewitness News three recreation areas inside each dorm, where inmates watch TV. Two areas, however, have been converted into living quarters.
Inmate Alfred Hebert, 26, of Plainfield, spends most of his days with seven other men in one of the units at Cybulski designed to hold four prisoners.
“I’ve seen people aggravated with each other,” he said. “They’re too crowded. There’s too many people.”
Yet, the Governor denies this is overcrowding.
“We continue to believe that we will be able to manage the population as it stands now, if that has changed dramatically, I have not heard so.”
Well, let me tell you. It’s overcrowded. 800 more inmates since your “ban”, Guv. Oh, my word isn’t good enough? How about this:
Since the temporary ban took effect, the state’s prison population has grown from 18,864 to 19,655, according to Department of Correction statistics.
Correction officers said one officer supervises 118 inmates in one particular dorm — a headcount that has increased from a few weeks ago.
Members of the unions that represent corrections officers said more than half of the state’s 18 prisons are overcrowded.
“What we do not understand is the commissioner’s reluctance to acknowledge that there are limitations to her resources and to the number of inmates the system can hold,” said Jon Pepe, a 17-year correction officer at Northern Correctional Institution and president of Local 391 of Council 4.
Now do you – no? What if some legislators told you:
“I think what we saw today really confirms our worst suspicions,” said [Rep. Mike] Lawlor. “You have to either have more prison capacity, or more nonviolent offenders out in halfway houses, or a combination of the two, but we have to do something.”
“This facility in particular is definitely pushing at the seams and I have great concern that it is adequately staffed with the proper number of correction officers,” said Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Kissel.
There’s a raw feed at this link, as well as pictures from the facilities and some other goodies.
Image license info here.
What should the state’s responsibility be?
Oct 10th
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).
[poll=16]
Image license info here.
Solving the revolving door of parole
Oct 8th
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?
Racial disparity, cont’d…
Jul 19th
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?
Disturbing racial disparities in incarcerated population
Jul 18th
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.
Gate pay for inmates a reality
Jul 10th
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.
recent comments