Posted on

‘Les Mis’: Jean Valjean Is a Friend of Mine

Most reviews of Les Miserables discuss the singing, editing, and acting, disregarding the original text of Victor Hugo.  I write the simple reflections of a former prisoner who read this ex-con tale while sitting in a cell, with only a feint hope of ever being an ex-con at all.

The movie, by the way, is a masterpiece.

To me, the story was always about politics and philosophy, as Hugo wrote this classic in 1862, in the same era as Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, where each tale uses individual conflicts to symbolize larger themes for people living under oppressive regimes of inequality.  In Les Miserables, the unlikely hero is Jean Valjean, representing the downtrodden people whose station in life is based on the law of man, not of God, fabricated by the elites in order to maintain their economic superiority.  Inspector Javert represents the government system, lacking in love and unrelenting in his determination to crush Valjean.  The story, I believe, is truly about the journey of Inspector Javert (and the system he represents), even though it is through the eyes of Valjean we view his existence.

When I read this tale, there were many people around me who were imprisoned on something petty, often sentenced to the gills, and occasionally were clearly innocent; similar to Jean Valjean, who served 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread.  It was easier to see America’s systemic issues in an honest light because I wasn’t biased by my own dilemma: I had actually committed a terrible crime and had accepted my sentence.  Furthermore, it wasn’t as though the thousands of prisoners I was forced to eat, play, speak, and live with were chosen by me (there were plenty of wronged people who don’t make it easy to stick up for them).  Anyone who has ever read or seen Jean Paul Sartre’s play, No Exit, recognizes that “hell is other people.”  Yet in my fellow convicts’ eyes I saw all the Jean Valjeans, the desperate and desolate, trapped in a system of control that does not end at the prison gates.  And I experienced the Inspector Javert, up close and personal.

Prisoners, perhaps more than anyone, will confront their own morals and courage in the face of perceived injustice.  There is typically nowhere to turn when confronted by the Javert, the governmental force that imposes its authority.  Like the rebellious youth of Hugo’s novel yearning for freedom, the question becomes how much poverty and pain can the people take?  What is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and under what banner will resistance come?  Victor Hugo reinforced Valjean’s spine with the loving righteousness of a God that considers all mankind to be equal and worthy of fairness.  Valjean’s resistance to Javert’s tyranny is rooted in a belief that there is a higher power than the laws of man (and France).  At the battlements (the front lines of French civil uprisings), Hugo infused his rebels with the spirit of Communism, a political belief that all citizens are equal members, and all should shoulder the burdens collectively and reap the rewards together.

Unlike the varied choices of free people, there is no retreat for a prisoner choosing to confront injustice and champion Constitutional principles that relate to Search and Seizure, Effective Counsel, Confrontation of Witnesses, Suppression of Evidence, and Cruel & Unusual Punishment.  This is why in the history of American prisons there have typically been only hunger strikes, work strikes, or riots.  When one considers that even a work strike (such as the recent one throughout the prisons of Georgia) can result in a violent backlash from the uncompromising Javert: all of these tools of prisoner resistance bring forth violence and possible death.  Like anyone else who ever sat in a cell observing this Javert, desiring a fair Justice System rather than a blunt instrument of vengeance, I wondered how I could respond in a way that was true to the highest laws.

Prisoners will challenge each other about what they will do when the “shit hits the fan,” and the Goon Squad comes in full riot gear.  We know their work from the dead of night: hearing a cell door get popped open, and the distinct sounds of eight armed men trying to enter a 5’ x 8’ cage to pounce upon one man who had previously transgressed Javert’s law (whether the written or the implied law).  Some of us will risk further retaliation by bringing a complaint in Javert’s court, and try to win a battle of words and concepts.  Others condemn this practice as useless; and if there will be violent repercussions anyway, they argue that one might as well simply utilize violence in the first place.  Even assisting another in their attempts to call out injustice will bring repercussions, which places an additional moral burden upon those of us with added resources.  For some it might be their muscle, community, or education.

I felt knowledge is power, and built on it accordingly.  For different reasons than Valjean, my Buddhist path reinforced my determination to use peaceful means to resist the Javert.  I never was fully convinced, however, that it is the most effective, nor if there was hope of success.  Any student of history knows that violence is the most common tactic of the winners.  For this reason, it is all too hypocritical when the Javerts denounce violence with the use of violence, and rationalize it with an “Ends Justify the Means” philosophy.  I’ve come to believe, like Victor Hugo’s young men at the battlements, that “Success” is not always defined by immediate victory.  Whether historically in Harper’s Ferry, Johannesburg, Tiananmen Square, or this year in Cairo: people are propelled by a sense of duty that, win or lose, life or death, we simply do what is right.

Victor Hugo anticipated Mahatma Gandhi’s principle that the Javert, when forced to confront his own injustice, would turn from the path.  Dr. King and the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement echoed this practice, to lay bare just how brutal, unreasonable, and unrelenting are the tactics of the oppressor.  There, the ends justifying the means was Racism.  And not enough people continued to agree with it to support that form of inequality; at least not as a state-sponsored body of laws.  For Gandhi, it was Colonialism, as the exploitative foreign ruler lacked justification to rule.  For Victor Hugo, it was the Capitalist elite; a wealthy class that supplanted the aristocracy through the blood of the French Revolution.

It is interesting that Hugo’s 19th Century inequality is the one that resonates most clearly today across America.  Despite the growing recognition of the racist ripples that have always pushed the tide of our criminal justice system, most people are versed enough in the current dilemmas of our economic structure (even where they can’t correctly identify all the moving parts).  We are backed into a corner of rich getting richer, outsourcing jobs to where labor is cheapest (and done by businessmen waving the flag while holding political office).  Technology has put people out of work faster than jobs can be created.  Millionaires of the 1% sit in Congress and uphold inequality through such extremes as the Big Bank Bailout, where a trillion dollars flowed to subsidize the criminal and reckless activity of Wall Streeters who simultaneously protest against all government regulation of their activities.  And then there is the Javert.

Inspector Javert tells Jean Valjean he is from the same rabble, the same common stock, born inside a prison himself, “but he is no thief.”  Both characters represent “France,” born of the Revolution and praying to the same God for guidance and support in their actions.  Javert is the law of Man, maintained and executed by men.  Javert today is the prison guard, police officer, prosecutor, judge, and politician.  In America today, Javert often refuses to investigate the elites for criminal activity while devoting all attention, and resources, to the commoner.  Javert, perhaps, does not even see the hypocrisy; conditioned by all the elements of a self-reinforcing system that prays to a God (that “says” whatever any self-appointed interpreter declares), and is educated by the most elite institutions that are funded by this self-replicating system.  But the outsiders, the Valjeans (regardless of formal educations or material success), see truth with increasing clarity.

Javert’s oppression, which he sees as “Justice” for the longest time, poses the problem to those who seek fairness: Reform or Revolution?  When Javert finally sees his own injustice, he then lacks the tools to truly transform into what the People genuinely need.  He becomes a malfunctioning machine that cannot fulfill its mission.

SPOILER ALERT (skip the next sentence if the plot of Les Miserables concerns you):

Javert self-destructs and kills himself in Les Miserables.  Again, as Gandhi taught, the oppressor simply cannot continue.  Nelson Mandela sought to rewrite the tactic by encouraging (some would say “allowing” via Truth and Reconciliation Commissions) the Javert to reform and merge back into a wider society that reaffirms equality and justice.  After nearly two decades of debate, in the front lines of American struggle, I am not firmly in either camp of (a) reforming our economic and/or criminal justice systems (the two have closer links than most believe), or (b) wholesale replacements.  My goals are to unite reformers and revolutionaries in common cause, rather than haggle over the ideal end game, and see what best can come of it.  (Side Note: some see the term “revolution” as requiring violence, but it does not.  It simply means a massive overhaul in the status quo.  Many within the political system have openly discussed a massive overhaul of our criminal justice, economic, electoral, or other systems.  Like the Internet’s impact on global commerce, such changes could be “revolutionary.”)

With age and experience, any story will take on more layers of meaning.  Les Miserables becomes another tale for a former prisoner, and for a father, both perspectives I currently hold.  Having now studied millions, seen thousands, and personally known hundreds of people re-entering society after time spent in prison, I see the Javert can be just as ruthless in modern America than 19th Century France.  Now, however, Jean Valjean would not have had the opportunity to break free of Javert.  With cameras, computers, and databases, people bearing the mark of a conviction are forever branded.  They may succeed as business owners, like Valjean did, or even become elected mayor (if a jurisdiction’s law allows people to truly elect any citizen of their choice) as Valjean was… but it will generally be done only where the person’s criminal past is constantly placed at the forefront.

Javert is adamant that “once a thief, always a thief.”  We hear that philosophy regarding all manner of criminalized behavior, including addiction.  The hypocrisy is most evident when members of the wealthy lawmaking class of citizens do not say the same about their kin.  Some supporters of the Javert will exempt their own, saying they “have a problem” and “need help.”  They do not get them help by calling the police and pushing for prison.  None of them argue that the rehabilitative qualities of a cage are the best option for their own.  High-priced thieves are considered to have had a “moral lapse.”  Yet as these contradictions come to light, more supporters of Javert begin to recognize the path of 19thcentury class-based systems of judgment are illegitimate where lacking the principle of “All Men Are Created Equal” by a higher power than a body of laws.

People who push back against “Once a thief, always a thief” have drafted and advocated for simple laws that allow those millions of Americans to apply for work based on their ability rather than their former problem or moral lapse.  “Ban the Box” is not a specific law, but rather the concept of eliminating the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”  Javert cannot ignore the fact that he deploys police forces where people’s skin tones are darkest, even into the schools, regardless of where the crime actually occurs.  Javert also knows that decisions made by prosecutors, judges, and parole boards are also skewed by race… further magnified along a prisoner’s personal path of being formerly incarcerated.  The evidence of racism in the criminal justice system is overwhelmingly accepted by those who believe it is either too challenging to change, or that the inequality is proper.

Like Jean Valjean, some will overcome Inspector Javert no matter how intense the repression.  Exceptionalism, however, does not make for good social policy that affects so many families and, by extension, communities.  “By hook or by crook” is street slang for Ends justifying the Means.  Many Americans today are faced with violating the law in order to go Straight and Narrow.  Most Americans have no idea about the laws and codes to be obeyed, and yet some will still pass judgment like an Armchair Quarterback who does not know the rules of football.  Many convicted people lie about their past to get an education, an apartment, or a job, just like Jean Valjean.  They violate probations and paroles just to go where the jobs are, or to live where they are accepted.  When “doing the right thing” becomes a crime, it is time to sit down and discuss just what Javert is doing, because there is a good chance that even Inspector Javert does not know.  The very principles of America are at stake.

Posted on

Four Reasons the NRA is a Red Herring


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In the wake of another tragedy, calls for gun regulation rises again.  Many citizens do not tend to “wait and see” what the politicians will do, and many expect a little saber-rattling and then see their elected officials bow down to the powerful pro-gun lobbyNational Rifle Association.  People have already begun targeting the NRA as a pressure point for the problem of gun violence.  There are four key factors to consider when going after the NRA.

1.  The NRA provides political cover for profiteers.

The NRA is designed to absorb public pressure.  As a member-based public relations group, they routinely deal with all manner of the public, can rally “card carrying members,” and have a sit-down with any politician they like.  The NRA has many members who served this country, who died for this country, and currently serve in a law enforcement or political capacity.  The Second Amendment is a fundamental principle of America, and open to debate as to how far we extend the right to own a gun.  Those who believe it is only for hunting are neglecting the concern our Founding Fathers had of a federal government that disarms the citizenry.

Many Americans have no problem with the vast majority of guns the 2nd Amendment protects.  Although most pistols are now semi-automatic with about 15-round clips, the greatest outrage is against the semi-automatic assault rifles such as the Bushmaster AR-15.  Bushmaster, by the way, operates in relative obscurity- free of criticism, protest, and public pressure.  They provide jobs at their factory in upstate New York.  They do not even provide a public statement when one of their weapons is used in a massacre of elementary school children.

Most Americans are not aware that Bushmaster is one of multiple weapons manufacturers bought up by Cerberus Capitol Management, and merged into a company called Freedom Group.  Cerebrus is a private equity firm that will pool the wealth of those with excess wealth, and make investments they believe will continue to profit.  Therefore, Cerberus believed that Bushmaster, and the AR-15 was a good investment.  In the history of protest and change, businesses are far less “armed” to handle public pressure than ideological groups.

This week Cereberus made the announcement that they will sell Freedom Group.  This underscores the point that markets are only viable to the level that the public permits.  As Cerebrus states:

“Our role is to make investments on behalf of our clients who are comprised of the pension plans of firemen, teachers, policemen and other municipal workers and unions, endowments, and other institutions and individuals.  It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate. That is the job of our federal and state legislators.”

Part of this statement is misleading, where Wall Street are the largest donors to politicians and the Citizens United ruling held that any firm can make any independent ad to attempt to shape or influence any debate.  Former Vice-President Quayle is a key director at Cerberus.  Whereas weapons manufacturers have played a significant role in the policies being as they now are, Cerberus would like to point the finger at our legislatures alone.

2.  Economic power motivates more politicians than ideological power.

The USA is the top weapons exporter in the world.  Even if we exclude the weapons of mass destruction that are traditionally only sold to governments (or bought with taxpayer funds and then gifted to others), America exports far more small arms than other nations.  Combine that with the amount of guns bought annually per year by Americans, and we have an entire industry at stake.

Those who are insistent upon massive curtailing of arms manufacturing in America are up against the Third Rail: “Jobs.”  Even reductions in crime that reduce the need for prisons have had a difficult time putting a prison guard out of work.  Much of the Military Industrial Complex is about jobs.  This point is not meant to shut down the ideological and moral arguments against manufacturing and selling weapons.  Instead, the point is to recognize the realities of America’s stake in the game.

3.  The NRA is legitimized by the Supreme Court, not campaign contributions.

When the Supreme Court thoroughly argued D.C. v. Heller, and then later held that theSecond Amendment also applied to the state governments, most people would be surprised that the Court took this long to dig down deep into what this right entails.  In 2007, the Heller decision marked the first time in 70 years that this right came up for debate.  In many ways, that is a good thing- because we are deep into our “The Right to Own a Gun” is outmoded, due to technology.  I won’t rehash the debate here, but it is a good one, with multiple perspectives from America’s top jurists.

Those wishing to engage in such a debate about the Second Amendment would be aided in reading all the Opinions, as there may be rationales that sound legitimate, or un-American, or inspire new ideas.  The constitution can be amended, laws can be passed around the edges, and different Courts can have different interpretations on the language.  But a meaningful discussion needs to start somewhere, preferably in our founding principles, if we are to uphold the democracy of America.

4.  Gun control can be a red herring to systemic issues of violence.

It is true that a federal ban on assault weapons was passed in 1994.  In 1996, AEDPAcreated further limitations on weaponry sales (in the wake of the bombing of the Murragh federal building).  The federal ban expired in 2004, and was not considered important enough to renew.  It was a flimsy piece of legislation, easily evaded.  Practically any weapon that would have been banned has a close counterpart that is legal.  Such feel-good legislation is certainly not going to have any practical impacts.

To have a genuine impact on present and future gun ownership, massive prohibitions must be put in place.  Furthermore, the government may need to confiscate high-capacity, high-velocity, high-caliber weapons.  Setting aside the difficulty with such a route, let us assume it is possible…

Gun ownership is an effect.  Violence is an effect.  There are internal and external forces that propel most decisions we make in life, even most reactions we make- as we have been conditioned to react.  Many shooting deaths in America involve drugs: either drug dealers settling disputes or drug users in search of money to get their drugs.  For those people, most guns are gotten from an illicit market among the millions of guns already in America.  Many of their guns are small and cheap, sometimes not working properly.  Regulation is unlikely to have any impact.  The causes are some combination of addiction, desperation, anger, and inability to see (or choose) a more peaceful way to their goal.

The cynic would argue that Americans don’t care about the “street” criminal (insert racial analysis here).  What they care about are the killings that impact White middle-class America.  Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown are all etched in our conscience, as they should be.  Setting aside the racial and class contexts, the point remains: it isn’t gun ownership that caused the shooters to “go postal” (as we used to say).  There is some validity to “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  And it is heartening to know that the Obama Administration has  announced that his Task Force will focus on mental health and education, in addition to gun regulation.  We are not likely to hear such public dislike of teachers as we have in recent years, and it should stay that way (in my opinion).

Perhaps the unfortunate reality is that we have developed a very violent culture in America, built on the foundations of revolution, the Wild West, slavery, and an awkwardly-settled Civil War.  Our movies, books, video games, news and TV shows feed off the mantra “If it Bleeds, it Leads.”  The choice to tear down and destabilize our attempts to help Americans who are struggling with mental health comes with repercussions.  The savings in closing down mental hospitals has helped fuel a costly prison explosion.  The challenge for people getting coverage for mental health treatment also creates other costs.  Until we can look at the savings and costs in a holistic manner, we will continue to be baffled by systemic troubles and occasional travesties.

In a final thought, I hope there are survivors of other tragic events, such as students of Columbine or during Katrina, who have developed tools to share with the kids, parents, teachers, and neighbors of Newtown.  It may not be for a while, but people should prepare for the worst PTSD imaginable.

I have been on all sides of this issue.  My family includes small children, teachers, military, mentally ill people, and gun owners.  Those who kill, including myself, and those who have been killed.  I have worked with mental health and substance abuse professionals, regarding expanding treatment.  I have strategized in achieving political goals.  There are many worthwhile and intelligent opinions on the matter of guns and violence.  My hope here is that discussions are meaningful and vibrant, not just wars of words. 

Posted on

NY Bets on Success with Social Impact Bonds


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced a new initiative that could save government money, decrease the crime rate and strengthen urban communities. Global investment bank Goldman Sachs will invest $10 million in a program to reduce recidivism among released adolescent prisoners at Riker’s Island. This will make the city the first in the nation to adopt a social impact bond model, which uses private resources to improve social outcomes, and a pioneer in realigning the financial incentives of the prison system.

For-profit reentry programs like the Goldman model lead companies to bet on people staying out of prison, instead of staying in them. Under this model, Goldman only breaks even — or makes a profit — if the program reduces incarceration rates and helps young men reintegrate into their communities. This model is also designed to save the city money. Other states and cities should look to this approach as a more sensible way to fund their justice systems and close their budget gaps.

Studies have shown that improving reentry opportunities, which means giving released prisonerseducational, employment and housing opportunities, and family stability, greatly reduces crime rates. When we fail to invest in these key components, we guarantee the costliest result: hopeless and penniless people returning to crime, and then punishment. Increased crime is a negative outcome not only for the affected communities, but also for all of us.

Misguided attempts to save a quick buck have left us with a costly prison complex that incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. The United States spends $70 billion annually to lock up over 2.3 million people. Across the country, states are cutting funding for courts and public defenders, and raising the fees and fines charged criminal defendants in order to close budget gaps. Some states have even tried to charge prisoners for visits, and serve just two meals per day instead of three.

The real way to save criminal justice costs is to reduce unnecessary incarceration. Some states have taken on this tactic by reducing the unnecessary use of pre-trial detention, paroling people who do not need to be locked up, and using non-incarceration sanctions for low-level crimes. The Goldman model should — we hope — create an investment in treatment and reentry programs that rehabilitate prisoners and help them obtain jobs and educational opportunities — instead of winding up back in prison due to insurmountable obstacles.

Other states and cities can look to this approach from the city as one way to close their budget gaps: raising short-term capital to improve communities and generate long-term savings. As the city rolls out this program, we hope it will be mindful of obvious risks. The program should be closely and periodically monitored and evaluated to ensure the city is not overpaying for very limited, if any, positive outcomes. And just as the city’s repayment to Goldman is based on whether its program reduces recidivism, governments across the country should condition funding all prisons and correctional programs (public and private) on whether they achieve the goals of reintegration and reduced recidivism. Re-aligning the incentives of our corrections departments is the only true way toward achieving a system of justice that is worthy of that name.

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.  It is co-authored by Inimai Chettiar and Bruce Reilly.

Inimai Chettiar is the Director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and Bruce Reilly is a former Brennan Center intern and current student at Tulane University Law School. The Brennan Center’s Justice Program focuses on improving our system of justice by ending unnecessary incarceration, securing full legal representation for the poor, and ensuring equal access to the courts while eradicating racial disparities.

Posted on

Save Olympic Basketball from Kobe, Lebron


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

With a career record of 54-1, the U.S. Olympic basketball team, a collection of NBA All-Stars, MVPs, scoring champions, and defensive players of the year are poised to dominate yet again.  And yet again I’m bewildered by the media makers who try to capture our attention of this entertaining coronation ceremony where our team often leads by 20 to 30 points… and must struggle with how sporting it is where there is no mercy rule.

They focus on the one loss, a result of slackidaisical street-balling (and perhaps some partying?) in Athens eight years ago… and Spain.  But the Gasol brothers are not “Spaniards” in the lineage of Maximus Decimus Meridius.  They have two NBA starters (and Pao is fading) and two NBA journeymen.  So to give this competition some perspective, I decided to look at USA v. The Entire World (excluding those who are not in London, such as Dwight, D-Wade, and Griffin).

USA’s Top 5 Bench Team  v.  The World’s Best 5:

The USA second unit                    Team World

PG  Michael Westbrook               Tony Parker (FRA)

SG  James Harden                         Manu Ginobili (ARG)

SF  Andre Iguodala                        Luol Deng (GBR)

PF  Carmelo Anthony                   Pau Gasol (ESP)

C  Kevin Love                                  Marc Gasol (ESP)

This is actually a decent match-up, as all ten players are effective scorers in the NBA, with only Iguodala known as a defensive stopper.  Most would consider the Thunder backcourt to have surpassed the hardware-winning Spurs backcourt at this point.  Love and Marc Gasol are an even match, while the merits of both Carmelo and Pau are both in dispute.  So lets look at depth, as every championship team requires 8 or 9 solid players in the rotation.

USA’s Starting 5  v.   The World’s 2nd Best 5:

PG Chris Paul                          Sarunas Jasikevicius (LIT)

SG Kobe Bryant                       Leandro Barbosa (BRA)

SF  Kevin Durant                    Nicolas Batum (FRA)

PF  Lebron James                   Luis Scola (ARG)

C  Tyson Chandler                   Nene (BRA)

Okay, so I left off Deron Williams (PG) and Anthony Davis (PF) on our side, and you want to replace someone with PF’s Varejo (BRA), Kirilenko (RUS), Diaw (FRA), Al-Farouq (NIG), Jianlian (CHI), or perhaps C’s Splitter (BRA), Turiaf (FRA), or Bogut (AUS).  But ultimately, the World has a clear lack of guards, and is bringing out a group of journeymen.  If we fielded a team of Horace Grant, Robert Horry, Kurt Rambis, M.L. Carr, and Tony Fisher… we could talk about all their rings, headbands, and goggles; we would root for them, but they couldn’t beat a pack of Hall of Famers.

The Sporting Solution  

So what to do?  Olympic soccer limits teams to three over-25 players, which wouldn’t change the composition of our Bomb Squad much.  In a sport with 19 year old rookies like Anthony Davis, people like Blake Griffin, Kobe, and Durant get a lot done by age 25.  And if your Big Three are the likes of Kobe, Lebron, and CP3… are you really worried?  (i.e. Miami Heat title tactic).

My Solution: Every four years, the NCAA Champion goes to the Olympics.  This allows the nation to root for a competition once again.  The experience of Gasol Brothers and a few NBA journeymen (the would-be Conquistadors) would match up against teams that have played together for several years in the same system.  It would make March Madness huge every fourth year, and perhaps inspire a few more prospects to stay in college for the chance at a medal.

This year the team would be Kentucky, led by NBA first round picks Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Terrence Jones, and Marquis Teague; and second round picks Darius Miller, and Doron Lamb.  Yes, the entire team was drafted into the NBA.
In 1992, we sent the Dream Team, but we could have sent the Duke squad of Christian Laettner (he did go), Bobby Hurley, Grant Hill, and their team coming off back-to-back NCAA titles.

In 1996, the Kansas team of Paul Pierce, Raef Lafrentz, Scott Pollard, and Jacques Vaughan could have done considerable damage with their post-play and Paul (“I used to be a slasher with ups”) Pierce.  Atlanta would have welcomed this group leading us to gold.  Could they have beaten Vlade Divac, Sasha Danilovic, and some other vitches by nearly 30 like our NBA All Stars did?  Maybe by 10 or 20.

The 2000 Michigan State squad of “Flintstones” (a group predominantly from the downtrodden Flint, MI gave it a Bruce Springsteen underdog feel) was one of my least favorites, but I’ve always disliked the Big Ten in general.  Mateen Cleaves, A.J. Granger, Morris Peterson, and Jason Richardson could likely have donned the Red, White, and Blue and done similar work at the Sidney Olympics.  Could they have beaten the French silver medalists, led by guys who sound like a bunch of poets and philosophers?  Our All Stars won by ten over guys who never sniffed the NBA.  This should have been a sign of how hard the Americans played, or how sorry they felt for the opposition.

The 2004 UCONN team was truly dominant behind Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva, and Josh Boone.  If we sent that squad to Athens to face the world, Calhoun would have prepared them well.  Instead, our All Stars lost to Puerto Rico and Lithuania in the prelims, giving up over 90 points to each, and then lost by eight to the Argentinians: Ginobili, Pepe (remember me at Temple!) Sanchez, Scola, Nocioni, and Delfino.  Pepe was the first Argentinian to play in the NBA, and none of these other journeymen, like Pepe, were in the prime of their careers.  Surprise: Lebron, ‘melo, Iverson, Marbury, D-Wade, Bosh, and Duncan couldn’t figure out how to play together.  They certainly didn’t lose for lack of speed, size, or talent.

In 2008 the Kansas squad would be tapped again to go into battle.  Beijing would see Mario Chalmers, Darrell Arthur, Brandon Rush, Darnell Jackson, and Russell Robinson continue the team ball and defensive domination they showed throughout the tournament.  This was the vengeance year, where an embarrassed Lebron, ‘melo. and D-Wade combined with Kobe, Dwight, CP3, Deron, and others to win by an average of thirty points, scoring 118 in the final.  They beat Spain by 11, and never bothered to play defense, as it simply wasn’t needed.  That year, Pau brought the Raptor’s Jose Calderon, his brother Marc (not yet in the NBA), Ricky Rubio (only 17 years old), and Rudy Fernandez (drafted the next year).  Kansas could compete with that.

I’m no Kentucky fan by any stretch of the imagination.  But I would watch every game if they wore Team USA and expect them to be on the medal stand, regardless.  I don’t get anything extra in my life when USA wins a gold, silver, or bronze.  The athletes get their moment, and sometimes I get to witness a record, a miracle, or a tear-jerker.  Watching Kobe and Lebron find a place on their mantles for a gold medal doesn’t serve anything like that.  But hey, maybe its just me, and the rest of you enjoy watching a good ol’ fashion beat down.

Posted on

Pot Decriminalization in RI: Just a Starting Point


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rhode Island became the latest state to lessen the punishments for small amounts of marijuana, popularly known as “decriminalizing” it.  Six years ago, there were many doubters and few reformers on board.  Yet it appears America is fed up with many facets of drug policy.  Organizations that have been seen as fringe radicals, such as Direct Action for Rights & Equality (DARE), are seeing their proposals become mainstream positions.  This DARE, not to be confused with the other D.A.R.E., has consistently looked to change the misguided (or malicious) attempt to curb drug use through prisons.  Once this seemingly impossible reform became inevitable, the members of DARE realized their work was all but done.

A key element to the new law is that people on probation or parole will not be violated and sent to prison.    People without actual experience in the criminal justice realm had to be educated on this element.  Cynically enough, those who wanted to pass this measure based on saving money (by less incarceration) had to be shown that most imprisonments are due to such violations.  Remarkably, the Attorney General stuck to their story that nobody is sent to prison for marijuana… even as evidence and personal stories came forth.

It is likely that the Dept. of Probation and Parole will develop new guidelines for what to do when someone receives a $150 “pot ticket” (which doubles to $300 after 30 days, and to $600 after 90 days).  They will likely need to pay even more to attend a mandatory drug program, and failure to do so will result in a violation.  This may ultimately prove challenging for people who are unemployed or barely scraping by, as are many people released from prison.

There should be no surprise that the bulk of marijuana tickets will disproportionately come from highly policed areas, and disproportionately affect People of Color, who represent about two-thirds of Providence.  DARE, ACLU, PrYSM, and others have consistently presented evidence of racial profiling in Rhode Island that has a similar ring to the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” program that is currently under scrutiny by the Justice Department and Gov. Cuomo.  Marijuana decriminalization, however, did not gain momentum due to the disproportionate impact on the 21% of Rhode Island residents who are Black, Latino, or Asian.  It passed because 12% of Rhode Islanders are willing to admit they smoke pot.  The Providence Journal article poll tallies 29% of people who “already” smoke.

When former RI Republican Minority Leader Bob Watson was arrested in Connecticut last year, just prior to a hearing on this bill, some wondered what would have happened if Watson was pulled over in his hometown of Portsmouth… or if he had been before.  Watson’s public defense was that he needed the pot for his ailments, i.e. he needed it to get by.  Many of that 12% have said the same.  I have never encountered a person who wants their friend or family member to be disabled through drug use of any kind, and so my last words to the legislators on the matter were, “if you caught your son, daughter, or colleague with marijuana, what would you do?  Whatever it is, what’s good enough for your son, daughter, or colleague is good enough for the rest of Rhode Island.”

Nobody believed we could eliminate mandatory minimum drug sentences in Rhode Island.  But we did.  Nobody believed we could pass a law that would nullify a probation violation prison sentence if the new charges were ultimately dismissed.  But we did.  When we started down this road, few believed Rhode Island was ready to reduce penalties even on marijuana… and now some politicians openly call for regulation and taxation of this plant.  The push to create a Study Commission (often the kiss of death) by Senator Josh Miller was crucial.  It allowed reports such as the study by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron to gain prominence and dissemination through Open Doors, a service provider for the formerly incarcerated.  The study commission put major advocacy partners on notice, such as Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition- and let them know that we are making change in this tiny little state.

What is next in drug policy other than pushing for full regulation, and a potenial $300 million in economic impact?  It is worth noting that marijuana has been a gateway drug to a criminal record, and once someone is on probation they no longer receive the full protection of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments; they are essentially guilty until proven innocent.  For those who want to save dollars and those who want a rational or humane approach to drug policy in Rhode Island, we can look at ways for people to get out of what is one of the most regressive probation schemes in the country.  RI is one of the leaders in percentages of people on probation and the lengths of sentences.

One proposal we put forth is limiting the probation violation to the time remaining on probation.  Currently, someone with a 10 year suspended sentence can be given that term if violated on the last day of the 10th year.  This often violates the statute of limitations, carrying a punishment beyond what is permissible by law.  Another proposal is to allow probationers and parolees the ability to earn Good Time credits off their sentences.  Ultimately, the only ones who would receive credits are those “doing the right thing,” and it would allow Probation Officers more flexibility in curbing inappropriate behavior, short of incarceration.  Another proposal, which gained momentum this year, is a Good Samaritan law that would not punish a drug user who calls 911 to save the life of another.  This places a higher priority on life than on imprisoning those who are generally addicted to heroin (the most common form of overdose).

No matter what direction activists and politicians go after this key victory, it appears certain that the public is far ahead of the politicians on this matter.  It is high time that harmless behavior be treated as such in the courts.  It is also time for us to find medical solutions for health problems such as addiction, rather than putting someone in a cage until later.

 

Bruce Reilly is a member of DARE, Rhode Island’s only organization committed to (among other things) the development and empowerment of those directly impacted by the criminal justice system.  He testified on this bill in both the House and Senate, along with other DARE members, and is a national steering committee member of the Formerly Incarcerated & Convicted People’s Movement.  He attends Tulane University Law School, and is currently a legal intern at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Posted on

Feds v. States: Who Decides Death Penalty Fight


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Can the Feds order a state to execute a man?  This is the question that the Supreme Court may ultimately answer regarding Jason Pleau, arrested last year for killing a man during a robbery.  What appeared to be a routine case in Rhode Island, a state of one million people that averages about 30 murders per year, has turned into a legal battle about state’s rights, the 10th Amendment, and the Death Penalty.  And the question of whether a Governor can ever defy a President.

The federal death penalty is legal in every state in America.  There are over 30 federal statutes authorizing the death penalty for any American, including a generic 1st Degree Murder, and it would be difficult to imagine a case that would not qualify under federal law.  Certainly when the people of Rhode Island eliminated the death penalty, they did not consider it would be alright if a courthouse bearing the “United States” logo rather than the Rhode Island “Hope” motto, could sentence a man to die.  The same jury pool of Rhode Islanders would be drawn upon, yet anyone with an objection to the death penalty would be barred from serving on the jury.

Attorney General Eric Holder amended the Federal Death Penalty Protocol (DPP) last year, in an attempt to assist Attorneys General such as Peter Neronha (District of RI) regarding when to seek this punishment.  There is no regard as to whether a state has abolished the death penalty or not, but states that the Feds should only take the case from a state when “the Federal interest in the prosecution is more substantial than the state or local authorities.”  Here, the only factor that seems to apply is the vague “ability and willingness for the state to obtain an appropriate punishment upon conviction.”  Perhaps this is a snub at RI State Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, a career police officer who apparently never handled a felony case.

The DPP guidelines do suggest that victims’ family members be consulted, yet this is a quandry in prosecutions: whether the government stands in for a particular victim, or an entire state.  A victim’s family in Mississippi tried to stop the execution of Henry Curtis Jackson.  He was instead killed by lethal injection yesterday.

After sentencing Jason Pleau to 18 years in state prison for parole and probation violations, a federal grand jury indicted him.  The U.S. Attorney then put in a request to take him into custody under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD).   Governor Lincoln Chaffee (known as the Republican who opposed President Bush on the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping) denied the request under Article IV of the IAD.  The feds then tried to evade this federal Act with a second type of request.  The state asserts that once the federal government puts in a “hold” under the IAD, all future requests to produce Pleau are covered by the provisions of the IAD- no matter what you name it.  This is how it played out, and a three-judge panel of the First Circuit agreed (2 to 1) with Gov. Chaffee, who believes the only reason the federal government would want Jason Pleau is to execute him.  Particularly after Pleau agreed to serve Life Without Parole in state prison.  This is known as the Other Death Penalty.

The Obama Administration, however, asserts that their request was not covered by the IAD for two reasons: (1) the Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum they filed is outside of the IAD procedures, and (2) the federal government reigns supreme (as laid out in the Supremacy Clause of the constitution) and a governor cannot refuse the request.  The problem with the Feds’ first issue is that the traditional method of transferring prisoners between jurisdictions has been supplanted by the IAD, and they did in fact begin IAD procedures prior to the traditional Habeas.  The title of the paperwork is irrelevant, and the First Circuit agrees.  As for the Supremacy Clause argument, it is difficult for the United States to say they do not need to obey the IAD when they are listed as a party, along with 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and others.  If they have some special status, why bother writing rules that apply to the United States at all?

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, however, credits the United States with the trump card: the Supremacy Clause.  Three judges interpreted a key case to mean the U.S. is above the limitations of the IAD.  Two judges, in their scathing dissent, took the majority to task for what they feel was an “unprincipled” misreading of the key case, U.S. v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978).  The dissenting two justices called the ruling “unwarranted and unprecedented,” and “fails the test of common sense.”  As it stands, the split opinions of five judges are the difference between putting the executioner’s hood over the heads of a Rhode Island jury.

It was only a year ago that I, and about a dozen others, testified in the Rhode Island legislature’s bill to posthumously pardon the last man murdered by the People.  Historians testified about the malice of a vindictive crowd, and the racist furor that suspended rational judgment: someone had to pay.  In 1844 it was John Gordon, and seven years later this punishment was abolished for it.  The Public Defender spoke about the current need for best practices in eye-witness identifications and the necessity of videotaped confessions (two reforms advancing in RI).  I spoke about how a similar pair of Irish scapegoats, the Brennan brothers, were railroaded in 1984 for the murder of an Italian landlord in Providence.  They are still in prison.  Here, nobody has argued that Jason Pleau, who was once the catcher on my softball team, is innocent.  However, death penalty supporters are just as certain of guilt when a convicted person is later exonerated.

Rhode Island has filed a petition for certiorari, seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Justices may find their ideologies torn, such as Antonin Scalia who often speaks of states’ rights in the face of an overbearing federal government, yet he rarely finds a wrong when it comes to the power of the government to exert police powers, and administer the death penalty.  Some say that judges take a moral position, and then manipulate the law to reach it.  Yet as to whether the IAD applies to the federal government, it will be difficult to get around Article II, which reads “(a) ‘State’ shall mean a State of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession …”    It will also be difficult to affirm the First Circuit’s belief that Governor Chaffee can’t deny the federal government, where the Act reads “the Governor of the sending State may disapprove the request for temporary custody.”

To do so, the Court might have to say Congress lacked the authority to grant a Governor power over the federal government.  Yet the federal government signed onto this agreement, and now they want out.  Those who advocate for States Rights use it to define marriage, gun laws, and many other issues (it once was a code word for allowing Jim Crow laws), including the Death Penalty.  This legal battle will cost the taxpayers about a million dollars, just to see what will happen to Jason Pleau, a man that none of them likely care an iota about.  Sometimes I wonder what gets people up in the morning.

Posted on

Why RI Should ‘Ban the Box’ on Job Applications


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Every week in Rhode Island thousands of people are ushered through the court system, and every year nearly 20,000 will be released from prison.  There are 30,000 people currently on probation, as we have one of the highest rates of government supervision in the nation.  Over 100,000 Rhode Islanders have some manner of conviction on their records.  The effects of those convictions can vary greatly.

A culture of criminal background checks has cast a cloud of discrimination upon many people and their families.  HB 7760 and 7864 [concerning pre-interview criminal background checks] accept the fact that we live within one community- and we need to look carefully at policies that can go awry of their original intent regarding the safety of all.

I am in some ways typical of a person with a criminal record, particularly as we can only be evaluated on an individual basis.  My past is terrible.  The things I did two decades ago are despicable, and some have argued that I should continue to be punished and a life of homelessness or unemployment is appropriate.  However, whether I lived out such an existence in prison or the community, I would become a burden on the state.  On the one hand, my crimes are far more severe than most of the convicted; yet on the other hand, I bring more capacity to the table than most of the convicted.

In 2005 I was released from prison after 11 years, 8 months and restricted by an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet for one year.  Prior to my release (as a pre-condition of getting parole), I was only able to find one job, and it took me two hours to get to work.  After a few months, and with school starting soon, I sought a job closer to home in Woonsocket, at a Sears department store warehouse.  I did not check the “box” asking if I had been “convicted of a felony in the past seven years.”

My interview at Sears went well.  I submitted to a drug test, and upon the second interview I mentioned he would need to speak with my parole officer before taking the job.  When we got into my very distant past, it was clear I was not getting the job despite my willingness to work hard for under $8 per hour.  Others like me generally do not get that far, as many have been convicted in the past seven years.  He may have been more comfortable if my history were less severe, yet if that lighter crime were more recent, I probably would not have made the interview.

Last summer I transferred my probation to New Orleans and looked for an apartment.  I introduced myself as a Tulane Law Student.  After going through the process, I asked if they discriminated against anyone.  The agent assured me they did not, and requested my non-refundable $50 application fee.  I asked about “people with convictions.”  She did not know; they use a third party to do their background checks, but she was helpful enough to find their policy:  Anyone with a felony conviction within the past seven years is barred from living in River Garden, one of the largest housing complexes in New Orleans. And anyone who ever had a crime of violence or property damage cannot live there.  This is a common policy.

Last year we introduced the “Ban the Box” bill to This Committee.   We have gained the support of many, as I expect you will continue to see in the legislative process.  Some of you likely recall who came out in opposition: a lobbyist who represents background check companies.  They could not provide any evidence of people with criminal records creating less effective workplaces, yet evidence of these policies decimating communities is overwhelming.  They are likely familiar that their companies frequently violate the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which has standards for checking people’s information.  Background checks have a consistent error rate, evidenced by the approximately 100,000 voters barred from the polls in Florida in 2000 because their names were similar to others who were barred by felony convictions.

Background check companies are blunt data miners who rarely recognize corrections or expungements, and certainly cannot assess the actual job applicant- whether 20 days or 20 years after conviction.  This Legislature has held many hearings on expunging criminal records, even reforms proposed by the Attorney General.  Those expungements are useless where background check companies do not update material.  Their goal, understandably, is profit rather than safety.

When NY Governor Cuomo was Attorney General, he filed a series of discrimination suits against companies based on FCRA, Title VII, and New York anti-discrimination laws.  He elicited millions of dollars in settlements and voluntary reforms in their hiring policies.  Appropriate law in Rhode Island could provide guidance and protection for our own companies, allowing them to avoid the type of hiring policies that the EEOC has condemned.  The EEOC is stepping up its enforcement, and recently negotiated a $3.1 million settlement with Pepsi, including a change to their hiring practice, as they had conducted blanket denials based on criminal records.

My prospects of returning to Rhode Island and raising my daughter are largely tied to what this legislature does in the coming years.  Nearly a third of public school students have a parent who is under government supervision like myself; would I be barred from volunteering?  Barred from school property?  Will I be allowed to work based on my skills and efforts?  Will I be allowed to rent or buy a home anywhere I like?  This nation has been on a dangerous slope over recent decades, and if we do not reverse course we will have a caste society that forces me to create a different economy, a different school system, and a different community.  This is not what I want, and I am confident that it is not what the people of Rhode Island want.  Ultimately, we will all sink or swim together.

These comments were submitted to the House Labor Committee and entered into the record at its hearing on Wednesday on a bill that would make concerning pre-interview criminal background checks, or as it has been called “Ban the Box” because it would make it illegal to have a box on a job application asking if one has been convicted of a felony.

Posted on

Who Should Be ‘Crashing the System?’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The recent article by Michelle Alexander appearing in the New York Times, “Crash the System,” has stirred up a great deal of interest among the activist community.  Most of the people I have heard from, however, have been those who never faced imprisonment- including many lawyers and law students… i.e., people who actually read the New York Times or have it shared with them on their Facebook wall.  Alexander’s article dangles a theory of overloading and “crashing” the criminal justice system: by everyone refusing the plea bargain and going to trial.

This crashing maneuver is nothing new to prisoners.  The article itself spawned from a conversation between Alexander and Susan Burton, a formerly incarcerated woman who has since become a trailblazing activist and organizer on criminal justice reform.  Having spoken with those who have done time in other states, I know most elements of the system are essentially the same no matter where you go.

When I was facing my own sentence, being held without bail for nearly three years, I counseled hundreds of men regarding plea bargains and trials.  I could typically anticipate the first offer from the state, what he should counter-offer, and what the state will settle on.  It was very formulaic, and a disappointment whenever someone took the first offer just to get out of the hideous conditions of pretrial detention (yet another tactic).  And there was always that guy yelling, “People need to take everything to trial.  Shut down that whole damn system.”  And there is another guy saying, “I came in alone, I’m going out alone.”

In hindsight, I could have never organized these men to refuse plea bargains and go to trial for several reasons.  First, there is something distinctly personal about one’s own sentence.  Unlike conditions of confinement that affects everyone inside, the individual sentences can range from weeks to decades for actions that have nothing to do with each other.  That early phase of confinement, in jail or “Intake,” is rife with suspicion, ego, and predatory tactics.  Nobody is prepared to take a bullet for the person in the cell next to them.

Some of the commentary I have read by activists (who do not live in Highly Policed Communities) suggest that the nation’s arrested (mostly poor People of Color) should take this on.  As if we have now found the secret method of change in a nice March On Washington and Occupy Wall Street way.  They would put the onus of changing an oppressive system on the lashed backs of the oppressed.  Sadly, due to the impotence of the American public at large, it will likely end up being just that.  Others have asked the legal community what they can do in this situation, suggesting that a lawyer holds the key to a plea bargain and could actually counsel people to take a stand.

A lawyer’s job is to arm a client with as much knowledge as possible so they can make the best decision.  This does not always happen, particularly in the world of young Public Defenders with massive caseloads.  Not only does the typical lawyer have little knowledge about the totality of the system, from police tactics to prison conditions, parole hearings to probation violations, or employment discrimination to voting rights… most attorneys would not have time to truly explain this to an accused person.

Public Defenders, AND prosecutors, need to develop an ethical standard about collateral consequences, sentencing enhancements, and reduced standard of guilt (on violation hearings) so that people can intelligently accept/reject a plea.  As of now, the accused generally hears “If you sign this, you can go home today.” Or “If you go to trial and are convicted, they will throw the book at you.”

One lawyer mentioned to me that he is currently pursuing a strategy against a sentencing enhancement by arguing how, when he was sentenced before, nobody said anything about getting extra time if he were convicted again.  Every state has “bonus” time, such as Three Strikes in California, where people can get as much as 20 years to Life tacked on “just because.”  Thus, the enhancement is often higher than all their previous sentences combined.  This is a good legal strategy, similar to the successful argument in Padilla, holding that someone cannot be deported for a prior guilty plea when they were not told that the plea can result in deportation.  Those in best position to fight a criminal conviction by taking it to trial are often facing lighter crimes at a young age.

My first plea was for marijuana possession.  Four of us were traveling in a car, we were pulled over, and the police found a bag after nearly ten minutes.  No warrant, of course.  My friends all had families to report to, so I claimed it to be mine.  When I went to court, the Public Defender met me in the hallway and never mentioned the Fourth Amendment.  Instead she explained how if I pay a few hundred dollars the charge will go away if I stay out of trouble for a year.  And I won’t have to do any time on it.  Up until that point, I had contact with the police just about every year since I was 11 years old.  It did not seem to matter to her whether or not I might have contact over the next year.  This was a standard deal.  Bargaining was not a concept in this plea.

My second plea, within a year of the last, was slightly more complicated, as they offered me five years suspended and five years probation.  Same procedure in the hallway, but I insisted two things: I didn’t steal the car, and I was not intoxicated.  The prosecutor amended the charge to Receiving Stolen Goods Over $500, and kept the sentence.  I took it.

Many years later, when trying to get a driver’s license, the DMV told me I was convicted of refusing a breathalyzer.  I felt this was ludicrous considering the police brought me unconscious into the hospital after a car wreck.  But it was too late to challenge this, so I was told.  The total tab to get back on the road was over $3000, including DWI classes and extra insurance.  And yet today, this little bonus conviction doesn’t even show up on my record.  Such is the ways of the system.

My final plea is the most telling.  I called their bluff.  I knew what I was actually guilty of, under law, and they initially agreed to this, and would ask the court to impose the maximum sentence.  When I went to court for the official sentencing, they pulled the rug out and wanted a more severe charge. Apparently the Attorney General wanted to keep his statistics up.  I demanded a trial.  I told my lawyer, “Going through life as a convicted murderer is likely to be much different than being labeled a convicted manslaughterer.”

My lawyer asked what I would take on second degree murder.  I told him 15 years.  He said they would never go for it.  I said “get a jury, let’s go to trial.”  He started to explain how summer was coming, nobody wants to do trials, people go on vacation… I reminded him I had been held without bail for almost three years.  I wanted my “Speedy Trial,” which is supposed to be within 180 days.  My lawyer went back upstairs.

The guys in the holding pen were scared for me.  “Man, you’re rolling some big dice.”  The few who knew me had to remind me I knew the law and wouldn’t get rolled over.  Manslaughter itself carried up to 30 years, and I knew if I lost a trial I would get just that, and hopefully be out in 15 or 20 on parole.  I would rather get 30 for manslaughter than 25 for murder.  I knew it would have a domino effect on my entire life.

It only took about fifteen minutes for my lawyer to come back down.  The prosecutor was going to ask the court to impose 25 years for second degree murder- they knocked off five.  If I pled guilty, the judge could still do whatever he wanted.  If he went higher, naturally I would have screamed out in the courtroom about “fraud, deceit” and other such things that would get my “plea” thrown out.  Upstairs, the prosecutor who previously recommended a manslaughter conviction, labeled me before the court in as vile terms imaginable.  He could have said the same things about Osama bin Laden, as there really isn’t much else to say.  After hearing statements all around, the judge gave me 45 years, with 20 years to serve.  I didn’t scream out, or anything.  I was already numb.  That chapter of my life was officially over.

Two decades later and I can say with certainty that the label on me does not rest.  The label says nothing about what I actually did, but its easy for journalists and others to use- people can attach a set of images and presumptions to it.  My lawyer was not overly concerned about this label, nor any collateral consequences.  A nice enough guy, it just wasn’t in the cards to discuss anything other than the actual number of years in prison.  We did not talk about life on parole, or on probation, and how that will impact me.  Ultimately, even a Jailhouse Lawyer like myself who spent years studying the rules of evidence and constitutional provisions, did not make a fully informed choice regarding my plea.

The eighteen year old me could have been part of crashing the system.  I had a perfect case for trial that carried a light sentence overall.  A good lawyer would have taken the extra hour to get it dismissed.  A good lawyer would explain to young people that if one takes the statutory maximum sentence, suspended, and goes home today on probation, they are very likely to serve at least five years on that probation violation… because something is likely to happen between ages 20 and 30- particularly in Highly Policed Communities amongst my Black and Brown brothers and sisters.  The nineteen year old me, facing serious charges, needed the benefit of those who keep the system in check.  Unfortunately, I’ve found that those without criminal records are waiting on me to keep the system in check.

Posted on

RI Voters’ Poll: Seeking Major Changes In Marijuana Policy

A new poll of 714 Rhode Island Voters indicates overwhelming support for medical marijuana, compassion centers, and decriminalization of less than one ounce of the plant.  The medical marijuana law, gone unused by Rep. Bob Watson (if he were to qualify) garnered support of 72%, including a whopping 82% of Dems, 61% GOP, and 57% of those beloved Seniors that every politician craves.  Only 30% of people over 65 were opposed.  With that support, it should be no surprise that support for the Compassion Centers (approved by the legislature three years ago) was equally high- and the poll suggests that Chaffee stands to gain some support if he were to stop Pot-Blocking the Compassion Centers.  Half the voters said they would view the Governor more favorably, while only 19% would view him less favorably.

A meager 24% are opposed to making small amounts of marijuana punishable by only a fine, and apparently would rather pay to imprison someone over a bag of the most common illegal intoxicant, being used by millions of Americans every day.  In contrast, 65% of RI voters would like to see the highly anticipated change in the law, and 58% would be more likely to vote for a politician who supported such a reform (24% said “less likely,” with 18% not sure).  Political gurus: you know the score. Few have ever seen a bill with this much sponsorship and public support that has not become law.  It appears the onus is upon Speaker Gordon Fox to assure all the votes are held, as few individuals other than he could keep this bill from reaching the Governor’s desk.  It remains to be seen how many courageous people take to the hearing, saying things heard last year such as: ‘I’m a wife, a mother, I have a job, pay a mortgage, and I smoke pot.’  H 7092, sponsored by Rep. Edwards, has a list of co-sponsors that makes you search for the opposition.  Minority Leader Newberry?  Sponsor.  Favorite Villain Rep. Palumbo?  Sponsor.  The aroma smells the same in the Senate, with S 2253.  Stay tuned.

The more interesting proposition is one which gained the support of millions of voters in California on the first try: Full Regulation of Marijuana.  Such a bill has gone to a hearing for the past two years; admittedly, the legislation may need to be more detailed, or empower the proper regulatory agency to oversee a several hundred million dollar economic development project that America has never seen.  I could not find such a bill filed yet in the Assembly, but I may have overlooked it.  The poll of voters, by the way, shakes out 52-41% in support.  If this were projected numbers in an election, the front page would call it a “landslide.”  Interestingly, the women are much less enthusiastic about Regulation despite being more supportive than men on the Compassion Centers.  There was no difference in support among party lines, with the Independent/Other having lower support than the two dominant factions.  On this question, the Over 65 crowd was the most out of step with everyone else, as they oppose Regulation 55-36%.  I’m not sure if these numbers would be identical in 10 years, and age reflects our changing opinions, or if the idea of marijuana criminalization will go Bye Bye like Ms. American Pie.

One question that was not asked, that would be of interest, is support for the Good Samaritan Act.  This bill (successful elsewhere) is basically designed to encourage one drug user to save the life of another.  Studies and experience in the medical field has shown that drug overdose, a serious killer in America even when the newspaper is not so explicit, can often be prevented by the most unlikely hero, another user.  However, faced with the fear of prison (and possibly being linked in with their death) the other user will flee rather than call 911 or administer naxalone.  Under this bill, nobody is going to be charged with drug possession if the evidence arises when its a medical response.  Surely a certain percentage of RI voters would rather see people dead or in jail, but I suspect that a vast majority would encourage people in tough times to choose life.

Life, Compassion, and Decriminalization- that is what the people are leaning towards.  Don’t let the fear-mongering media fool you.

 

Posted on

Wyatt’s Wall Streeters to RI: “Buy My Prison, PLEASE!”

Recent talk continues about the state buying a troubled asset, the Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls.  The thinking is that the state could purchase the outlandishly overvalued prison, refinance it, and operate a modest profit margin while saving the bondholders on Wall Street.  Naturally, such a deal would take decades, if ever, to pay off.  As is, a scheduled increase in finance payments should bankrupt the prison within a few years.  Like many such large projects, the income is made on the construction and the taxpayer dollars being redirected into the inside investors- a prison is not a “business” that sells a profitable service to customers.

The Wyatt prison operates at about half the cost of the ACI.  They also get hundreds of thousands of dollars in free city services.  Their subsidized, tax-free, “privatized” efficiency is done primarily by paying their labor on par with WalMart, rather than negotiating with the RI Brotherhood of Correctional Officers.  If the state were to buy the Wyatt, there would likely be a considerable push to pay similar salaries and benefits, and the Brotherhood will likely demand those be union jobs.  Furthermore, the payouts by Wyatt to prisoners’ widows (such as Jason Ng) would come out of the state coffers.  The Wyatt will be guided by 14th Amendment protections under state ownership, which can grow costly, as (surprise) prisoners happen to be human beings and there are limitations on what forms of punishment and neglect can be inflicted upon them.  Ultimately, and thoughts on turning a profit should be forgotten.

The desires to own a prison suggest little has been learned by the Bailouts and Foreclosure Crisis.  Many people in government appear determined to override market forces and subsidize poor business models.  It is much easier for a government official to do than an individual investor because, after all, it is not their money.  And all you need to do to keep the Wyatt in business: increase sentences, arrest more people, create new crimes, and put more police on the street.  For every dollar that the Wyatt makes, a dollar is spent by the taxpayers.  Wyatt’s Wall Street owners need you to keep their pockets lined.

Posted on

Why Getting Tough Is Weak


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This week the Senate Judiciary voted to eliminate Good Time for people convicted of murder or serious sex offenses (1st degree child molestation, 2nd degree child molestation, kidnapping of a minor, and 1st degree sexual assault).  (Good Time is the 10 days per month a prisoner receives for good conduct.  In a month where the prisoner gets in trouble, they get no Good TIme, and will get 1-3 months worth of Good Time subtracted from their total.)  At the same time, as blogged by Tom Sgouros, A.G. Kilmartin let Wall Street off the hook on the foreclosure crisis.  The Attorney General also has a “White Collar Crime” proposed bill that isn’t about white collar crime- it is about corrupt public officials exclusively.  He has absolutely no response to the financial crisis that is rampant with actual criminal activity.

It has long been accepted that White Collar crime is more serious than street crime.  Even the political debates, which focus on fear and leave rationality behind, don’t have space to waste on street crime- but the Bailout, foreclosure crimes, and mass healthcare fraud make the cut.  Yet when it comes to taking action and making the world a safe and secure place, we come back to the tried-and-true.

The “Woodmansee” legislation will put more pressure on the parole board to either release someone, or serve a long and costly incarceration.  As prisoners age they get more expensive.  Rhode Island will find out.  Still unwilling to do something as little as make marijuana possession a civil penalty, the General Assembly’s thirst for prisoners may never cease.  Even as the state crumbles around them.  It is understandable to want to kill those who have committed terrible crimes, or in lieu of that, lock them up forever.  Two factors need to be factored into that impulse: money and morality.

Plea bargains do as much, if not more, for the taxpayers than they do for the accused.  It is no small thing to plead guilty to a serious offense, to give up any slim hope of exoneration, or being convicted of a lesser charge.  Pleading guilty means admitting to the facts laid out by the Attorney General, and these are not agreed upon in the bargain.  They may be inaccurate, and they may come back to haunt someone who is looking for work years later.  Pleading guilty also means saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial.  Lawyers on both sides should be spending dozens of hours in preparation for a trial.  Their investigators would be spending days in preparation.  Expert witnesses would be found, and paid.  Although the Attorney General’s office and Public Defender are salaried, rather than hourly, enough trials would bring the entire system to a halt.  More staff would be hired at a few more million per year.  And to avoid this, the Attorney General offers a seemingly lighter sentence than would be had from a judge angry at the audacity of taking it to trial.

Judging by the Attorney General’s attitude towards prisoners, that they all should serve as long a sentence as legally possible (and in some cases, such as Woodmansee’s, spitting in the law’s face)… it is impossible to see any space for rehabilitation in the Attorney General worldview.  This is not particular to him.  A.G. Lynch, and most A.G.’s around the country, also have lobbyists who fight against any relaxation in the street crime laws, and also actively pursue increases in these laws.  Thus, they should not be taken seriously when engaging in, or talking about, reentry or rehabilitation.

Eliminating Good Time based on someone’s crime reinforces the notion that someone will always be the sum of a single day.  That they can not change.  That they are their crime.  This analysis is rampant throughout the criminal justice system, and is not very useful in assessing rehabilitative needs.  As someone who has been out for nearly seven years from a second degree murder conviction, I would still be on parole if not for Good Time.  And that is assuming the parole board would have looked as favorably on my situation, if my release date were September, 2013.

I’ve been asked recently if the Woodmansee Law, which will surely go through (yet not affect Michael Woodmansee, of course) will be applied retroactively.  It is not uncommon for states to feel that court decisions, including those ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, do not bind them.  So it is possible that RI will apply this rule to several hundred prisoners at the ACI. It will not hold up in court however, as prisoners have a “liberty interest” in Good Time credits; once given, they cannot be arbitrarily revoked.

Rhode Island has not hit rock bottom on “Getting Tough” on street crime.  It may take more budget, more staff, more prisons.  There is some debate of whether anything political can change course without a cataclysmic event.  Whereas a minority of the General Assembly do bring some wisdom to the table rather than a “base mobilizing” approach to extremist positions, we shall see.

Posted on

How To Confront a Candidate, or How to Drink Liberally.

It is often bemoaned that candidates only talk about certain issues, only debate the same topics, and hardly ever disagree on anything of true substance.  “My economic package is better than yours.”  “I’m tougher on our enemies than the other guy.”  Blah, blah, blah.  When we consider that Obama, Bush, and McCain all agreed on (1) the Bailout of the banks, (2) hundreds of thousands of American soldiers patrolling multiple Middle Eastern nations, (3) the Patriot Act, (4) maintaining the Drug War, (5) paying mercenary armies like Blackwater, (6) appointing industry insiders to regulatory positions, (7) accepting billions of dollars in campaign donations, and so many other things…  what do they have left to disagree about??  The level of discrimination against gay people.  A few percentage points on the tax bill.

So the key to getting your issue on the map is to ask the candidate in public, with voters and media in the room.  Even if you are creating your own media, the key is to get them “on the record.”  Wait in line for the microphone and ask away.  Obviously this is easier to do in a local race than a big national one, but those interactions are going to have more impact anyway.  People need to see that the president is, in many ways, inconsequential because there is little difference between candidates.

Go look in the mirror and practice how to load up a question.  Here, try these on for size:

“With prison spending exceeding education spending, and legal discrimination against 200,000 people in our state due to their felony record, where they are barred from employment, where computers are deleting applications that reflect a felony record, where public housing is denying the reunification of families… do you think we should continue to use prisons as a solution for mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse?  Or do you think we should find an alternative?”

 Check out the tactic of leading in with some facts.  Frame the question.  Make it so they must agree… in public at least.

“Considering that education is the oldest form of self-empowerment and the only known pathway for stability, not only for an individual but for a community, do you think prisoners and former prisoners should be allowed to get an education?”

Follow-up:  “And what do you say to the person who feels that a former prisoner’s education is taking a classroom seat away from someone who was not in prison, and more deserving?”

Who can be against education?

“In a society where defense attorneys are sometimes earning millions of dollars each year defending drug clients, do you find any conflict of interest for a legislator, who has ties to the defense attorneys through their own firm or their close associates, to make laws that create more clients?”

“With all the failed results from rehabilitation and re-entry programs designed without the input of those who have direct experience, do you think it is time to listen to former prisoners (those who are truly the primary stakeholder in rehabilitation) about what works and doesn’t work… or should we keep giving money to so-called experts and the politically connected entities?“

“Do you think people released from prison should be encouraged to get more involved in their community by voting, holding jobs, and raising their children… or should they be pushed into the shadows of an underclass where drugs and violence are essential for survival?”

Here’s one I have for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is coming to do a talk on voting at my law school.  Let’s see if he selects it, and answers….

“In Louisiana there are 66,000 people on probation and parole who cannot vote, and over 10% of New Orleans is barred from voting.  Considering as Felony Disenfranchisement laws have a disparate impact on People of Color, do you believe theJustice Department should consider enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in states, such as Louisiana, that are covered under Section 5 of the Act?”

Film it, post it, share it.  Let the follow-ups begin, and let the candidates show their knowledge, intelligence, leadership, and compassion for all their constituents shine… or not.

What question would YOU ask?

Posted on

Santorum and Romney Square Off On Felon Disenfranchisement

Rick Santorum asked Mitt Romney point blank: “Do you believe people who were felons, who served their time, who exhausted their parole and probation, should be given the right to vote?”  This was in response to an ad by Romney’s “Super-PAC” attacking the former Pennsylvania senator.

The ad says Mr. Santorum voted to “let convicted felons vote” — something the senator says is “explicitly false” because it implies, though it never says, that he wanted felons to be able to vote from jail. The vote Mr. Santorum cast, Senate vote No. 31 in 2002, would have overridden state laws when it comes to federal elections. It would have required them to let felons register to vote once they have completed their prison sentences and any probation or parole.

Romney, at first, beat around the bush.  “I don’t believe people who have committee violent crimes should be given their right to vote.”

Santorum retorted that, while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the law allowed people on probation and parole (including those who committed violent crimes) could in fact vote.  And Romney did nothing to fight it.

In fact, until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts could vote– just as they currently can in Maine and Vermont.

The problem here is about creating and underclass in America, a caste of Americans with no stake in the democracy.  A group, millions strong, who are told to pay taxes, abide by the laws, yet have no representation.  How can  a democracy survive with parents barred from the ballot box?  How can such a large group, with further discrimination in employment and housing, be expected to abide by the law?  Most of them will, and most do, but this is a credit to people’s basic human instinct to live in peace and harmony.  It is not due to political leadership.

Was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts somehow saved when prisoners were barred from participation?  Was the state of Rhode Island somehow dismantled when people on probation and parole were granted their voting rights in 2006?  I was part of the latter ballot campaign, going so far as drafting the final constitutional amendment… just one year removed from prison, for a violent crime.  It is ironic that I move to Louisiana for law school and legally lose my right to vote.  It should come as no surprise that I felt much more connected to the democracy, to my responsibilities as a citizen, in the state where I could vote.

Posted on

Philadelphia Freedom: Is This The New Swing Vote?

A coalition of seventeen organizations have recently embarked on a revolutionary voter registration drive, and what better place to be revolutionary than Philadelphia?  The Returning Citizens Voter Movement is directed towards formerly incarcerated people, engaging many more people with felony records who never went to prison, and far more people without records who have a family member in the criminal justice system.  Is this an effort that will be replicated around the nation in 2012?

The goal of 10,000 new registrations may seem overly ambitious, but consider that at any given time, Philadelphia has between 200,000 – 400,000 residents who previously served time in prison.  These are people who have the right to vote, and surely some do, but have collectively never been engaged in the political dialogue of their community.  As Maelissa Gamble, founder of The Time Is Now to Make a Change puts it, “People are tired.  They’re saying, ‘somebody should have done this already.’  And they are not seeing the re-entry resources that get talked about all the time.”

Gamble and other community leaders have been tangling not only with getting people assistance in restructuring their lives, but also in successfully tearing down the barriers that keep people from following their good intentions.  Last year Philadelphia “Banned the Box” and eliminated “Have you ever been convicted from a felony?” from job applications in the city.  It is ironic that the same government allocating funds for rehabilitation/re-entry also has laws that create ever-higher hurdles for people trying to build a life in the community.

With the Pennsylvania Republican Primary on April 24th (the same day as New York, Rhode Island, and Delaware) it will be interesting to see how this specific criminal justice-based civic outreach can be bolstered by the media.  Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has a history in Philadelphia, and his views on issues may be well known.  Meanwhile, Texas Senator Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of the Drug War and the massive use of incarceration in America.  With the Texas and Wisconsin primaries on April 3rd, it is possible that Paul’s campaign will have a bounce that reverberates through three weeks of focus on Pennsylvania (a perennial “swing state”).

All but three of the coalition organizations in the voter registration and awareness campaign are led by formerly incarcerated people.  This is part of a concerted effort by the Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement to register one million people across the country, and Philadelphia is leading the way.  One historical dilemma with a broad movement is the creation of factions and the challenge of coalition-building.  Gamble, formerly incarcerated herself, now finds herself in the middle of a group including the Human Rights Coalition, Proyecto Sol Filadelfia, ACLU, Reconstruction Inc., Educational Advocates Reaching Today’s Hardworking Students (EARTHS), and more.

It is often noted that over four million people are disenfranchised due to criminal records, however it should be also noted that there are tens of millions of people who are eligible to vote- people who have been (or still are) impacted by the criminal justice system.  This is an issue-based group, with no party loyalties.  The group is urban and rural, of all skin tones.  And the voices are beginning to be heard.

Politicians will be knocking on doors of “Likely voters” registered to their parties or as “Independents.”  If one is not registered and exercising their vote, there will be no knock, no pandering, no listening.  The coalition will be setting up registration stations all over the city, from grocery stores to community forums, probation offices to social services locations, they will even be registering people currently awaiting trial in the jails. When thousands of voters demand candidates who will call a cease fire in the Drug War, who will re-direct that money into education, to books rather than bars, the pandering will begin.  It is not likely that the GOP will hold an inner city debate with ordinary residents in the audience (these are made-for-TV controlled events); and it is not likely that Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney will come looking to do a “Town Hall” session with urban voters… but wait until 2016.  Rebuild it, and they will come.

Maelissa Gamble can be contacted at (215) 834-5165 and mgamblethetimeisnowtomakeachange@yahoo.com

 

Posted on

National “Occupy” Day in Support of Prisoners: February 20th


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A proposal passed yesterday by the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland is to generate a national day of action that will call attention to prisons across America.  While presidential candidates take to their stumps, one might be unaware that America is the international leader of incarceration with no competition in sight.  February 20th, amidst American Black History Month, has also been declared by the United Nations as “World Day of Social Justice.”

The call coincides with a recent call to action by supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal to condemn solitary confinement as a means of torture.  Mumia has been transferred to solitary since leaving Death Row.  Read more from the Human Rights Coalition, here.  The call also comes amidst growing awareness of the relationship between Wall Street, prisons, prison labor, and paid lobbyists pushing policies that create more prisoners.

“We are calling for February 20th, 2012 to be a ‘National Occupy Day in Support of Prisoners.’

“In the Bay Area we will ‘Occupy San Quentin,’ to stand in solidarity with the people confined within its walls and to demand the end of the incarceration as a means of containing those dispossessed by unjust social policies.

Reasons

Prisons have become a central institution in American society, integral to our politics, economy and our culture.  Between 1976 and 2000, the United States built on average a new prison each week and the number of imprisoned Americans increased tenfold.

Prison has made the threat of torture part of everyday life for millions of individuals in the United States, especially the 7.3 million people—who are disproportionately people of color—currently incarcerated or under correctional supervision.

Imprisonment itself is a form of torture. The typical American prison, juvenile hall and detainment camp is designed to maximize degradation, brutalization, and dehumanization.

Mass incarceration is the new Jim Crow. Between 1970 and 1995, the incarceration of African Americans increased 7 times. Currently African Americans make up 12 % of the population in the U.S. but 53% of the nation’s prison population. There are more African Americans under correctional control today—in prison or jail, on probation or parole—than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.

The prison system is the most visible example of policies of punitive containment of the most marginalized and oppressed in our society. Prior to incarceration, 2/3 of all prisoners lived in conditions of economic hardship. While the perpetrators of white-collar crime largely go free.

In addition, the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that in 2008 alone there was a loss in economic input associated with people released from prison equal to $57 billion to $65 billion.

We call on Occupies across the country to support:

1.  Abolishing unjust sentences, such as the Death Penalty, Life Without the Possibility of Parole, Three Strikes, Juvenile Life Without Parole, and the practice of trying children as adults.

2.  Standing in solidarity with movements initiated by prisoners and taking action to support prisoner demands, including the Georgia Prison Strike and the Pelican Bay/California Prisoners Hunger Strikes.

3.  Freeing political prisoners, such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, Lynne Stewart, Bradley Manning and Romaine “Chip” Fitzgerald, a Black Panther Party member incarcerated since 1969.

4. Demanding an end to the repression of activists, specifically the targeting of African Americans and those with histories of incarceration, such as Khali in Occupy Oakland who could now face a life sentence, on trumped-up charges, and many others being falsely charged after only exercising their First Amendment rights.

5. Demanding an end to the brutality of the current system, including the torture of those who have lived for many years in Secured Housing Units (SHUs) or in solitary confinement.

6. Demanding that our tax money spent on isolating, harming and killing prisoners, instead be invested in improving the quality of life for all and be spent on education, housing, health care, mental health care and other human services which contribute to the public good.

Bay Area

On February 20th, 2012 we will organize in front of San Quentin, where male death-row prisoners are housed, where Stanley Tookie Williams was immorally executed by the State of California in 2005, and where Kevin Cooper, an innocent man on death row, is currently imprisoned.

At this demonstration, through prisoners’ writings and other artistic and political expressions, we will express the voices of the people who have been inside the walls. The organizers of this action will reach out to the community for support and participation. We will contact social service organizations, faith institutions, labor organizations, schools, prisoners, former prisoners and their family members.

National and International Outreach

We will reach out to Occupies across the country to have similar demonstrations outside of prisons, jails, juvenile halls and detainment facilities or other actions as such groups deem appropriate.  We will also reach out to Occupies outside of the United States and will seek to attract international attention and support.”

Endorsers Include:

Angela Davis
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
Campaign to End the Death Penalty
Jack Bryson
Kevin Cooper Defense Committee
Labor Action Committee to Free Mumia Abu Jamal
Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu Jamal
National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
Occupied Oakland Tribune
Oscar Grant Committee Against Police Brutality and State Repression
Prison Activist Resource Center
Prison Watch Network
San Francisco Bay View Newspaper
Stanley Tookie Williams Legacy Network

“Social justice is more than an ethical imperative, it is a foundation for national stability and global prosperity. Equal opportunity, solidarity and respect for human rights — these are essential to unlocking the full productive potential of nations and peoples..” 

-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Posted on

Dr. King’s Legacy: RIPTA Called Out by Community to Re-hire Fired Workers


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Next Thursday, on January 19th, at 6:30pm, members of the RIPTA board will be at Direct Actions for Rights & Equality (DARE), answering calls to reinstate two employees who were unjustly fired last month.  The fundamental question is: are  people with criminal histories are sentenced to a life of unemployment?  Even the New York Times has noted that nearly a third of Americans are arrested by the age of 23, but more importantly, the EEOC has long declared that a blanket policy of discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Can RIPTA fire employees after the media highlights their criminal records?  They may, but it may come with a cost.  The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) allowed three people into their training program who had records, and all of the felonies were over five years old.  Two passed the training and made it to be drivers.  Not an incident was reported until the media decided to do a fear tactic story, about who was driving folks around.

Within four days of the story, RIPTA Chairman of the Board, Thom Deller (who has his own controversies over a long and peculiar government career) announced that the two drivers are not on the road.  The bus drivers union, meanwhile, held  a “No-Confidence” vote of the RIPTA CEO Charles Odimgbe.  Union President John Harrington says “We believe in second chances, but there was a lack of good judgment hiring those individuals…”  And therein lies the rub: when will it be good judgment?

Over 10% of Providence residents, for example, are actively on probation or parole.  Far more than 25% of the city has a criminal record.  Over 50% of Black men in Providence have criminal records.  These records range from petty to serious, recent to distant, with each subsequent charge being enhanced both in name and punishment.  Ultimately, petty crimes for those with extensive histories result in major prison sentences.  In general: those who have no felonies over the past five years have been faring well.  At what point are they employable?

It is poor public safety policy to take a cross-section of any community and say you are not allowed to work.  It is a sign of poor leadership if a community stands by as a bulk of the workforce is labeled “persona non grata,” and there is no pathway back into society.  What is the message the legislators and the RIPTA Board are sending?  The one I hear is “We don’t care where you look for work, just don’t look for work around here.”  This translates into, we don’t care how you feed and house yourself, just go away.  Yet there is no place else to go… except prison.

What is the message being heard by millions of people across the country who have criminal convictions?  By tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders not lucky enough to work for an aunt or uncle?  That message is clear:  Don’t bother looking for work.  Don’t bother getting an education.  Don’t bother obeying the rules.  Personally, I do not like that message one bit, yet I have heard it loudly for quite some time.  It means more people quitting after ten rejections in their job search, when perhaps the eleventh application would have paid off.  It means more drug sales.  More breaking into businesses late at night looking for a means to eat and sleep.  It means that people I care about are likely to end up on either end of a gun.  It means someone I know may carjack someone else I know, with one mother in a visiting room and the other at a funeral.

It is unfortunate to read statements by the bus drivers’ union that fail to support the workers.  Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday is January 15th.  A national holiday for a man once vilified by the American government.  MLK famously led a bus boycott that resulted in a full integration of the drivers, and a change in the “Back of the Bus” policy.  With RIPTA already poised for further cuts, would they like a boycott by the people with criminal records and their family members?  Are such customers only good enough to buy a ride, but not good enough to work there?  A boycott of any scale and sustainability would possibly eliminate RIPTA altogether, and might be easy to do with one of the highest fares in the country.

From the days of “No Irish Need Apply” to Jim Crow segregation, courts and lawmakers have ultimately responded to a public that demands a right to regulate its own communities.  Title VII is just one avenue to attack systemic discrimination that links racial disparity with the effects of our current criminal justice system.  The people are on the rise in this regard.  Whether it is the recent victory in Detroit to “Ban the Box” on job applications, or Gov. Cuomo’s ability to extract millions from companies who discriminate based on criminal records, it is becoming more expensive to hold the Puritan line of a chosen people ruling over the outcasts.

A coalition of groups, led by DARE and RI Community of Addiction and Recovery Efforts (RICARES), will be pursuing legislation this year that has received growing support to Ban the Box, including Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, House Judiciary Chair Edie Ajello, House Labor Chair Anastasia Williams, Minority Leader Brian Newberry, and Republican Rep. Mike Chippendale.  Representative Scott Slater  has been the primary sponsor of a bipartisan bill to address this very issue.  Ironically, the legislation is designed to give people a chance in the application process, to prove themselves as the two RIPTA employees did.  Only courage and wisdom of administrators can keep people employed once a negative portrayal comes out in the media.

Public transportation is primarily used by the poor and people of color; people who are highly policed and often know quite a few with a blemish on their record.  It is a shame to see elected and appointed leaders publicly state their assumptions that having a criminal record equates to being a bad person, a bad worker, or a danger to strangers.  To have no judgment process, no filter, is to say that all people without criminal records are equal.  They are all of the same intelligence, same work ethic, same moral standard, and should be awarded or punished all the same.  Those who paint broad strokes are clearly ignorant, because they certainly do not have enough experience with the huge percentage of America who have been arrested and processed through our criminal justice system.  Ignorance may get people elected, but it shouldn’t keep them in power.

Posted on

Two Ways to Destroy “Occupy” Movement

Two Ways to Destroy “Occupy Wall Street”

As somebody’s momma once said, “the best thing you can do is show up.”  This has been happening all over the country since a group of folks decided to head down to that bull on Wall Street and call out to stop the bullshit.  This is not a report on “OWS,” it is an insight on the historical demolition of popular movements.

Divide and Conquer

The classic method of the powerful to distract the masses is to get them to fight amongst themselves.  The easiest one is via racism, and the other is class warfare pitting the Middle Class vs. Lower Class.  America’s long struggle with racism needs no extra lesson here, but one can see the tensions within OWS, and it is guaranteed that the Koch Brothers of the world, the Rupert Murdochs, with all their corporate and media power, will find every crack to expand.

The powerful have often inserted rabble rousers in the midst of the protest class, to pose as one, and to stir up internal strife.  This was done in the early Labor movement and overwhelmingly in the Civil Rights era.  Many a Native American activist has remarked about how there were times that the undercover agents outnumbered the activists.  They have been known to be the one who turned a peaceful protest violent, or manipulated factions against each other.  Will the current Occupiers be on guard for this?

Before continuing, let me add a disclaimer: I don’t speak on behalf of any ethnic or political group, nor organization, nor ideology.  I’m just one independent thinker.

I’ve seen various reports of racial tensions on the front lines of these actions and in the planning committees.  I read and hear about them with the expectations that the opposition will exploit them, and may have had a hand in manufacturing them.  It is worth noting that a true Popular Movement, one widespread enough to change a culture, thereby enacting political and economic change, will not have a corporate vertical structure.  Those who see the Occupy actions as opportunities to craft a single agreed upon message will doom the actions.  Those who are coming from Top-Down organizational structures, and wish to implement them more broadly, will suffocate the movement.

The 1% knows how to fight an army with a vanguard of leadership, it does not know how to deal with a hydra, or a million hydras.  It is not unexpected that many activists in a Movement are not directly affected, and it is typical that solidarity members can gravitate towards leadership roles if they have good communication skills.  These people are often referred to as “White Liberals,” but defining the affected class in an economic movement is not so simple as to break it into racial demographics.  If the result of such a “Black and White” view were to exclude poor and working class White people, a popular Movement is dead in its tracks.  Ultimately, the majority of America is poor and working class White people.  If a bulk of that group is convinced to wave the American flag and believe protesting political policies is being “un-American”, then it is over.

The 1% stands on the backs of poor and working class Whites.  They also stand on the backs of middle class Whites and People of Color, who believe assimilation and accommodation are the path to prosperity for their families.  The 1% has convinced a bulk of those groups that their stability is connected to standing on the necks of others.  And this connects with the second method of destroying OWS:

Pay the Protesters

Professional advocates can become beholden to their funders- be they government, corporate, or foundations.  Often, that funding is for the affects of an economic and political system that created this all-too-predictable financial crisis.  The funding typically is explicit in barring advocacy for structural change.  The pay-off will go to anyone who will take it, but generally the first offers go to those who appear to have credibility; sometimes that will be People of Color, and other times it will be White Liberals.  Someone to carry the water and be highlighted as a “responsible” leader of these people, and a commission is formed, and the new activists are told to go home so the chosen leaders can advocate on their behalf.  This is not so difficult to do when a movement looks more like an organization, and structured with a top-down approach (even if the top looks like the consensus of a small group).

What to Do?

People need to keep showing up.  Show up with a cacophony of voices, with ALL their issues.  Whether the issue is foreclosure, unemployment, civil rights, or something else, it is all tied into the structure of consolidated wealth that uses the government to protect this wealth.  In an uncertain feudal society, the King needs his lords and barons to protect him.  The nobility, in turn, needs their sheriffs, soldiers, and tax collectors to keep the serfs in line.  It is cheaper for them to hire more sheriffs and build more prisons than for their economic system to be modified.

Why is there never any discussion of automated technology leading to unemployment?  Because it is more Divisive to have working class Whites railing against Latino landscapers and in the streets about Voter ID, Secure Communities, and funding immigrant detention prisons.  In truth, there are so few skilled blue collar jobs in America for two primary reasons: (1) machines replaced humans (more profit for shareholders), and (2) companies moved businesses overseas after bipartisan pushes to change international laws (such as NAFTA).

The most un-American people in America are those who do not care about employing Americans, and would rather make another million via machine or cheap Chinese labor.  Even more un-American would be to take these profits and invest them outside of America, and then call on the American taxpayers to bail them out, or protect their economic interests in other countries.  Will mayors reign in police, or will riot gear be the new standard gear for every patrolman?  How many will be arrested?  Will the police themselves question their orders?  Few scenes so far have encapsulated OWS than a NY  Marine yelling at the NYPD, asking why they are in full riot gear and attacking unarmed civilians engaging in their 1st Amendment rights.

Why should multi-national corporations that do nothing for the common good in America receive favored status?  Why should a nation that proclaims an adherence to “market forces” bail out those who played and lost?

The bipartisan bailout followed the bipartisan deregulation that caused it.  For every action, there is a reaction.  Bush and Obama, Dems and Republicans, were all in position to respond to the economic debacles of the past few years.  Rather than launch full scale investigations (Governors and Attorneys General included), they re-filled the empty pockets.  This was the reaction in Washington, D.C., where millions upon millions of corporate money flows- both in campaign donations and public contracts.  This was the greatest theft in modern history.  And now people are legitimately rallying around this, as clearly it went too far: many Middle Class people are slowly acknowledging they are no longer in the club.  For every action there is a reaction.

Is there an end game?  Is it possible that the current economic system can employ another ten million people- or employ five million to incarcerate the other five million?  Neither scenario looks likely.  The latter is a bit more possible, but only if the 1% pay vastly more taxes, as the incarceration tab has come home to roost.  Unless automation and foreign labor are drastically altered, there are simply not enough jobs in the current structure… and that is just presuming that shifting millions of jobs back home would not result in a catastrophe elsewhere.

Every day I walk down the street past bank-owned homes that are boarded up; past homeless people, and folks hanging out because they can’t find work.  It makes me feel that the mayor of my city should be forced to sit on that curb until an idea pops in his head, one which involves blighted property and eminent domain.  One which involves community development bloc grants.  One which recognizes that the homeless lady and the unemployed guy are more important than any entity who would balloon a mortgage payment, evict an owner, and sit on a boarded up home collecting rats, overgrown with weeds… until someone buys the house for the land it is worth and demolishes the home.  (after they collected the insurance money on the defaulted mortgage, so there is no loss).

It doesn’t matter what one looks like to see that things need to be stopped and shouted about.  It just matters that one stops to look.

Posted on

Oh, Doreen, Please….

Someone please give me notice if Rep. Costa’s “Paying More For TANF” bill makes it to a hearing next spring, because that should be a fun one.  As I pointed out in a prior post, drug testing mothers on assistance may feel good to some, but its not getting anyone “off welfare” in any productive manner.

According to my good friends at PolitiFact (who actually came with some numbers this time), Costa’s proposal will guarantee the state spends more money on the program.  So ironic.  If the state wants to up the budget by $100k, I’m sure there are better ideas.  And, according to the ProJo, there are less than 6,000 people receiving TANF in RI.  If they were all at a PC basketball game, you would be saying “there’s nobody here.”

FYI Rep. Costa: Take a lesson from John Dillinger.  When they asked him why he robs banks, he said “That’s where the money is.”  You can’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor.  Any mathlete can tell you that.

Posted on

RIFuture, I still love you- but…

Y’all might have noticed me not posting so much, as if nothing is going on in the criminal justice realm like the California hearing on Solitary Confinement, or Bloomberg editorializing that companies should Ban the Box (and cited a DOJ report regarding 30% of Americans having a criminal record *Hint, hint, ProJo “Pants On Fire”).  And maybe you noticed I began the post with “Y’all.”

In New Orleans, “Y’all” is proper speech used by teachers, judges, and Fortune 500 companies (the latter I’m just guessing).  And this is my new home, where I’m going to one of America’s top law schools, where (hopefully) they too will learn to deal with my big mouth.  NOLA is the most incarcerated city in the most incarcerated state in the most incarcerated nation in the world, and people down here don’t have the luxury of ignoring this, nor can they ignore racism and corruption.

Last week, five cops were convicted of shooting six people (killing two) on Danziger Bridge.  Their cover-up (trying to frame the victims) and “Katrina Defense” (it was a war zone, shit happens) both dramatically failed… yet this partially filmed shooting still took six years to see a trial.  It was not the attorney general who led the way, but community activists and the families hammering away and telling the story in the face of death threats.  Ultimately five other cops pled guilty and testified against these five, and the FBI proved the challenge of any police department investigating themselves.

But I have books to re-read on rules of procedure and whatnot, so I’ll miss a few things.  I’m researching the disenfranchisement laws, looking at Prison-Based Gerrymandering, marijuana possession, and Ban the Box.  And perhaps some artsy activities might occur on occasion.  Sound familiar?

I’ll be paying attention to Rhode Island too, for obvious reasons, and am still available to a limited degree.  For example, just before Amigo de la Gente Miguel passed, he was bemoaning the City’s ruling that the owner of “So Fresh and So Clean” car wash was having their previously awarded bid denied: the owner’s past criminal record kept the company from washing police cars.  Miguel was going to send me paperwork on it, he wanted to know what we can do, and I wanted to know who was deciding it, and on what policy was this based.  My hope is that this discriminatory decision is in good hands.

I hope to see some of y’all at Direct Action for Rights & Equality’s 25th Anniversary Gala on October 14th.  I’ll be trying to keep up with national criminal justice issues on www.Unprison.com, and will continue to weigh in on the Wyatt For-Profit Prison saga in Central Falls (insiders keep me posted!)

I want to extend special thanks to Matt Jerzyk and Brian Hull for encouraging me to write on RIFuture, and for all the people who found it useful information.  300,000 hits later on this site and I can see people are hungry for diverse points of view.  Stay hungry, my friends.

P.S.  Good luck with your hurricane!

Posted on

New National Report Highlights RI Public Defender

Back in February I posted about the fact that underfunded Public Defenders are a smokescreen for the real issue: underfunded prosecutors and courts cannot handle the number of crimes coming at them.  A new report by Justice Policy Institute, System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing Public Defense, continues the one-sided argument- although making some excellent points.

The latest report (continuing the BJS findings, as did I) notes the costs to “people” and “taxpayers” through pre-trial detention, and how hasty defense increases wrongful convictions.  Yet it does not point out who benefits.  Any analysis should be a “Cost-Benefit Analysis,” and factor into account those beneficiaries who care neither about people nor taxpayers.  They care about their own bottom line, and their own power.

Those who enjoy and utilize statistics will find a wealth in the new JPI report, such as: 64% of wrongful rape convictions, exonerated from DNA evidence, are Black, although only 12% of America is Black.  I love numbers, but a popular Movement will not be based on numbers.  Simple facts, simple understandings, and a simple view of what the criminal justice system is actually doing will cause the creature to crumble.

Rhode Island and others (including Bronx Defenders and in D.C.) are lauded for taking the entire person into account, including pre-trial and post-release issues that arise from criminal justice contact.

Other than the obvious recommendation, to implement standards of representation as outlined by the American Bar Association, the report recommends two other vital pieces:

  1. Public Defenders should engage in the policy debate.  It is shameful that in a country where so many vital services are conducted through the state, those workers are generally forbidden to speak up or are living in fear for their jobs.  This is a waste of insight and experience, provided they are capable of speaking openly.
  2. Seek input from those who have been served by the Public Defender.  To move our society in any productive way on criminal justice, the “Client” relationship must be seen as a “partnership.”  Are we all in this together?  Or are the poor communities being controlled by an upper-class colonial mentality?  I have gotten more requests from my internet provider to see how they are doing than I have had from anyone in the criminal justice sphere over the past two decades.

This report still fails to pay even a passing reference to the problem of underfunded prosecutors.  I don’t believe it is intentional, it is the product of an arms race.  Funding must keep up with the other side, rather than funding must be reduced to the other side.  In a down economy, nobody will accept sweeping increases for prosecutions… but nor will we see any massive increases to Public Defense.

By making the issue about public defense, one can argue about “coddling criminals” or “can we really afford this?”  But if the argument were about whether the Attorney General and Courts should be 50% of the budget… what then?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387