November 17, 2011 — vol. 47, no 15
Community Voices: Legislation would take state backward on prison reform
The Massachusetts House is considering proposed legislation — S. 2054 — that will have a disastrous impact on prison reform within the Commonwealth. If S.2054 passes, the following would happen:
• Parole eligibility for lifers would increase from 15 to 25 years and further crowd our prisons. Increasing parole eligibility from 15 to 25 years will cost nearly a half million dollars per prisoner ($46,000 per prisoner per year + increasing annual costs x 10 years). There is no evidence-based research that has demonstrated that such long sentences prevent crime.
• Mandatory post release supervision would be forced upon all people incarcerated in Massachusetts prisons, thus increasing the revolving door of recidivism. The proposed mandatory post-release supervision could cost approximately $11.6 million per year just for new parole officers. Even greater and uncalculated costs would be incurred through speeding up a former prisoner’s return to prison due to the increased number and kinds of infractions for parole violations under the bill.
• Massachusetts would institute one of the harshest three strikes laws in the country. The bill as now proposed would create even more punitive sentencing than California’s, where 25 percent of prisoners are now incarcerated for 25 years to life.
• Mandatory Minimum Sentences would hardly experience any reforms. The bill relies on a system of harsh and rigid sentences for people convicted of drug offenses. Among other negative consequences, it will mean that prisons will remain packed with prisoners who could be paroled.
• The bill would not allow anyone convicted of a drug offense who is sentenced to mandatory-minimum sentence after the law takes effect to be eligible for parole, work release or earned good conduct credits. This means no progress to the current overly harsh “one size fits all” sentences. As with people convicted of other crimes, those who are convicted of drug offences should have access to work release and earned good conduct credits throughout their sentences.
• The bill does not reduce the school zone from 1,000 feet to 100 feet. Instead it proposes reducing zones just to 500 feet, which will not do enough to offset the “urban penalty” paid by city residents, and will mainly help only those who live in suburban or rural areas. In order to effectively work to shift drug offenses away from protected places such as schools, the zones need to be relatively small in order to effectively move offenses away from protected areas.
The authors of S. 2054 have not adequately taken into account the following:
• Similar failed policies of other states, such as California, which passed mandatory post-release supervision, while not reforming mandatory minimum drug sentences.
• The combination of these actions, similar to S.2054, caused a prison building boom of 24 new prisons in 25 years.
• The bankrupting of California’s schools, infrastructure and health care as a result of these misguided policies and sentencing practices.
• California is now under a Federal Court order to “realign” their prison population by 30,000 prisoners this year. Is this what we want for the future of Massachusetts?
While other states including New Jersey, New York, Michigan, South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas and Mississippi (and others) have cut prison costs through evidence-based practices, saving hundreds of millions of dollars and reducing crime, Massachusetts is moving backward. Massachusetts taxpayers will foot the bill for decisions made without planning and thorough consideration for the next 20 or 30 years.
The emphasis should be on strategic intervention leading to prevention and rehabilitation. It should include an emphasis on education and job readiness programs. We believe emphasis on education and employment opportunities for former prisoners would enable them to earn some form of income and thus reduce the chances for them to engage in illegal conduct.
As several analysts have concluded, higher education and economic mobility have higher potential to reduce recidivism.
The implications are grave especially for minority communities who comprise the highest amount of those incarcerated in the Massachusetts prison system. Longer sentencing implies more tax payers’ money to feed incarceration, while schools in minority communities are closing. It will lead to more overcrowding in Massachusetts prisons. We categorically reject S. 2054.
Rev. Dr. George Walters-Sleyon is the executive director of The Center for Church and Prison.
| Nov 19 13:45pm by Supreme Richardson, President [65.96.221.220] | |
TFCC Boston Against Senate Bill: S.2054 – “3 strikes you’re out law”
It recently came to our attention that the Massachusetts House is scheduled to vote on a "habitual offender" bill that will result in sweeping changes in sentencing, probation and law enforcement. This undermines the work that many organizations are doing to address the high rate of incarceration and recidivism, within the communities of color. What is our elected official’s true reasoning behind passing this bill? This is an old law dressed in new clothes that hasn’t worked and will clog our over crowed prison and court system. There are always going to be cases like the stealing videos or pizza that are unjustly subjected to the three-strike law. You may have an 18-year old who commits three crimes before he’s mature enough to make quality decision. This law undermines the flexibility of the court and the judge; it is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.). This law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system. Mandatory minimums and three strike laws; are they really the answer to the crime problem that America has faced for years. The 8th amendment is being violated. The 8th Amendment of the constitution prohibits the use of “cruel or unjust punishment” by the state. People feel that “Relatively minor crimes committed by a repeat offender could serve a harsher punishment than a first time offender for a violent crime”(Brain B and Greg J,2005). The cost of building new prison will be immediate, but the cost of caring for prisoners will last passes from generation to generation. It is expensive to keep a person in jail for life. Prisons are overflowing from the massive growth in their populations. Adding more prisoners (who may not even deserve to be there) to this system just makes matters worse. This finical burden will be placed on the tax payer who will be paying for this costly law if passed. ACTION IS NEEDED! "We urge you not to support the exorbitantly expensive criminal justice bill (S2054) that has come before the Senate. By raising the lifer parole eligibility from 15-25 years, the bill will not only crowd our prisons dangerously but could indebt us nearly half a million dollars per prisoner ($46,000 per year to house a prisoner+ increasing annual costs x 10). The Massachusetts Senate is debating a bill that would have disastrous impacts on the Commonwealth. If S.2054 passes, the following would happen - The House bill H 3811 is the counterpart to Senate Bill 2054 which passed 35-0 last week. The intent of these bills is to lock up more people for longer, demonize prisoners so the abuses by the prison system can continue unchecked, and incrementally chip away at Parole until it's gone. Each criminal offender is different. Each set of crimes is different. The specific reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is that each situation deserves a fair analysis and punishment. A one-size-fit-all system of judgment destroys the flexibility. The system is broke and we need not to create new laws but fixes the many laws we have on books now before new ones are added. The public do not need grandstanding around public safety but real idea that works for the community betterment. TFCC Boston support the community and community organization response to Senate Bill 2054 and we demand the House to vote NO to this Senate Bill, show the community you believe in them as they showed with their vote they believed in you. Submitted by TFCC Boston Organization against Bill 2054 Boston NAACP, The Center for Church and Prison , The New Democracy Coalition, Mass Black Empowerment Coalition, Blackstonian.com, Occupy The Hood Boston, Brothers for Boston, Union of Minority Neighborhoods, National Action Network Boston, Criminal Justice Policy Coalition, The Real Cost of Prison Project, EPOCA (Ex-prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement), Boston Workers Alliance, Road to Redemption, Cc; Community at-large |
|
| Nov 17 16:49pm by Pray4Peace [204.108.0.11] | |
Surely the Bay State does not want to be California, the State of Higher Incarceration. The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution and California will have to reduce the number of prisoners it packs in like feedlot cattle. It started with just a few laws such as three strikes that sends people to prison for 25 years costing us well over a $Million dollars for stealing a pizza, or walking out of Home Depot with $12 worth of nails (TRUE!!!). And with Jessica's sex offender law and other poorly written laws that cannot even be enforced because we are broke. California makes former sex offenders wear GPS devices and register for life. That is probably a good idea for child molesters, but it cost too much for those convicted of urinating on the side of the road. Other states benefit from tiered levels of sex offenses.
Who profits from failed criminal justice and horrifically District attorneys and prosecutors who are promoted for winning cases and harsh sentences at any cost; Tough-on-crime, fear-mongering politicians hoping for votes; Guard employee unions; For-profit-contract-bed-privatized-corporation prisons that profit not from reforming people, but when the recidivism rate goes up; Parole department in California where everyone released is on parole; Three strikes law that sends people to prison for 25+ years over petty crimes such as stealing a cake from a bakery window; The bail bond industry that benefits from unnecessary criminal justice practices that increase incarceration; Rigged line-ups that get faulty convictions and promotions; Increased incarceration due to requirement of checking prior-arrest/conviction boxes on employment, government, and rental applications for those who have been crime-free for years. It makes it harder to stay out of prison (BAN THE BOX); Serving high calorie, high carb meals that increase health problems and pay to medical institutions. Private companies that raise heck when prisons contract to do labor that increases prisoner self esteem and provides skills training; The list goes on..... |
|
| Nov 17 15:31pm by A Nov 2011 Concerned Person [158.121.188.33] | |
In regards to the newspaper article, “Legislation would take state backward on prison reform” (source: November 17, 2011 — vol. 47, no 15 on the website www.baystatebanner.com), I ask 3 questions in the following:
The reasons why I asked these questions is because as a “black” young woman and a Bostonian, this issue concerns me. And I hope our legislators will consider to ask them-selves these questions before reacting to this issue professionally. If these legislators will not choose to re-evaluate this imperative issue, then who else would do this work? All I know is that I was sadden or discouraged after reading this news article, and I believe I thought to myself about how “black” (or certain persons of color), particularly women and men, would become more unequal (e.g. economically, educationally, and socially) in my consciousness. What were your reactions after reading this newspaper article? |
|
