Chris Dornin - Tell Congress: Invest in Second Chances, Not More Prisons

Dear friend of prison reform-

I seldom ask anyone to sign online petitions, here is maybe the second one I've ever passed along, but this time it's hugely important. There's a chance this week to keep Congress from gutting the national criminal justice reinvestment movement by shifting its own funding into prison construction instead of community programs for people on parole. 

States need that outside seed money to get community services going until the savings on prison budgets kicks in enough to build the critically needed infrastructure for ex-offenders.

As a result of pending federal legislation, a lot of federal start-up money for these visionary reforms would run out soon. We can still try to stop it from happening. 

By the way, you might want to bookmark the Sentencing Project. It's a marvelous resource.

Chris Dornin, chairman, Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform

####

Dear Friends,

I’m writing to ask your organization to support federal reentry funding and a curb on spending
for federal prison construction.

Earlier this month the U.S. Senate's Committee on Appropriations approved a bill to fund Commerce,
Justice and Science programs and agencies. The legislation eliminated funding for the Second Chance Act, which provides resources to states and local government to aid people reentering after incarceration. Instead, the bill funded a $300 million increase over last year for the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), raising its total budget to $6.6 billion. A significant portion of this increase will help kick off a multi-year prison building campaign that will result in 7 new prisons in 4 years. The bill specifically mentions that funding for reentry is not available because of the increases needed for the BOP due to its overcrowding crisis.

The Sentencing Project is very troubled by the Committee’s decision to invest in new prisons
instead of diverting people from prison. The policy will continue a cycle of increasing
incarceration and racial disparity that is very difficult to undo. The most effective means of
addressing the overcrowding crisis in the federal prison system is through sentencing reform to
limit excessive sentences. Indeed, states across the country have rejected the approach being
taken by the federal government and have successfully passed sentencing reforms that limit
population growth.

It is important that the Senate Appropriators know that building more prisons does not solve our
crime problems and there are better alternatives to addressing prison overcrowding. I hope your
organization will join us by signing the attached letter to Senators Mikulski and Hutchison. As heads of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, they finalize the bill’s language with the House of Representatives.

The deadline for endorsements is Friday, September 30.

Please email kgotsch@sentencingproject.org if your organization would like to sign on. And, please share
this letter with your networks and ask them to support the effort as well.

Sincerely,

Marc Mauer

Opponents of the Death Penalty Have Blood on their Hands

By Dudley Sharp

To:  COMMISSION TO STUDY THE DEATH PENALTY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

 

bcc: The New Hampshire General Court, Police Chiefs and media throughout New Hampshire

 

From: Dudley Sharp

 

Opponents of the Death Penalty Have Blood on their Hands
Dennis Prager, November 29, 2005

Those of us who believe in the death penalty for some murders are told by opponents of the death penalty that if the state executes an innocent man, we have blood on our hands.

 

They are right. I, for one, readily acknowledge that as a proponent of the death penalty, my advocacy could result in the killing of an innocent person.

 

I have never, however, encountered any opponents of the death penalty who acknowledge that they have the blood of innocent men and women on their hands.

 

Yet they certainly do. Whereas the shedding of innocent blood that proponents of capital punishment are responsible for is thus far, thankfully, only theoretical, the shedding of innocent blood for which opponents of capital punishment are responsible is not theoretical at all. Thanks to their opposition to the death penalty, innocent men and women have been murdered by killers who would otherwise have been put to death.

 

Opponents of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been -- murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.

 

In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, California, store burglary.

 

After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.

 

According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.

 

This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.

 

For 23 years, opponents of the death penalty have played with the legal system -- not to mention played with the lives of the murdered individuals' loved ones -- to keep Allen alive.

 

Had Clarence Allen been executed for the 1974 murder of Mary Sue Kitts, three innocent people under the age of 30 would not have been killed. But because moral clarity among anti-death penalty activists is as rare as their self-righteousness is ubiquitous, finding an abolitionist who will acknowledge moral responsibility for innocents murdered by convicted murderers is an exercise in futility.

 

Perhaps the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer. Six weeks after being paroled, Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.

 

Mailer's reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press. "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's talent."

 

That in a nutshell is the attitude of the abolitionists. They are "willing to gamble with a portion of society" -- such as the lives of additional innocent victims -- in order to save the life of every murderer.

 

Abolitionists are certain that they are morally superior to the rest of us. In their view, we who recoil at the thought that every murderer be allowed to keep his life are moral inferiors, barbarians essentially. But just as pacifists' views ensure that far more innocents will be killed, so do abolitionists' views ensure that more innocents will die.

 

There may be moral reasons to oppose taking the life of any murderer (though I cannot think of one), but saving the lives of innocents cannot be regarded as one of them.

 

Nevertheless, abolitionists will be happy to learn that Amnesty International has taken up the cause of ensuring that Clarence Ray Allen be spared execution. That is what the international community now regards as fighting for human rights.

 

FrontPageMagazine.com

 

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Innocent and the Death Penalty

Dudley Sharp

1)  "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

 The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

 

 

2)  "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
 http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

 

3)  The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

 

4)  Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

 

5)  "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

 

6)  "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown",  A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

 

7)  "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

Kelly Ayotte deceived the State Senate

U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte is so tough on crime she deceived lawmakers about the draconian child predator act she wrote in 2006. The former attorney general told senators the recidivism rate for sex offenders was 90 to 94 percent, according to the transcript of the Senate Judiciary hearing April 4, 2006. 

She based that claim on a Canadian report in 2004 by Ron Lengervin, “Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism: A 25 year Follow-Up Study.” It considered 320 Canadian sex offenders seen at the author’s clinic for evaluations between 1966 and 1974. Langevin found an overall 61.1 percent sex crime recidivism rate. The recidivism rate rose to 88.3, counting confessions in counseling and new arrests, regardless of outcome. A subgroup, molesters of children outside the family, had a 94.1 sex crime recidivism rate over 25 years. That is by far the highest rate in any of the recidivism studies I’ve read or heard of.

Criminologists widely agree sex offenders have very low recidivism today. Indiana sex offenders released in 2005 compiled a 1.05 percent sex crime recidivism rate in three years. State officials said this figure showed “a great deal of promise.” The typical rate in state after state is around three percent after three years. 

Canadian researcher Karl Hanson accused Langevin of using a nonrandom sample chosen for evaluations in connection with major prosecutions and civil commitments. In the 1960s, only serial predators faced the loss of freedom for their sex crimes. Since then the prison census of sex offenders has risen a hundred-fold, and the folks on the sex offender registry today are far less prone to recidivism. The Internet shaming roster includes teen perpetrators who lost their virginity with their teen victims.

Canadian researcher Cheryl Webster has accused Langevin of unethical research. In her rebuttal entitled,  “Results by Design: The Artefactual Construction of High Recidivism Rates for Sex Offenders.” she said the Langevin sample was much larger at first. He ignored all the people who were purged from the records system after 15 years for lack of new crimes. Those were the non-recidivists. 

Kelly Ayotte is capable of doing great harm in Washington. 

Chris Dornin of Concord is a former correctional counselor and a retired Statehouse reporter. 



John Stephen is a Fear Monger

By Chris Dornin

John Stephen is telling a big lie about the new parole law, SB 500, in his race to become governor. SB 500 makes sure all inmates leave prison with a parole officer to watch them. 

 

In a recent press release, Stephen called this visionary legislation “Governor Lynch’s misguided policy of letting violent felons out of prison early. As a former prosecutor who helped to ensure that we have tough truth in sentencing laws, I am outraged by this new law.  Governor Lynch’s new law erodes our public safety by putting these sex offenders and other violent criminals back on the street.”

 

Stephen is playing the hate card, and he should know better. But if he really believes his own words, he is fool. Previously, more than 200 people a year, some of the most violent, served out their maximum terms and left prison with no help on the streets. SB 500 places those people on tightly monitored parole outside the walls the last nine months of their maximum sentence. All inmates need that structure to rejoin society safely. 

 

It would be folly to deny this vital support to the very people who pose the greatest threat. Holding them in prison that last nine months sounds tough on crime in sound bytes, but it would undermine the public safety a governor is sworn to protect. Those inmates would soon leave anyway.

 

SB 500 won strong, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate committees and floor votes after a year-long, richly data-driven study supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts, NH Charitable Foundation, the US Justice Department and the National Association of the States. A blue-ribbon state policy commission led by the attorney general closely tracked and accepted the findings of that study, which became SB 500. 

 

Members of the task force included the chief justices of all three levels of the court system, the Senate president, the House speaker, the Governor’s Office, other top Republican and Democratic lawmakers, the commissioner of Health and Human Services, the commissioner of Corrections, county officials, and other experts. Few laws in state history have been so well and dispassionately researched. 

 

All the key stakeholders had many chances to give input, including victim advocates, the police, prosecutors, the Parole Department, and the Parole Board. It’s disingenuous for that group to claim it was denied a voice in the process. Now it is orchestrating an 11th-hour effort to protect its benighted bureaucratic turf. John Stephen has climbed aboard. 

 

The old way of dealing with inmates was to give them a revolving door out from prison and back inside. Most of the people who served their maximum sentences left prison without a parole officer, money, housing, employment, and family support because they had been gone so long. Many committed new crimes in the first nine months out, the greatest danger period.

 

Under strict monitoring, people can be directed to treatment and reentry interventions designed to stop the cycle of re-offending. The state has won federal seed grants to help pay for these services until it can divert savings from prison cost reductions into community programs.

 

These reforms are too important to fall victim to election-year scare tactics heavily funded by deep pockets from outside New Hampshire. The new law will protect the community better than before, lower recidivism, and make our state a safer place to live. 

 

This law is not about being nice to bad guys. Former House Speaker Donna Sytek, the Republican who spearheaded the truth-in-sentencing law, supports SB 500. If Stephen wants the new law to be an election litmus test, so be it. 

 

Chris Dornin of Concord is a retired Statehouse reporter and a former prison counselor and volunteer.

So What's Wrong With Arizona's New Immigration Law?

Posted by: Luis J. Diaz on 5/29/2010

Arizona’s recently enacted immigration law (SB 1070, as amended by HB2162) makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and requires the local police to check immigration status and to detain anyone on mere "reasonable suspicion" of being in the country illegally following a "lawful stop, detention or arrest."  The law has generated great debate. Advocates say it is needed to fight crime resulting from illegal immigration. Opponents say it will result in the violation of civil liberties.  It is an issue that requires a subtantial analysis based on facts, an understanding of American history, and a review of legal precedents involving the abuse and limits of police power. 

FACTS & ISSUES

As confirmed by a recent study from PEW Research Center, the fact is that one in four Americans believe that Hispanics are the racial/ethnic group subject to the most discrimination in America. The study found that 32% of Hispanics 16 or older say they or someone they know has experienced discrimination. Less than half of Hispanics believe that police officers in their community treat Latinos fairly. And, most police chiefs around the country, concerned about the chilling effect of this law, oppose it because of its negative impact on their ability to fight crime, obtain witness cooperation, and other concerns. 

Despite recent amendments to fix the more obvious problems of SB 1070, the law still provides no guidelines as to what is meant by "reasonable suspicion" in the context of alien status: is it 3 or more Hispanics in a car, a red bandana, a plaid shirt, a migrant worker in the field, or someone speaking Spanish? The reality is that "reasonable suspicion" likely will mean those looking like, sounding like, or acting like the stereotypical undocumented immigrant. However, police officers will be trained to write down things not related to race on their reports like the swerving car, a crooked license plate, talking on a mobile, the seatbelt being unfastened, or some other similar statement that will be difficult to disprove in a court of law and that will pit the relative credibility of a uniformed officer against that of a stereotypical poor immigrant.  Notably, Governor Brewer has already announced training on the the subject of "reasonable suspicion" for police officers that one assumes are already experts on the subject.

If the Arizona law is really targeted at crime prevention stemming from the border, then it would be logical and workable if it simply required "probable cause" of some "criminal activity" before police could check immigration status. While the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" may not seem apparent to a lay person, these are two very different legal standards. 

HISTORY & PRECEDENTS

Millions of Americans have shed blood in many wars to preserve the civil rights we now treasure. There are 200 years of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence supporting the proposition that police powers must be narrowly limited to prevent abuse of individual rights - something our founding fathers recognized. Also, the mission of police officers is to fight crime - not to act as immigration agents. Thus, any law that creates supercops with immigration superpowers and that, in its actual application, makes it possible to target, arrest, search and seize persons with certain physical attributes is by its nature suspect and should require a higher standard.  On a cursory reading of the law, we are reminded of the phrase made famous by Hitler's infamous Gestapo: "Show me your papers, are your papers in order?" The main difference is that with SB 1070 no "jewish star of David" is necessary for an Arizona supercop to identify the stereotypical immigrant.

Like the Japanese interment laws of the 1940’s, the Arizona law undermines the very notions of equal justice and basic fairness that are fundamental values of every American. As with the interment laws, this legislation is being driven by fear and hysteria and it is expressly directed at a group of people whose physical attributes identify them on first glance as members of a specific racial group. The failure of political leadership in Arizona has allowed people that may "look Mexican" to be singled out whether citizens or not.

Based on our history, we can now anticipate the development of a laundry list of "permissible factors" that can be cited after the fact to justify a "reasonable suspicion" even though race was in fact the first glance consideration in the initial stop. As noted, Governor Brewer has announced training on the the subject of "reasonable suspicion." It is forseeable that Arizona's effort to create supercops with immigration powers will spread like a cancer to other states across the country that do not border Mexico, thereby greatly magnifying the potential civil rights violations to all Hispanic citizens that may look "illegal." 

If left unchecked, history teaches that this law could place this great nation on the same slippery slope created by the interment laws, the House Un-American efforts of Senator McCarthy, and similar dark episodes in our history where fear has been used to justify the breach of American civil rights. The eventual apology will ring hollow as it has in times past. In 1988 Congress ultimately passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the interment of Japanese Americans and acknowledged that the government actions were based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."

SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

The problem starts in Mexico. Thus, any real solution to the problem of illegal immigration and related criminal activity must involve (i) securing our borders, (ii) enacting stronger anti-crime measures, (iii) passing immigration reforms that make economic sense, and (iv) imposing economic sanctions against trade countries that contribute to these types of problems.  The Arizona law does not address any of these issues. Instead, it targets the victims of failed policies by both Mexico and the United States.  This is equivalent to trying to stop drug trafficking by targeting users and not pushers.  We must call on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken immigration laws and to hold our preferred trade partners like Mexico accountable, whether or not it hurts the economic interests of some large Mexican companies and their American partners in the short run. 

ABOUT USHAA:

USHAA is an award-winning non-profit providing economic advocacy, benefits and education programs to ensure that its business and individual members have equal access to contracts, jobs, education and other opportunities provided by our great nation.