Governor Purdue’s claim that we “will not release violent offenders” to prey on the public is ludicrous on its face. She is referring to the infamous 20 “lifers” who were to be released this month as a result of a NC Supreme Court ruling crediting them with good time and therefore qualifying them for release. Her claim is ludicrous because in the US some 650,000 inmates are released each year.
I’m not sure what she means when she refers to “violent” offenders. Many men who went to prison in the US weren’t violent when they went in, but became violent when they were released and vice versa.
When I give blood at the Red Cross, one of the qualifying questions they ask is whether I’ve ever been locked up more than 72 hours in a jail or juvenile facility. That speaks volumes to the kind of system we have for inmates in this country. There are some inmates who are put in solitary confinement for years on end. What do we expect when they get out? Some walk right out onto the streets from solitary confinement when their sentence is completed. On the NC Dept of Correction website, you can only find out the number of infractions for an inmate and a brief description of each. You can’t determine what punishments were given. The public has no idea of how pervasive this practice is.
Are our actions making them more violent or less violent? I met one inmate who was kept in solitary for three years on the basis that they believed he was associated with a criminal network. I looked at his “infraction” record and for his entire imprisonment, he was charged only with communicating to another prisoner by letter. He’d written his wife and asked her to send a note to a fellow inmate who was in AA with him to find out how he was doing after his transfer to another facility. By golly, we’ll put a stop to this sort of thing won’t we?
It is estimated that 40-60% of prisoners are mentally ill. That’s an ugly number. Something is wrong here.
The posturing and political gamesmanship relating to these 20 men scheduled for release is on a par with the story of “balloon boy”. In the scheme of things, this is nothing. Do you realize that a crime that might get you 10 years in Durham County could get you life if the crime were committed in a rural county in NC? A life sentence is really arbitrary within our justice system. If the DA offers a deal to avoid a trial or because he can’t quite get enough evidence to warrant a sure conviction, the punishment is going to be less severe than for the same crime taken to trial. So, to put “lifers” up for target practice by the public and the news media is disingenuous at best and gives us all a false sense that our politicians are taking care of business.
One of the 20 “lifers” set to be released had a MAP that, if completed successfully, would have released him next year. MAP is an acronym for a plan of release in NC for a prisoner who is given a life sentence. If he follows his MAP (normally lasting about 3 years), even a lifer can be released when he completes the requirements. Normally he has to have no infractions during the time of his MAP, earn a high level of trust in the system and get a work release job. There may be other requirements tailored to the prisoner. I know of several guys sentenced to life who have MAPs. It is a good thing.
The impression you get from the governor and the news media is that the sky is falling. It isn’t, but attention needs to be given to keep those incarcerated from coming back into the system once they are released. Giving them $40 and a handshake isn’t going to cut it, especially in an economy like we are seeing now. We’re willing to spend $30K a year to imprison folks in NC, but virtually nothing to help keep them from coming back into the system. That’s where the story should be.
Calling for more money to be spent to reduce recidivism would be unpopular politically. The fact that it is unpopular is our fault. We don’t know how to attack and fix a problem anymore, assuming we ever did.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Some of the failings of capitalism
The poor health care we have in this country is a prime example of how health care should have never been a free market item. It simply doesn't work. It may work in very isolated instances, but overall, the rest of the world has seen its failings and we are late in coming to the party.
It struck me recently that another great example of this "competition failure" is the cell phone industry. If you believe that providing reasonably good cell phone service to urban areas and interstate corridors is the purpose of cell phones, then by golly, we have a good system.
Here are some problems:
1. There is no interoperability between many of the cell phone providers. You have to buy a phone that will work only on a particular network. If you want to switch providers out of competitive dissatisfaction, you have to buy a new phone, so this system discourages competitive pressure.
2. Providers provide only service to the biggest, most densely packed customer locations. It means putting up independent towers for each provider or letting them duke it out over how to share an existing tower. I'm not sure how this actually works, but I do know that coverage is VERY different for the many different providers.
3. Customers in low-population areas are simply out of luck. If you travel away from your urban location, it is a crap shoot as to whether you can get a connection. You can have a breakdown on an isolated rural road and be out of luck.
4. Cell phone quality is simply hit or miss. If a network is overloaded, call quality and call reliability drops dramatically. The fact that you can reliably make a call at a low-traffic time doesn't help when you actually need to make a call at a high traffic time. Requirements for excess capacity is a government regulation function that is simply missing in this competitive environment.
It is looking like Verizon is taking over in the US. They have the largest network since the merger with Alltel. They now have competitive prices, but don't hold your breath when they approach monopolistic power. They'll behave like Microsoft, who charges a ton of money for their operating system since it is the only game in town. Once Verizon has the only game in town, they'll start acting like Pfizer since you won't have a choice. How would you like paying $10 a pill when it costs them $.05 to make?
I read a study some time ago talking about deregulation of the airline industry. The author points out that the sum total of costs to make a trip, adjusted for inflation, are now about the same as when regulated. This is because business travelers pay an outrageous fee to buy a ticket a day or two before the flight as opposed to 2 weeks before the flight. It's the same flight with the same costs, but the price differential can be staggering. The airlines know that businesses have to make spur of the moment trips and they take advantage. It is gamesmanship with money and pricing policies, not actually a good return for customers.
In addition, regulated flights once called for more non-stops. The idea was to get people more places faster. Now, flights are to switching centers like Atlanta where you change planes for the final leg of your flight. Airlines found that approach was a cheaper way to operate and the impact on customer arrival times meant nothing. After all, competition in this case made things worse for the consumer.
The US, in addition to having poor health care, has poor broadband internet service compared to other nations. I measured a download speed in Canada recently at 8MBytes/Sec, a speed unheard of here. We have cell phones that connect in fewer places than other countries. We are behind technologically in so many ways because we do it our way. In many ways, we do it the worst possible way....all in the name of captitalism and the ills it brings with it in many arenas.
It struck me recently that another great example of this "competition failure" is the cell phone industry. If you believe that providing reasonably good cell phone service to urban areas and interstate corridors is the purpose of cell phones, then by golly, we have a good system.
Here are some problems:
1. There is no interoperability between many of the cell phone providers. You have to buy a phone that will work only on a particular network. If you want to switch providers out of competitive dissatisfaction, you have to buy a new phone, so this system discourages competitive pressure.
2. Providers provide only service to the biggest, most densely packed customer locations. It means putting up independent towers for each provider or letting them duke it out over how to share an existing tower. I'm not sure how this actually works, but I do know that coverage is VERY different for the many different providers.
3. Customers in low-population areas are simply out of luck. If you travel away from your urban location, it is a crap shoot as to whether you can get a connection. You can have a breakdown on an isolated rural road and be out of luck.
4. Cell phone quality is simply hit or miss. If a network is overloaded, call quality and call reliability drops dramatically. The fact that you can reliably make a call at a low-traffic time doesn't help when you actually need to make a call at a high traffic time. Requirements for excess capacity is a government regulation function that is simply missing in this competitive environment.
It is looking like Verizon is taking over in the US. They have the largest network since the merger with Alltel. They now have competitive prices, but don't hold your breath when they approach monopolistic power. They'll behave like Microsoft, who charges a ton of money for their operating system since it is the only game in town. Once Verizon has the only game in town, they'll start acting like Pfizer since you won't have a choice. How would you like paying $10 a pill when it costs them $.05 to make?
I read a study some time ago talking about deregulation of the airline industry. The author points out that the sum total of costs to make a trip, adjusted for inflation, are now about the same as when regulated. This is because business travelers pay an outrageous fee to buy a ticket a day or two before the flight as opposed to 2 weeks before the flight. It's the same flight with the same costs, but the price differential can be staggering. The airlines know that businesses have to make spur of the moment trips and they take advantage. It is gamesmanship with money and pricing policies, not actually a good return for customers.
In addition, regulated flights once called for more non-stops. The idea was to get people more places faster. Now, flights are to switching centers like Atlanta where you change planes for the final leg of your flight. Airlines found that approach was a cheaper way to operate and the impact on customer arrival times meant nothing. After all, competition in this case made things worse for the consumer.
The US, in addition to having poor health care, has poor broadband internet service compared to other nations. I measured a download speed in Canada recently at 8MBytes/Sec, a speed unheard of here. We have cell phones that connect in fewer places than other countries. We are behind technologically in so many ways because we do it our way. In many ways, we do it the worst possible way....all in the name of captitalism and the ills it brings with it in many arenas.
N&O Sensationalizes the early release of "violent" offenders
The News and Observer deserves serious criticism for its sensational coverage of the early release of NC prisoners who were in for life. How many 60+ year old men do you know that you would describe as “violent”? Yet, that’s the moniker you put on men who’ve been behind bars for years, many of whom have demonstrated good behavior within the system.
The facts are that over 650,000 inmates are released yearly from incarceration in the US. Some walk out onto the streets directly from isolated confinement. They have served their time and must be freed. The state is willing to spend about $30k per year to keep them in prison, but virtually nothing to help them find housing and jobs to help keep them from going back. Giving a guy $40 and wishing him good luck isn’t going to cut it. With proper attention to this problem, we could cut our bills dramatically…never mind that it is also the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, we are so tuned to locking folks up for so long that many have been institutionalized and will feel comfortable in no other setting than prison.
Senator Jim Webb thinks our justice system is a national disgrace and has called for a blue ribbon commission to recommend changes. See http://webb.senate.gov/email/criminaljusticereform.html It's time to do something about it.
The facts are that over 650,000 inmates are released yearly from incarceration in the US. Some walk out onto the streets directly from isolated confinement. They have served their time and must be freed. The state is willing to spend about $30k per year to keep them in prison, but virtually nothing to help them find housing and jobs to help keep them from going back. Giving a guy $40 and wishing him good luck isn’t going to cut it. With proper attention to this problem, we could cut our bills dramatically…never mind that it is also the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, we are so tuned to locking folks up for so long that many have been institutionalized and will feel comfortable in no other setting than prison.
Senator Jim Webb thinks our justice system is a national disgrace and has called for a blue ribbon commission to recommend changes. See http://webb.senate.gov/email/criminaljusticereform.html It's time to do something about it.
Monday, October 12, 2009
How to indict a ham sandwich
Prosecutors, it has been joked, can indict a ham sandwich. That really means that, if they want to get you, it won't take much to get you locked up awaiting trial.
That idea was brought home to me by a good friend called to jury duty last week. They were TRYING a young muslim who was accused of stealing a $15 sweatshirt. They suspected him of being a terrorist (he'd been going from campus to campus and hanging around muslim centers). They had no witness seeing him inside the Muslim Center at UNC, but had found some of his possessions there as it appeared he was living inside. No evidence of a break-in and no one had actually seen him there when it was locked up.
They arrested him near the center wearing a sweatshirt that was unique in that it had been available only inside the center. So, on this premise, they jailed him last May and tried him this past week. He was found guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, but not for stealing the $15 sweatshirt. The trial took 2 days.
Contrast this with a breaking and entering at my home while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. The thief stole my laptop and a computer scanner. I had video of him entering my car and walking to the back to try the door. It was a pretty good picture when all is said and done. I made some pictures from the video and some friends of mine recognized the guy...said that was his Modus Operandi. One of the guys said he grew up with the thief and it was clearly him. The perpetrator had recently been arrested for breaking in to a church. With the name of the suspect in hand, the detective took the pics down to the jail and interviewed the guy who swore it wasn't him. The detective said there was a resemblance, but didn't think it was the same guy.
So, a serious crime like breaking/entering/theft/after 11pm/occupied building is simply swept under the rug because they have actual evidence, but it must not be as good as an eyewitness id. Case closed....while the DA pursues ^&*() like the above.
Also, contrast their choice of what to prosecute with the case in which a Durham Policewoman (Ruth Brown) was held up in her home. She was robbed of $3000 cash (not exactly sure why she had that kind of $ on hand, but I have some ideas). She ID's a 15 year old middle school student by recognizing his "eyebrows" in a school picture. The robber had on a mask, so she couldn't see anything else except his eyebrows and hair which was in a completely different style than the kid who was ultimately convicted.
So, we have another ham sandwich held in jail, then put away until some independent folks began asking questions. Several years later, he's freed.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be a Durhamite at times. You don't want to be the next ham sandwich.
That idea was brought home to me by a good friend called to jury duty last week. They were TRYING a young muslim who was accused of stealing a $15 sweatshirt. They suspected him of being a terrorist (he'd been going from campus to campus and hanging around muslim centers). They had no witness seeing him inside the Muslim Center at UNC, but had found some of his possessions there as it appeared he was living inside. No evidence of a break-in and no one had actually seen him there when it was locked up.
They arrested him near the center wearing a sweatshirt that was unique in that it had been available only inside the center. So, on this premise, they jailed him last May and tried him this past week. He was found guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, but not for stealing the $15 sweatshirt. The trial took 2 days.
Contrast this with a breaking and entering at my home while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. The thief stole my laptop and a computer scanner. I had video of him entering my car and walking to the back to try the door. It was a pretty good picture when all is said and done. I made some pictures from the video and some friends of mine recognized the guy...said that was his Modus Operandi. One of the guys said he grew up with the thief and it was clearly him. The perpetrator had recently been arrested for breaking in to a church. With the name of the suspect in hand, the detective took the pics down to the jail and interviewed the guy who swore it wasn't him. The detective said there was a resemblance, but didn't think it was the same guy.
So, a serious crime like breaking/entering/theft/after 11pm/occupied building is simply swept under the rug because they have actual evidence, but it must not be as good as an eyewitness id. Case closed....while the DA pursues ^&*() like the above.
Also, contrast their choice of what to prosecute with the case in which a Durham Policewoman (Ruth Brown) was held up in her home. She was robbed of $3000 cash (not exactly sure why she had that kind of $ on hand, but I have some ideas). She ID's a 15 year old middle school student by recognizing his "eyebrows" in a school picture. The robber had on a mask, so she couldn't see anything else except his eyebrows and hair which was in a completely different style than the kid who was ultimately convicted.
So, we have another ham sandwich held in jail, then put away until some independent folks began asking questions. Several years later, he's freed.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be a Durhamite at times. You don't want to be the next ham sandwich.
The downside of TRADITION
There are probably some good things that come from traditional and accepted practices, but we should not be a slave to them. For example, some churches, through tradition, exclude women from certain executive or pastoral roles in the church. It is their loss. At one time, it was traditional to have black folks come to the back door of a business or to sit in the back of a public bus. There were even laws enforcing this tradition.
I believe that, as Americans, we have traditionally viewed politics as a game in which you denigrate the opposition for some small aspect of their position or their character. For example, John McCann’s call to vote against city council members and our mayor who supported a non-binding resolution in favor of equal treatment for gay couples. This tradition seems to ignore issues that are truly meaningful for citizens of a democracy. Of course, it requires more work on the part of the voter when you are asked to do a serious examination of the issues facing our government and to vote for people you hope can carry them out.
Our tradition of incarcerating men at levels unseen in other parts of the world is a problem. It’s a problem because this traditional approach isn’t working. It’s also traditional to pay no attention to what goes on inside our prison system. “If it is unpleasant place to be, so much the better” goes traditional thinking. I have watched “Prison Nation”, a series shown on the National Geographic Channel. A recent episode examined the high use of isolated confinement in our prison system. Some 70% of suicides in America’s prisons occur with inmates in isolated confinement (ICON). Estimates that 40-60% of inmates are mentally ill should add further caution to what we do to them. I wonder if the average mental illness level is higher at the time of admission or at the time of release from prison.
In the classic film, “Shawshank Redemption” which was set in the year 1947, in retaliation for a mild threat from the inmate to stop enabling the warden’s corruption, the warden puts him in ICON for 60 days. The comment is made that no one had ever been given that length of punishment at that prison as if this punishment bordered on the outrageous and inhumane.
Some may argue that ICON is the only practical solution to handling unmanageable inmates. I argue that it makes them more psychotic and more unmanageable and that it is not being properly managed to actually assure it is appropriate.
A young man who I mentored years ago grew up in McDougal Terrace. He won multiple trophy’s in Tae Kwan Do all over the southeast. He played basketball for me on a church team. He was a great kid, but this attention by my family, my church, and other mentors was not enough to overcome the abandonment by his father, a reading disability, the dire poverty he faced, and the lure of the street. He became associated with a street gang at age 15 and was involved in some significant crimes. Today, he resides in Lanesboro, one of the toughest prisons in NC. They offer no apology to me for locking him up for 13 straight months in ICON. I don’t recognize him. I don’t want to be around him now. In my view, the state of NC has destroyed him. He will be released sooner or later and he’s going to be a problem. In America, some inmates are released directly from ICON and put back on the streets when their sentences are completed.
The prison system has adopted countrywide a policy of isolated confinement for far too many inmates for far too long. It is a hidden scandal and a recipe for recidivism.
As a community volunteer, I took out an inmate recently who had been kept in ICON for 3 years. I looked at his record on the Dept of Correction website and he had been charged with one infraction since his incarceration (passing a message to a guy he was mentoring in AA who had transferred). It is a mystery as to why they administered this punishment to him.
The public can access names, photos, and criminal records, and infractions while in prison of incarcerated individuals, but can’t determine the punishment given for the infraction. I suppose it is “out of sight; out of mind”. I think they are shielding from the public the extent of the punishment and want to avoid questions being asked.
We don’t know about these things and to some extent the public doesn’t want to know. The US is internationally known for its strong Christian perspective. I wonder how this can be?
Some traditions should be scrapped.
I believe that, as Americans, we have traditionally viewed politics as a game in which you denigrate the opposition for some small aspect of their position or their character. For example, John McCann’s call to vote against city council members and our mayor who supported a non-binding resolution in favor of equal treatment for gay couples. This tradition seems to ignore issues that are truly meaningful for citizens of a democracy. Of course, it requires more work on the part of the voter when you are asked to do a serious examination of the issues facing our government and to vote for people you hope can carry them out.
Our tradition of incarcerating men at levels unseen in other parts of the world is a problem. It’s a problem because this traditional approach isn’t working. It’s also traditional to pay no attention to what goes on inside our prison system. “If it is unpleasant place to be, so much the better” goes traditional thinking. I have watched “Prison Nation”, a series shown on the National Geographic Channel. A recent episode examined the high use of isolated confinement in our prison system. Some 70% of suicides in America’s prisons occur with inmates in isolated confinement (ICON). Estimates that 40-60% of inmates are mentally ill should add further caution to what we do to them. I wonder if the average mental illness level is higher at the time of admission or at the time of release from prison.
In the classic film, “Shawshank Redemption” which was set in the year 1947, in retaliation for a mild threat from the inmate to stop enabling the warden’s corruption, the warden puts him in ICON for 60 days. The comment is made that no one had ever been given that length of punishment at that prison as if this punishment bordered on the outrageous and inhumane.
Some may argue that ICON is the only practical solution to handling unmanageable inmates. I argue that it makes them more psychotic and more unmanageable and that it is not being properly managed to actually assure it is appropriate.
A young man who I mentored years ago grew up in McDougal Terrace. He won multiple trophy’s in Tae Kwan Do all over the southeast. He played basketball for me on a church team. He was a great kid, but this attention by my family, my church, and other mentors was not enough to overcome the abandonment by his father, a reading disability, the dire poverty he faced, and the lure of the street. He became associated with a street gang at age 15 and was involved in some significant crimes. Today, he resides in Lanesboro, one of the toughest prisons in NC. They offer no apology to me for locking him up for 13 straight months in ICON. I don’t recognize him. I don’t want to be around him now. In my view, the state of NC has destroyed him. He will be released sooner or later and he’s going to be a problem. In America, some inmates are released directly from ICON and put back on the streets when their sentences are completed.
The prison system has adopted countrywide a policy of isolated confinement for far too many inmates for far too long. It is a hidden scandal and a recipe for recidivism.
As a community volunteer, I took out an inmate recently who had been kept in ICON for 3 years. I looked at his record on the Dept of Correction website and he had been charged with one infraction since his incarceration (passing a message to a guy he was mentoring in AA who had transferred). It is a mystery as to why they administered this punishment to him.
The public can access names, photos, and criminal records, and infractions while in prison of incarcerated individuals, but can’t determine the punishment given for the infraction. I suppose it is “out of sight; out of mind”. I think they are shielding from the public the extent of the punishment and want to avoid questions being asked.
We don’t know about these things and to some extent the public doesn’t want to know. The US is internationally known for its strong Christian perspective. I wonder how this can be?
Some traditions should be scrapped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)