ILLITERACY REINFORCES PRISONERS' CAPTIVITY
State prisons are crowded with inmates lacking a basic education -- Their dismal job prospects mean they're likely to land back behind bars
- James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Click to ViewClick to ViewClick to View
(12-27) 04:00 PST Norco, Riverside County -- Gregory Davenport, a congenial 46-year-old in prison blues, shared with a visitor to the big state penitentiary here a common inmate's lament -- he left behind two well-educated daughters with whom he could not correspond because he could not read.
But Davenport, serving time for a burglary conviction, is one of the lucky ones. He has finally made progress in his long struggle with illiteracy, a breakthrough he described while holding one of the more sought-after prizes in California's overburdened corrections system -- a classroom seat. He had to wait a year to get into a class in a cramped trailer at the prison in Norco, the California Rehabilitation Center, but now he gets six hours a day of instruction and help with a learning disorder.
"When I came in, I couldn't read at all," said Davenport, who is from a rough neighborhood in Los Angeles. "Now I don't have to ask the other guys to read my letters for me. When I want to write a letter, I get my dictionary and I can do it myself."
Convicts typically enter the corrections system burdened with loads of heavy emotional baggage -- drug addiction, alcoholism, scars from childhood abuse, mental illness and family meltdowns. But the most common companions for those who have failed to find a place in the legitimate world are illiteracy and stunted educational backgrounds.
Roughly two-thirds of California's 173,000 inmates read below a ninth-grade level, according to corrections department figures, and more than half read below a seventh-grade level, making them functionally illiterate, unable to read and follow complex written directions. A total of 21 percent read below a third-grade level.
Research has shown that arming inmates with a solid education is one of the surest ways of reducing the rate at which they end up back behind bars after being released. Officially, California has embraced education as an important form of rehabilitation, but the reality is far different. Just 6 percent of inmates are in academic classes, and 5 percent attend vocational classes.
Some experts regard that as one of the saddest among a long list of failures in the deeply troubled prison system. Not only does an education make it much easier for a parolee to find and hold a decent job, but, unlike drug users, there are no relapses for those who escape illiteracy.
"There is not a lot of causal evidence that specifically says people with educational skills won't commit crimes, but there is definitely a strong correlation between educational ability and staying out of prison," said Peter Leone, a correctional education expert at the University of Maryland.
A comprehensive study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, the research arm of the Washington Legislature, found that general education programs reduced the recidivism rate by 7 percent and vocational programs by 9 percent, among the best records of in-prison programs.
The academic and vocational programs cost the state about $1,000 a year per inmate but, the study concluded, vocational education produced a net benefit to the state of $13,738 per participant, and the educational programs $10,669 per inmate, in the form of lower crime rates, fewer victims and less criminal justice spending.
California's shortcomings are particularly glaring given that there is a state law mandating that the corrections department bring inmates to at least a ninth-grade reading level by the time they are paroled.
But the law, which says the department should achieve a 60 percent success rate at a minimum, is virtually ignored. Many of the prison educators say there is almost a complete disconnect between such legislative goals and what actually happens inside the prison walls.
"If we were working in a perfect world, that would be something we would try and achieve," said Rob Churchill, acting superintendent of education at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
What has made the problem even more urgent is the overcrowding crisis. California's 33 prisons are operating at roughly double capacity. Dayrooms are often jammed with double bunks. Programs for the inmates, from medical care to drug treatment, are breaking down.
One result is that California has the worst recidivism rate in the country, close to 70 percent. That is a key reason that the prisons budget, now more than $8 billion a year, is rising faster than most other state spending.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in the prisons this fall because of the spiraling problems, and the Legislature singled out education as one potential solution. For the current fiscal year, it appropriated $52.8 million for special recidivism reduction efforts, with the largest amount, $21.1 million, for education.
But then there is the reality: Enrollment in traditional academic and vocational classes is actually dropping, from 32,100 in fiscal 2001 to 21,800 in the past fiscal year.
And those figures may be overstating inmate participation. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, inmates miss classes 24 percent of the time because of frequent lockdowns, which are often a result of dangerous overcrowding, and they miss 19 percent of classes due to teacher absences.
With classroom space sparse, waiting lists long and teacher vacancies high -- about 20 percent -- the corrections department has dabbled with a new approach. It has been trying to get some inmates into an alternative education program, called "bridging," as a stopgap.
Bridging focuses largely on life skills, not traditional subjects like math and reading. It involves handing inmates a packet each week and then expecting them to study on their own. While some say the program benefits a few highly motivated inmates, many experts say that it is difficult if not impossible to accomplish much because overcrowding makes dorms and cells noisy and cramped.
"Bridging is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen," said state Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, who is leading efforts to tackle the prison crisis. "I'm an educator and that program doesn't teach anything."
Mike Weaver, the principal of education programs at the California Rehabilitation Center, defended bridging, but only in some cases.
"Forty percent of my guys can't really read, so what good does it do to give them a packet and tell them to go study it?" Weaver asked.
But there are indications that bridging may serve a less obvious purpose.
One of the enticements to get inmates into programs is to offer credit, or reductions in sentences, for every day they are enrolled in a class. They can shave months off of sentences just by getting enrolled, even in the bridging program. Thus, the higher the enrollment numbers, the faster the department can push the inmates out.
The corrections department has long been adamant that it will not release inmates early just to ease overcrowding.
But the educational programs, especially the bridging program, appear to provide a way around this policy. That is particularly true in the reception centers, where inmates stay for a few months when they first enter prison.
There are no formal classes at the reception centers, and prison officials have pushed bridging programs in the centers to overcome that problem.
"The main purpose of bridging was to get them in a credit- earning status quickly," said Janet Blaylock, the assistant superintendent of prison education.
The overall system is so ill-equipped to actually achieve real goals that not only is the state corrections department missing its educational objectives, it does not even know by how much because it does not track the educational level of departing inmates.
"California has not done any type of research on educational outcomes," said Blaylock. "We don't have the infrastructure because we're not hooked up electronically. Any records we have are kept manually."
The prison at Norco is actually one of the better institutions in the state. With 4,001 inmates, the prison is operating at 221 percent of its design capacity, but it has been producing more than 100 graduates from its GED program a year -- there will be more than 200 in 2006 -- and has few teacher vacancies.
There is room for only 9 percent of the inmates in academic classes, but many of those who make it express satisfaction.
Leo Brown, 42, described how one of his daughters had graduated from high school last year, with another lined up to earn her diploma next year. His voice turned into a whisper when he added that he had entered prison reading at a fourth-grade level. Having gotten into a basic education class, he now reads at an eighth-grade level and has a shot at earning a GED.
"It don't look good if my kids have degrees I don't," Brown said. "It's hard to face sometimes where I'm at."
At Norco, 321 inmates are enrolled in academic classes and 247 are on waiting lists. Another 126 inmates are waiting to get into English as a Second Language classes. The situation is far worse on the vocational side, with 225 inmates enrolled and 348 on waiting lists.
"We could double or triple the vocational classes alone and they'd fill up immediately, but we don't have the space or the equipment," Weaver said.
The situation is much worse at many other prisons. At the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi (Kern County), for instance, there are 14 academic teacher vacancies, 36 percent of the authorized slots, and four vocational teacher vacancies. Some class conditions are almost unbearable.
"Our dayrooms have been invaded with bunks so we've been forced into holding some of the classes in the dining halls, and it's very, very tough," said Robert Lee, the principal. "The acoustics are terrible. Everyone is on those little hard seats at little metal tables. It makes it all very difficult."
He said that filling the teacher vacancies has been extremely difficult, in large part because salaries are too low.
"People like to say it's not a money issue, but it is a money issue," Lee said.
One of the tools the teachers at Norco use is inmate tutors and mentors. The inmates say that shame and embarrassment are among the biggest barriers to getting undereducated inmates to overcome illiteracy, and inmates who have been through that battle are sometimes best at being able to sympathize with the problem.
"I'm just another guy in blue," said Paul Krieger, 32, who is serving his fourth term in prison, this one for residential robbery, and is now working on a college degree. "I can talk to them. I know how it feels to be incarcerated. I feel inadequate as a father being in here. For most of these guys, they think an education is just another unattainable goal, and I can show them it's possible."
Gabriel Velasquez, a 20-year-old serving a sentence for robbery and assault, entered prison with a seventh-grade reading level. Next month, he will take the test for his GED and says he is confident he will pass, and that piece of paper will be a key to changing his life.
"People hide illiteracy," said Velasquez. "No one in here wants to look vulnerable."
E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchroni cle.com.
Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? file=/c/a/ 2006/12/27/ MNGF6N6FSS1. DTL
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
10 years in prison for selling a light bulb
"If there was no drug war, dealers would have to get real jobs!" ~Kay Lee
REMEMBER THE TUCKERS and DEA Operation Green Merchant?
The Tucker Family, Drug War POWs
The DEA took the Tucker family's freedom and destroyed their legitimate business; the prison took their son's life, and the public paid highly for the priviledge. Gary Tucker's 10 year imprisonment cost the public a minimum of $150,000. That's not counting what his wife and son cost us.
Last year there were 7 million people in the justice net... Seven million in jail, prison, on probation or parole. Two million of them are not rapists, child molesters, thieves or killers - 2 million of them are offenders of a multitude of drug laws.
The $150,000 or so we wasted on Gary Tucker may not seem like a lot of money (ha!), but if we multiply that times 2 million people, the money wasted becomes vastly more significant. A policy that expensive should definately work, right? I can't even fathom the shattered lives of the drug war, yet after several generations of this prohibition, neither the supply nor the demand has been curtailed in the slightest. Who in the world wants to do this anymore? Kay Lee
FORGOTTEN MAN - 10 years in prison for selling light bulbs
http://atlanta. creativeloafing. com/gyrobase/ Content?oid= oid%3A10762
Steve Tucker served a 10-year prison sentence for selling light bulbs. Is America's drug war worth it?
BY SCOTT HENRY
scott.henry@ creativeloafing. com
Published 12.04.02
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
A year has passed since Steve Tucker made his unheralded return to Atlanta. His one-bedroom flat, tucked into a sprawling Sandy Springs apartment complex, is furnished sparsely: a recliner, TV, computer and a small, picnic-style table that serves as both dining hutch and desk. The stark white static of the walls is interrupted only by three small, web-like dream catchers tacked to the Sheetrock.
It's the sort of Spartan minimalism one might expect of someone who, until recently, had to content himself with staring at bare cinderblock.
"Watch out, you're talking to a notorious ex-con." Wrapped in a sharp Middle Georgia twang, Tucker's voice betrays a suppressed smile. The slight, balding, 50-year-old Atlantan is hardly an intimidating figure.
But he's only half-kidding. Nearly a decade ago, he was sent to prison as a result of a once-infamous federal drug case that sparked national outrage for its rough interpretation of justice.
In the spring of 1994, the Tucker family received lengthy prison sentences -- 10 years for Steve, 16 years for his older brother Gary, and 10 years for his brother's wife, Joanne -- without possibility of parole, for the curiously worded federal crime of "conspiracy to manufacture marijuana."
Yet federal prosecutors never charged them with buying, selling, growing, transporting, smoking or even possessing marijuana. An 18-month DEA investigation had failed to turn up direct evidence connecting the Tuckers to even a single joint.
Instead, they were locked away for selling the lamps, fertilizer and gardening hardware from the small hydroponic supply shop Gary operated on Buford Highway that enabled their customers to grow pot.
In the mid-'90s, the Tucker case became a cause celebre among libertarian activists and other advocates of marijuana legalization. It served as an oft-cited, cautionary example of the runaway powers of the federal government and the worst excesses of the War on Drugs.
And yet, in the long years since, the Tucker case has faded from the radar. No TV cameras or microphones awaited Steve Tucker when he finally shed his prison uniform and came home.
His mother would rather it remain that way. "I'm just scared to death of the federal government," she says. At the same time, Doris Gore realizes her son has an important story to tell.
And he's determined to tell it. As he reads weekly accounts of federal agents in California arresting licensed medical-marijuana growers, he's convinced he must speak out.
"The feds don't like it when you buck them, but I'll be damned if they break me," Tucker says. "What kind of American would I be if I just kept my mouth shut?"
Steve Tucker's nightmare began with the American dream.
The funny thing is, the dream initially belonged to his older brother Gary, a balding Vietnam veteran with a house in the suburbs and a comfortable marriage. For nearly two decades, he and Steve had worked side-by-side, installing commercial fire-control systems for a Buckhead company. But by the fall of 1987, Gary was 40 and he yearned to be his own boss.
Gary's choice of businesses was pioneering: a store devoted to hydroponics, the technique of growing plants without soil or sunlight, using only powerful lamps, chemical nutrients and a self-contained irrigation system. It was, Gary decided after some research, the "wave of the future."
Whose future, however, was the question. While hydroponics is highly effective at boosting vegetable growth, the systems are so costly as to be of practical use only to orchid breeders. And, of course, to marijuana growers, who are lured by the promise of high yields that could be produced in basements and attics, away from the prying eyes of authorities.
Gary wasn't naive. He knew his customer base would include few deep-pocketed tomato enthusiasts. But just as Wal-Mart doesn't ask if the handgun ammunition it sells will be used for target practice or hold-ups, the Tuckers decided it was best to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
"Look, we weren't stupid," Steve says with a weary smile. "We figured a percentage of our customers were growing pot. But we had store rules that if anyone asked us about marijuana, we'd ask them to leave. What someone was planning to do with fertilizer or grow lights wasn't our concern. Most of the stuff we were selling, you could buy at Home Depot. We had a legitimate business."
To finance the start-up, Gary mortgaged his home in Gwinnett and, in the spring of 1988, his business opened in a small shopping center on the edge of Norcross. It was the first hydroponics store in Georgia.
The name Gary chose for his store -- Southern Lights And Hydroponics -- was a nod to a successful Mid-Atlantic chain called Northern Lights, which itself was named after a particularly potent strain of Alaskan weed.
Steve, who had begun making child-support payments after his 10-year marriage ended in divorce, kept his regular job, but helped out weekends in his brother's store. Joanne, who worked for an insurance company, kept her husband's books.
To compensate for hydroponics' somewhat questionable image, Gary wouldn't allow High Times, rolling papers or Mr. Natural posters to be sold in the store. Any product or packaging that arrived bearing the familiar hemp-leaf silhouette would promptly be shipped back. Adding to Southern Lights' air of respectability, the brothers were invited to install working hydroponic exhibits for the agriculture departments of Gwinnett Tech and a local high school.
That's not to say the Tucker brothers didn't enjoy a joint now and again. Gary had first smoked during his tour in Vietnam and Steve would get arrested in 1991 for growing his own stash at home. For that offense, he would serve six months in a county work-release program.
"Getting busted was just my dumb luck," Steve explains. "I used to smoke pot, but I wasn't dealing. I never claimed to be 100-percent innocent, but I never conspired with anybody to do anything illegal."
What the Tuckers didn't know while they were busy preparing to launch Southern Lights was that, in Washington, the DEA was grappling with how to go after the booming number of marijuana growers who were taking their crops indoors to avoid aerial detection.
A veteran agent had hit on the answer while flipping through an issue of High Times: Cut the burgeoning industry's supply lines by focusing the agency's attack on stores selling grow lights and hydroponic gear, dozens of which advertised in the pages of head-shop magazines.
Over the next two years, the DEA subpoenaed UPS shipping records for stores across the country. Agents went undercover to browse through hydroponic shops, follow up leads on pot farms and casually ask everyone with long hair where one could buy seeds.
The agency's aggressiveness showed how far the pendulum had swung since the heyday of the marijuana-reform movement, a decade earlier. At the close of the '70s, 11 states -- following the advice of the American Medical Association and even then-President Jimmy Carter -- had decriminalized simple possession. In 1981, the first bill to legalize medical-marijuana use was introduced in Congress. Its lead sponsor was a young, conservative Georgia lawmaker named Newt Gingrich.
Under Ronald Reagan, however, the tide swiftly turned. Even while the CIA was secretly helping Nicaraguan Contras smuggle vast amounts of cocaine into the president's home state of California, the administration was cracking down on domestic pot smokers, pushing for "zero tolerance" drug laws and scolding Americans to "Just Say No." By the end of the '80s, even socially progressive Oregon had again outlawed weed.
One month after the first President Bush pledged to escalate the War on Drugs in a Sept. 5, 1989, speech televised from the Oval Office, Operation Green Merchant went public. More than 200 indoor growing operations and 30 indoor-gardening shops and mail-order houses found themselves overrun with DEA agents.
One high-profile businessman caught in that first wave of busts was Tom Alexander, the owner of a small hydroponics store in Oregon and publisher of Sinsemilla Tips, considered by some marijuana advocates to be the thinking-man' s High Times.
The DEA seized an estimated $55,000 in inventory from his store, but Alexander soon discovered it would be even more costly to fight the action in court. A few months later, he was forced to shutter his magazine as well.
Alexander had been financially ruined without ever being charged with a crime. It was an approach the feds would repeat with indoor-gardening stores from coast to coast, including all six locations of Northern Lights.
So perhaps Gary Tucker shouldn't have been surprised one day in the early weeks of 1992 when DEA Special Agent Kevin McLaughlin dropped by Southern Lights with an offer its owner wasn't expected to refuse. The feds would be much obliged, McLaughlin explained, if he'd let them install hidden cameras in the store so they could snoop on his customers. If he didn't, no effort would be spared in shutting down his 4-year-old business.
The conversation lasted probably all of five minutes, but its outcome would set into motion forces the Tuckers could scarcely imagine.
Gary would later tell his family that when he told McLaughlin to get lost, the agent "said they'd get him somehow," recalls his mother, Doris Gore.
Still disgusted by the idea of being pressured into being a government spy, Steve has never second-guessed his brother's response. "This isn't Nazi Germany," he says.
Sometime in late spring 1992, Gary Tucker realized his shop was being watched by a man sitting at a desk in an empty storefront across the street. Every time a car pulled into the Southern Lights parking lot, the mystery man would scribble something into a pad. From that point on, events unfolded quickly.
In May, Mike and Andrea Williams, customers who had become friends of Gary and Joanne, were busted by the DEA. The couple used a hydroponic system to grow marijuana for Mike, who was terminally ill and smoked to combat the pain and nausea.
One evening in July, the DEA's McLaughlin, accompanied by partner Mark Hadaway, paid a visit to Jorene Deakle, who worked with Gary as Southern Lights' store manager, and accused her and her husband of growing pot in their home.
Deakle testified two years later at the Tuckers' sentencing hearing that the agents had threatened to file charges and seize her house unless she agreed to spy on her employer for them. She said she was frightened into giving them names of Southern Lights customers she thought might be growing weed.
But the agents wouldn't let up, she testified, until she came with them to point out a house where she knew marijuana was being grown. As they were driving, Deakle told the judge, she picked a house at random so they finally would leave her alone.
The terrified Deakle called the agents several times a week to feed them tidbits of information; the investigation gained momentum. Agents followed customers home, pawed through their garbage, subpoenaed their utility bills and trained sophisticated infrared-imaging devices on their houses to look for concentrated heat sources.
Then the busts began in earnest, as one green thumb after another was caught red-handed. Don Switlick, a convicted drug trafficker, was found growing 114 plants with hydroponic equipment purchased at Southern Lights. Agents discovered a grow room in the Dawsonville home of Thomas Fordham, a high-school friend of Gary's. And, in September, Chuck Rothermel, who ran a car-customizing shop, was busted for a large crop of immature plants hidden in a nondescript warehouse he was renting in Forsyth County.
Of course, not every raid paid off. In one case, agents searched a startled family's home, only to discover that the husband was using the incriminating high-watt lamps in his tropical aquarium. In another, the suspect had never heard of the store; he'd been identified through his car, which his girlfriend had borrowed for the day.
Suffering from what Steve describes as a "nervous breakdown," Deakle mysteriously quit her job. The Tuckers would later find out she had also broken off contact with the DEA.
By October, Gary had adopted what could only be called an unusual business strategy, warning everyone who came into his store that they were being watched by federal agents. "We felt it was our obligation," Steve explains.
Gary even complained to the newspaper -- somewhat naively, in retrospect -- that the DEA was harassing customers buying legal products in an effort to drive him out of business.
McLaughlin responded by dropping by the store on occasion to remind the Tuckers of his promise to shut them down, Steve says. "He was always real cocky," he recalls. "Once, Joanne put him down, so he told her he'd killed her dog, just to upset her."
Their mother begged Gary to quit the hydroponics trade. "I wanted them to get rid of that store, but Gary said they weren't doing anything illegal," Doris Gore recalls. "He was adamant about keeping it open because he said it wasn't his business what other people did with the equipment he sold."
In December, Gary and Joanne went out to dinner and drinks with a friend, Mark Holmes, who kept steering the rambling, margarita-fueled conversation back to the subject of recreational marijuana use -- in large part because he was wearing a wire.
The DEA raided the Tuckers' home and store the following spring, carrying away boxes of business records, address books, photographs and various bric-a-brac. Southern Lights was padlocked, its entire inventory seized, and the agency began forfeiture proceedings against the couple's house, bank accounts, their new truck and a boat.
On June 18, 1993, nearly two years after Operation Green Merchant had arrived in Georgia, Gary, Steve and Joanne were arrested on federal drug conspiracy charges.
The Southern Lights investigation had uncovered, all told, more than 100 small, hemp-growing operations across north Georgia, and resulted in at least 30 arrests. Which meant at least 30 potential prosecution witnesses, who had already claimed many of the available drug-defense attorneys in Atlanta by the time the Tuckers went shopping for legal counsel.
Meeting by chance at a community gathering, Gary and Joanne were introduced to Nancy Lord, a trial lawyer and outspoken Libertarian activist who had been that party's 1992 vice-presidential candidate.
With only one major drug case on her resume, Lord had just moved to Atlanta to practice under the tutelage of prominent defense attorney Tony Axam. Lord and Axam signed on to separately represent Joanne and Gary, respectively. An acquaintance of Lord's was hired for Steve.
From the beginning, Lord was passionate about her assignment, appearing at press conferences and local forums to protest the Big Brother tactics of the federal drug war and attack the flimsiness of the government's case against the Tucker family.
Certainly, to the layperson, it would have appeared weak. Despite 18 months of constant surveillance, boxes of confiscated documents, dozens of confidential informants and the DEA's own terrified mole managing the store, the agency had failed to come up with any physical evidence linking Gary to his customers' crops.
No marijuana -- growing or dime-bagged -- was found in Southern Lights, Gary's house or Steve's apartment. No paper trail of drug deals. No incriminating messages. No videotaped handoffs of suspicious packages. No blurry photos of Gary inspecting a customer's harvest. No secretly recorded advice on the finer points of cultivating Maui Wowie.
After a $1 million investigation, the only tangible exhibits the feds had to show the jury were a set of precision scales that could have been used to weigh leafy contraband, and an old pipe that Gary and Joanne readily acknowledged they had used for smoking pot.
The government's sole weapon seemed to be a lengthy list of freshly indicted, former Southern Lights customers desperate to prove themselves useful enough on the witness stand for prosecutors to let them off lightly.
The Tuckers and Lord, however, failed to fully appreciate that federal conspiracy law is far less concerned with what you did than with what you knew.
"Conspiracy law has been the darling of federal prosecutors since the 1930s, because you don't need direct evidence to score a conviction," explains Axam, now recognized as one of Georgia's top death-penalty lawyers. "The reason they use it is because they may have no hard, physical evidence, but with conspiracy, they can bring in hearsay, rumor, innuendo."
Indeed, it's tough to imagine how anyone gets acquitted, considering the standard description of conspiracy law given to federal juries: "The fact that a defendant's acts appear not to be illegal when viewed in isolation does not bar his conviction. An act innocent in nature and of no danger to the victim or society suffices if it furthers the criminal venture."
Lord, who now specializes in patent law and FDA drug approval at her solo practice outside Las Vegas, admits she underestimated the far-reaching power of conspiracy law. "I was shocked that this little evidence could send someone up for 10 years," she says.
Still, why were prosecutors willing to let admitted pot-growers and convicted drug dealers off easy so they could nail a tax-paying businessman who hadn't been caught with any grass?
Doris Gore is convinced there was an element of vengeance in the DEA's pursuit of her sons because they had refused to roll over, to name names, to cop a plea. "They hated Gary because he wouldn't do what they said," she says.
She may be on to something. During the trial, Garfield Hammonds, then the Southeast's top DEA official, announced to the press that Gary was no mere entrepreneur: "He's a bum, he's a parasite, he's a master of deceit, he's a marijuana czar." Hammonds, who now sits on the state Board of Pardons and Parole, didn't return a CL phone call.
It didn't help that Joanne had followed Lord's lead in publicly baiting her accusers whenever the chance arose. "My husband is a political POW," she told one reporter. "We're fighting a political war, not a drug war."
Steve Tucker still believes he and Joanne were charged primarily as added leverage against Gary. When they wouldn't give him up, the government simply steamrolled over them as well.
Axam, who's since represented such high-profile defendants as Ray Lewis and Jamil Al-Amin, won't discuss the particulars of the Tuckers' defense, but he recalls vividly the feds' take-no-prisoners determination.
"The government had a clear policy that it didn't want hydroponics stores in business," he says. "If it looks long and hard enough at any industry it doesn't like, it can find those connections. "
Scheduled to begin in federal court in November 1993, United States v. Gary Tucker et al got off to a spectacularly inauspicious start.
On the morning of jury selection, activists with the Fully Informed Jury Association -- a radical libertarian group that believes juries should be empowered to dismiss charges and reject unjust laws -- were handing out flyers to everyone entering the Russell Federal Building, effectively disqualifying an entire day's jury pool for the Northern District of Georgia.
When Chief Judge William O'Kelly, who was to preside over the trial, was told Lord had been seen outside exchanging pleasantries with one of the activists, he was livid. Their courtroom relationship went downhill from there.
Resuming the first week of January 1994, the trial lasted four days. Assistant U.S. Attorney James Harper oversaw a parade of a dozen or so nervous plea-bargain witnesses, some of whom testified that Gary, and to a lesser extent, Steve and Joanne, had given them hemp-growing tips. Several claimed Gary had bought pot from them or traded hydroponic equipment for high-end herb. One said he'd glimpsed a freezer crammed with weed in the couple's garage. Another said Gary offered to look after his buds while he was out of town. A couple said Gary had privately confirmed that the vast majority of his customers were breaking the law.
The defense, spearheaded by Lord, scored too few points to overcome the damage. One witness didn't believe the Tuckers had done anything illegal. Another recalled bragging about his hemp garden, only to have Gary tell him to get rid of it. Several acknowledged hoping their testimony would spare them prison time.
One former Southern Lights customer, a 66-year-old ex-con we'll call "Bob" (who spoke to CL on condition he not be named), now says DEA agents tried to coax him into claiming the Tuckers were growing pot at their house, but stopped short of asking him to lie.
"'You help us and we'll help you,' is how they put it," he explains.
When asked to wear a wire into the store, Bob agreed -- then fled the state rather than aid an investigation he believed was intent on "railroading" the business owners.
Even though he eventually testified after police tracked him down, Bob received a four-year sentence, rather than the 18-month stretch he'd initially been offered.
"I disappointed [prosecutors] because I didn't say what they wanted me to," he says. "To my knowledge, the Tuckers didn't do anything other than sell chemicals and lights -- except for indulging."
Steve's own years behind bars have taught him not to be shocked at what someone might say on the witness stand.
"I was in prison with people who'd swear their own mother was Hitler if it would help them," he says, shaking his head. "I'll never have another close friend. I'll never be able to trust anyone that way, now that I've seen what people will do to protect their freedom."
While he concedes that he can't speak for his brother's actions, Steve insists he never offered growing advice or swapped weed with customers -- although he shared a joint on occasion.
Plain-spoken to the point of abrasive, Nancy Lord continued to criticize the DEA, pointedly suggesting that witnesses had been coerced to lie.
When the judge warned her at one point that Agent McLaughlin wasn't the one on trial, she shot back: "He should be." O'Kelly fumed that he was citing her for contempt. "If I go to jail, I go to jail," she shrugged.
"Nancy had some balls," Steve recalls, laughing. "She stood up to that judge."
But Lord now reflects that her confrontational style didn't serve her clients well, a point made painfully clear when O'Kelly told her he believed Joanne likely would have been acquitted if she'd been defended in a more professional manner.
"My problem was, I was too angry," Lord says. "I wanted to make a political statement -- to argue against the drug war -- and I thought the jury would go along with me. Now, I'd probably urge the Tuckers to re-examine taking a plea agreement."
The trial's low point came when Joanne took the stand in her own defense. The same woman who'd given tough-talking speeches defending her family and denouncing government scare tactics suddenly sounded uncertain and evasive when confronted by prosecutors.
"Joanne fell apart on the stand," Lord says. "It really was sad to watch."
Despite widespread criticism of the nation's ongoing War on Drugs, there's at least one battle Uncle Sam has convincingly won, depending on your definition of victory.
First taking effect in 1989, mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines -- combined with the elimination of federal parole -- ensure that even the most casual, recreational drug-user can be kept off his subdivision streets for many long years while paying his debt to society -- and there's not a damn thing any bleeding-heart federal judge can do about it.
Supposedly intended to iron out the sentencing inconsistencies between various district courts, mandatory minimums instead have only magnified the racial disparity of the prison population. More than 43 percent of all U.S. prison inmates are black males, and blacks outnumber whites in prison by a margin of more than 5-to-4, according to Department of Justice statistics released in July.
Bruce Harvey, Georgia's leading drug defense attorney, considers mandatory-minimum sentencing to be part of a collection of immoral federal laws whose combined impact is "nothing more than political genocide on a whole group of people -- and it's getting worse."
Because a federal drug offender's punishment now is effectively determined by the charges rather than a judge's experienced sense of justice, sentencing power lies in the hands of prosecutor, where it's frequently wielded to compel a defendant to make some agent's job easier.
Before the trial began, says Steve: "I was offered 24 months instead of 10 years if I'd testify against Gary. When I said no, they asked me to testify against Joanne. I mean, my brother or my brother's wife, what's the difference?"
Even after the jury had returned guilty verdicts against all three Tuckers, the prosecutors offered Steve one last deal: Give up the names of any pot-growers who had escaped their dragnet and get off with only two years.
"I figure I'm a man, I make my own decisions, and I'm not going to tear someone else down to spare myself some time," he says. "I said, 'I'll do my 10 years.'"
The way the Tuckers arrived at that sentencing threshold, however, involved a stunning use of statutory sleight-of-hand.
When the DEA would bust a pot farm, each plant -- from the tiniest seedling up to mature bushes in full flower -- would count as one kilo of hemp. Then the agents would break out the calculators: Assume an annual yield of five crops, multiply by the projected time the suspect had been growing, add in the number of actual plants confiscated, convert to kilos and voila!, all equaling one serious prison sentence.
In the Southern Lights case, for instance, one customer was caught growing 80 actual plants, which, after a run-in with the DEA's conversion chart, had blossomed into an "estimated" 1,200 plants, speaking of manufacturing marijuana.
The Tuckers had been charged in relation to 1,000 kilos -- exactly the amount needed to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years -- which consisted mostly of theoretical weed. Gary received an additional six years for masterminding the criminal enterprise.
"To this day, we don't know whose plants we were charged with," Steve says. Not that it mattered. Whoever they belonged to, there were plenty where those came from.
As Agent McLaughlin explained to the judge: "I stopped computing at 16,000 plants."
The one bright spot in the trial seemed to be the jury's decision to deny the federal forfeiture of Gary and Joanne's house, presumably because of the absence of evidence that it was paid for with drug money.
Nancy Lord says the government's final dirty trick came when the DEA agreed to drop its claim to the property -- only to have the home seized by the state.
Steve and Gary's introduction to Club Fed was a temporary stay -- mingling with some of the same guys who'd snitched on them -- at the minimum-security prison camp next to the notorious Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.
"What you see in the movies about prisons is pretty much true about the Atlanta Pen," Steve says.
After a few months, they were transferred to Alabama, a trip Steve recalls with disbelief: "When I left the Atlanta Prison Camp, they gave me $75 and a set of street clothes. I took a cab, a bus and another cab, and reported to my new prison. If they could trust me to do that, obviously, I'm not the kind of guy who needs to be in prison."
Even as they settled into the cell they shared at Talladega Federal Correctional Institute, Gary and Steve's convictions were being condemned in newsletters and described in magazine articles, discussed at political forums and featured in a CNN special.
The family was the subject of a chapter in the 1998 book Shattered Lives: Portraits From America's Drug War. Co-author Mikki Norris of El Cerrito, Calif., says the Tuckers' case was one of the more disturbing she studied.
"It made me very paranoid to think that you could be convicted of completing a drug transaction without even knowing it," she says.
As the months and then years wore on, the media furor eventually died down and the brothers fell into the mind-numbing routine of prison life. To keep busy, Steve edited the inmate-produced newspaper, "Prose and Cons," and counted out his time: 54 days off each year automatically for good behavior, a year off for completing a voluntary drug-rehab course.
"You work, you eat, you read -- prison's a lot like a small town," he says. "I read over 600 novels, mostly psycho-thrillers, and I wrote a few, too."
But it wasn't all dull. In October 1995, much of the federal inmate population was following the progress of a congressional bill to reduce the penalties for crack possession -- retroactively, for many already serving time.
One morning, news came that the bill had failed; a foreboding silence fell over the prison the rest of the day, Steve recalls. That evening, he says, word spread throughout the cafeteria that a California prison was rioting in protest of the vote in Washington. A few minutes later, the whole place erupted.
"We feared for our lives that night," Steve says. "The inmates tore that prison to hell. It was really harrowing."
Later, they found out the rumor about the California prison had been a hoax. Instead, it was the Talladega riot -- which caused $3 million in damages and left several buildings burned -- that had touched off at least three similar episodes in other states.
That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission downgraded the conversion weight for a marijuana plant from 1 kilo to 100 grams. Gary petitioned to have his sentence reduced accordingly, but Steve didn't file his own request out of concern it might somehow hurt his brother's chances.
Finally, in 1998, Judge O'Kelly reduced Gary's sentence to 10 years. In the end, it didn't make any difference.
Last December, five days after Steve was released from the halfway house where he'd spent the last few months of his sentence, Gary died of cancer at Emory Hospital.
He had been sick for a nearly a year, but prison officials refused to take his illness seriously until it was too late, his mother says.
"They'd give him an aspirin and send him back to his cell until he'd pass out and then they'd take him to the hospital," Gore says.
Steve was able to see Gary toward the end, but Joanne -- who'd been transferred from a Connecticut woman's prison to a Macon halfway house -- wasn't allowed to visit her husband the week before he died.
The diagnosis was non-Hodgkin' s lymphoma, a cancer closely associated with exposure to Agent Orange, the deadly herbicide used in Vietnam. It would seem Gary's government had succeeded in killing him after all.
Even though his prison sentence has been served and he's returned to his old job, Steve Tucker wouldn't call himself a free man. Not when he has to call in every morning for the next four years so a recorded message can tell him whether he's been randomly selected to pee in a cup that day. Not since he had to give up his lifelong pastime of hunting because he can never again hold a gun. Not after he's seen politicians get elected on the promise to pass more draconian drug laws, and knowing he's forever lost his right to vote.
For the first time in nearly a decade, Steve brought his son and daughter, in their mid-teens, to spend Thanksgiving with his mother in Cochran, a half-hour south of Macon. He was required to seek written approval from his probation officer weeks in advance of the visit.
"When I got out, I had to learn my way around Atlanta again, but I went back to work like I'd never left; there was no adjustment problem," he says. "The hardest part is the probation, because you have to get permission to do just about everything."
In prison, Steve met guys who told him they had violated their probation on purpose because another 16 months in the big house was better than three more years of having people always looking over your shoulder, waiting for you to fuck up.
The thing about federal prison that made the biggest impression on Steve was how many inmates were much like himself: small-time, non-violent offenders serving big-time sentences for reasons that made little sense.
"Even if I was guilty, 10 years seems excessive when there were bank robbers who were in there for two or three years, and I got 10 years for selling light bulbs," he says, his voice rising as if framing a question.
"This drug war forced two little kids to grow up without their dad and my ex-wife to go without child-support for eight years, and for what?" he continues. "I'm not saying I'm above the law, but I know in my heart I'm not the type of person who needed to be in prison."
And yet, once there, the outrageousness of his circumstances blended into a background of statistics: He simply became another of the anonymous drug offenders who make up 57 percent of all federal inmates.
If anything, the War on Drugs has only built momentum through the political backing of such powerful interest groups as prison guard unions; the billion-dollar drug-testing industry; private prison construction and management companies; and, of course, the DEA, which commands a $1.8-billion budget and has, in the past 30 years, more than tripled the number of special agents on its payroll.
Over the last decade, drug convictions have accounted for more than 80 percent of the growth of the federal prison population, so it's hardly surprising that, as the drug war swirled outside, amassing new victims, Steve Tucker was essentially forgotten.
His sister-in-law, Joanne, now remarried and relocated, wants to forget as well. Declining to be interviewed, she explains: "Digging up something from 10 years ago isn't going to help anything now."
Trying to piece together a ruined life takes time, but there's a freedom that comes with starting over, and Steve is hoping to write his own second act.
He's looking for a literary agent to publish one of the novels he wrote in prison, a mystery set in a town modeled loosely on Cochran. As they say, you write what you know.
"People ask me if I'm going to write about everything I've been through, but I don't think so," he says wistfully. "Who wants to read about some guy who got busted for pot?"
REMEMBER THE TUCKERS and DEA Operation Green Merchant?
The Tucker Family, Drug War POWs
The DEA took the Tucker family's freedom and destroyed their legitimate business; the prison took their son's life, and the public paid highly for the priviledge. Gary Tucker's 10 year imprisonment cost the public a minimum of $150,000. That's not counting what his wife and son cost us.
Last year there were 7 million people in the justice net... Seven million in jail, prison, on probation or parole. Two million of them are not rapists, child molesters, thieves or killers - 2 million of them are offenders of a multitude of drug laws.
The $150,000 or so we wasted on Gary Tucker may not seem like a lot of money (ha!), but if we multiply that times 2 million people, the money wasted becomes vastly more significant. A policy that expensive should definately work, right? I can't even fathom the shattered lives of the drug war, yet after several generations of this prohibition, neither the supply nor the demand has been curtailed in the slightest. Who in the world wants to do this anymore? Kay Lee
FORGOTTEN MAN - 10 years in prison for selling light bulbs
http://atlanta. creativeloafing. com/gyrobase/ Content?oid= oid%3A10762
Steve Tucker served a 10-year prison sentence for selling light bulbs. Is America's drug war worth it?
BY SCOTT HENRY
scott.henry@ creativeloafing. com
Published 12.04.02
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
A year has passed since Steve Tucker made his unheralded return to Atlanta. His one-bedroom flat, tucked into a sprawling Sandy Springs apartment complex, is furnished sparsely: a recliner, TV, computer and a small, picnic-style table that serves as both dining hutch and desk. The stark white static of the walls is interrupted only by three small, web-like dream catchers tacked to the Sheetrock.
It's the sort of Spartan minimalism one might expect of someone who, until recently, had to content himself with staring at bare cinderblock.
"Watch out, you're talking to a notorious ex-con." Wrapped in a sharp Middle Georgia twang, Tucker's voice betrays a suppressed smile. The slight, balding, 50-year-old Atlantan is hardly an intimidating figure.
But he's only half-kidding. Nearly a decade ago, he was sent to prison as a result of a once-infamous federal drug case that sparked national outrage for its rough interpretation of justice.
In the spring of 1994, the Tucker family received lengthy prison sentences -- 10 years for Steve, 16 years for his older brother Gary, and 10 years for his brother's wife, Joanne -- without possibility of parole, for the curiously worded federal crime of "conspiracy to manufacture marijuana."
Yet federal prosecutors never charged them with buying, selling, growing, transporting, smoking or even possessing marijuana. An 18-month DEA investigation had failed to turn up direct evidence connecting the Tuckers to even a single joint.
Instead, they were locked away for selling the lamps, fertilizer and gardening hardware from the small hydroponic supply shop Gary operated on Buford Highway that enabled their customers to grow pot.
In the mid-'90s, the Tucker case became a cause celebre among libertarian activists and other advocates of marijuana legalization. It served as an oft-cited, cautionary example of the runaway powers of the federal government and the worst excesses of the War on Drugs.
And yet, in the long years since, the Tucker case has faded from the radar. No TV cameras or microphones awaited Steve Tucker when he finally shed his prison uniform and came home.
His mother would rather it remain that way. "I'm just scared to death of the federal government," she says. At the same time, Doris Gore realizes her son has an important story to tell.
And he's determined to tell it. As he reads weekly accounts of federal agents in California arresting licensed medical-marijuana growers, he's convinced he must speak out.
"The feds don't like it when you buck them, but I'll be damned if they break me," Tucker says. "What kind of American would I be if I just kept my mouth shut?"
Steve Tucker's nightmare began with the American dream.
The funny thing is, the dream initially belonged to his older brother Gary, a balding Vietnam veteran with a house in the suburbs and a comfortable marriage. For nearly two decades, he and Steve had worked side-by-side, installing commercial fire-control systems for a Buckhead company. But by the fall of 1987, Gary was 40 and he yearned to be his own boss.
Gary's choice of businesses was pioneering: a store devoted to hydroponics, the technique of growing plants without soil or sunlight, using only powerful lamps, chemical nutrients and a self-contained irrigation system. It was, Gary decided after some research, the "wave of the future."
Whose future, however, was the question. While hydroponics is highly effective at boosting vegetable growth, the systems are so costly as to be of practical use only to orchid breeders. And, of course, to marijuana growers, who are lured by the promise of high yields that could be produced in basements and attics, away from the prying eyes of authorities.
Gary wasn't naive. He knew his customer base would include few deep-pocketed tomato enthusiasts. But just as Wal-Mart doesn't ask if the handgun ammunition it sells will be used for target practice or hold-ups, the Tuckers decided it was best to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
"Look, we weren't stupid," Steve says with a weary smile. "We figured a percentage of our customers were growing pot. But we had store rules that if anyone asked us about marijuana, we'd ask them to leave. What someone was planning to do with fertilizer or grow lights wasn't our concern. Most of the stuff we were selling, you could buy at Home Depot. We had a legitimate business."
To finance the start-up, Gary mortgaged his home in Gwinnett and, in the spring of 1988, his business opened in a small shopping center on the edge of Norcross. It was the first hydroponics store in Georgia.
The name Gary chose for his store -- Southern Lights And Hydroponics -- was a nod to a successful Mid-Atlantic chain called Northern Lights, which itself was named after a particularly potent strain of Alaskan weed.
Steve, who had begun making child-support payments after his 10-year marriage ended in divorce, kept his regular job, but helped out weekends in his brother's store. Joanne, who worked for an insurance company, kept her husband's books.
To compensate for hydroponics' somewhat questionable image, Gary wouldn't allow High Times, rolling papers or Mr. Natural posters to be sold in the store. Any product or packaging that arrived bearing the familiar hemp-leaf silhouette would promptly be shipped back. Adding to Southern Lights' air of respectability, the brothers were invited to install working hydroponic exhibits for the agriculture departments of Gwinnett Tech and a local high school.
That's not to say the Tucker brothers didn't enjoy a joint now and again. Gary had first smoked during his tour in Vietnam and Steve would get arrested in 1991 for growing his own stash at home. For that offense, he would serve six months in a county work-release program.
"Getting busted was just my dumb luck," Steve explains. "I used to smoke pot, but I wasn't dealing. I never claimed to be 100-percent innocent, but I never conspired with anybody to do anything illegal."
What the Tuckers didn't know while they were busy preparing to launch Southern Lights was that, in Washington, the DEA was grappling with how to go after the booming number of marijuana growers who were taking their crops indoors to avoid aerial detection.
A veteran agent had hit on the answer while flipping through an issue of High Times: Cut the burgeoning industry's supply lines by focusing the agency's attack on stores selling grow lights and hydroponic gear, dozens of which advertised in the pages of head-shop magazines.
Over the next two years, the DEA subpoenaed UPS shipping records for stores across the country. Agents went undercover to browse through hydroponic shops, follow up leads on pot farms and casually ask everyone with long hair where one could buy seeds.
The agency's aggressiveness showed how far the pendulum had swung since the heyday of the marijuana-reform movement, a decade earlier. At the close of the '70s, 11 states -- following the advice of the American Medical Association and even then-President Jimmy Carter -- had decriminalized simple possession. In 1981, the first bill to legalize medical-marijuana use was introduced in Congress. Its lead sponsor was a young, conservative Georgia lawmaker named Newt Gingrich.
Under Ronald Reagan, however, the tide swiftly turned. Even while the CIA was secretly helping Nicaraguan Contras smuggle vast amounts of cocaine into the president's home state of California, the administration was cracking down on domestic pot smokers, pushing for "zero tolerance" drug laws and scolding Americans to "Just Say No." By the end of the '80s, even socially progressive Oregon had again outlawed weed.
One month after the first President Bush pledged to escalate the War on Drugs in a Sept. 5, 1989, speech televised from the Oval Office, Operation Green Merchant went public. More than 200 indoor growing operations and 30 indoor-gardening shops and mail-order houses found themselves overrun with DEA agents.
One high-profile businessman caught in that first wave of busts was Tom Alexander, the owner of a small hydroponics store in Oregon and publisher of Sinsemilla Tips, considered by some marijuana advocates to be the thinking-man' s High Times.
The DEA seized an estimated $55,000 in inventory from his store, but Alexander soon discovered it would be even more costly to fight the action in court. A few months later, he was forced to shutter his magazine as well.
Alexander had been financially ruined without ever being charged with a crime. It was an approach the feds would repeat with indoor-gardening stores from coast to coast, including all six locations of Northern Lights.
So perhaps Gary Tucker shouldn't have been surprised one day in the early weeks of 1992 when DEA Special Agent Kevin McLaughlin dropped by Southern Lights with an offer its owner wasn't expected to refuse. The feds would be much obliged, McLaughlin explained, if he'd let them install hidden cameras in the store so they could snoop on his customers. If he didn't, no effort would be spared in shutting down his 4-year-old business.
The conversation lasted probably all of five minutes, but its outcome would set into motion forces the Tuckers could scarcely imagine.
Gary would later tell his family that when he told McLaughlin to get lost, the agent "said they'd get him somehow," recalls his mother, Doris Gore.
Still disgusted by the idea of being pressured into being a government spy, Steve has never second-guessed his brother's response. "This isn't Nazi Germany," he says.
Sometime in late spring 1992, Gary Tucker realized his shop was being watched by a man sitting at a desk in an empty storefront across the street. Every time a car pulled into the Southern Lights parking lot, the mystery man would scribble something into a pad. From that point on, events unfolded quickly.
In May, Mike and Andrea Williams, customers who had become friends of Gary and Joanne, were busted by the DEA. The couple used a hydroponic system to grow marijuana for Mike, who was terminally ill and smoked to combat the pain and nausea.
One evening in July, the DEA's McLaughlin, accompanied by partner Mark Hadaway, paid a visit to Jorene Deakle, who worked with Gary as Southern Lights' store manager, and accused her and her husband of growing pot in their home.
Deakle testified two years later at the Tuckers' sentencing hearing that the agents had threatened to file charges and seize her house unless she agreed to spy on her employer for them. She said she was frightened into giving them names of Southern Lights customers she thought might be growing weed.
But the agents wouldn't let up, she testified, until she came with them to point out a house where she knew marijuana was being grown. As they were driving, Deakle told the judge, she picked a house at random so they finally would leave her alone.
The terrified Deakle called the agents several times a week to feed them tidbits of information; the investigation gained momentum. Agents followed customers home, pawed through their garbage, subpoenaed their utility bills and trained sophisticated infrared-imaging devices on their houses to look for concentrated heat sources.
Then the busts began in earnest, as one green thumb after another was caught red-handed. Don Switlick, a convicted drug trafficker, was found growing 114 plants with hydroponic equipment purchased at Southern Lights. Agents discovered a grow room in the Dawsonville home of Thomas Fordham, a high-school friend of Gary's. And, in September, Chuck Rothermel, who ran a car-customizing shop, was busted for a large crop of immature plants hidden in a nondescript warehouse he was renting in Forsyth County.
Of course, not every raid paid off. In one case, agents searched a startled family's home, only to discover that the husband was using the incriminating high-watt lamps in his tropical aquarium. In another, the suspect had never heard of the store; he'd been identified through his car, which his girlfriend had borrowed for the day.
Suffering from what Steve describes as a "nervous breakdown," Deakle mysteriously quit her job. The Tuckers would later find out she had also broken off contact with the DEA.
By October, Gary had adopted what could only be called an unusual business strategy, warning everyone who came into his store that they were being watched by federal agents. "We felt it was our obligation," Steve explains.
Gary even complained to the newspaper -- somewhat naively, in retrospect -- that the DEA was harassing customers buying legal products in an effort to drive him out of business.
McLaughlin responded by dropping by the store on occasion to remind the Tuckers of his promise to shut them down, Steve says. "He was always real cocky," he recalls. "Once, Joanne put him down, so he told her he'd killed her dog, just to upset her."
Their mother begged Gary to quit the hydroponics trade. "I wanted them to get rid of that store, but Gary said they weren't doing anything illegal," Doris Gore recalls. "He was adamant about keeping it open because he said it wasn't his business what other people did with the equipment he sold."
In December, Gary and Joanne went out to dinner and drinks with a friend, Mark Holmes, who kept steering the rambling, margarita-fueled conversation back to the subject of recreational marijuana use -- in large part because he was wearing a wire.
The DEA raided the Tuckers' home and store the following spring, carrying away boxes of business records, address books, photographs and various bric-a-brac. Southern Lights was padlocked, its entire inventory seized, and the agency began forfeiture proceedings against the couple's house, bank accounts, their new truck and a boat.
On June 18, 1993, nearly two years after Operation Green Merchant had arrived in Georgia, Gary, Steve and Joanne were arrested on federal drug conspiracy charges.
The Southern Lights investigation had uncovered, all told, more than 100 small, hemp-growing operations across north Georgia, and resulted in at least 30 arrests. Which meant at least 30 potential prosecution witnesses, who had already claimed many of the available drug-defense attorneys in Atlanta by the time the Tuckers went shopping for legal counsel.
Meeting by chance at a community gathering, Gary and Joanne were introduced to Nancy Lord, a trial lawyer and outspoken Libertarian activist who had been that party's 1992 vice-presidential candidate.
With only one major drug case on her resume, Lord had just moved to Atlanta to practice under the tutelage of prominent defense attorney Tony Axam. Lord and Axam signed on to separately represent Joanne and Gary, respectively. An acquaintance of Lord's was hired for Steve.
From the beginning, Lord was passionate about her assignment, appearing at press conferences and local forums to protest the Big Brother tactics of the federal drug war and attack the flimsiness of the government's case against the Tucker family.
Certainly, to the layperson, it would have appeared weak. Despite 18 months of constant surveillance, boxes of confiscated documents, dozens of confidential informants and the DEA's own terrified mole managing the store, the agency had failed to come up with any physical evidence linking Gary to his customers' crops.
No marijuana -- growing or dime-bagged -- was found in Southern Lights, Gary's house or Steve's apartment. No paper trail of drug deals. No incriminating messages. No videotaped handoffs of suspicious packages. No blurry photos of Gary inspecting a customer's harvest. No secretly recorded advice on the finer points of cultivating Maui Wowie.
After a $1 million investigation, the only tangible exhibits the feds had to show the jury were a set of precision scales that could have been used to weigh leafy contraband, and an old pipe that Gary and Joanne readily acknowledged they had used for smoking pot.
The government's sole weapon seemed to be a lengthy list of freshly indicted, former Southern Lights customers desperate to prove themselves useful enough on the witness stand for prosecutors to let them off lightly.
The Tuckers and Lord, however, failed to fully appreciate that federal conspiracy law is far less concerned with what you did than with what you knew.
"Conspiracy law has been the darling of federal prosecutors since the 1930s, because you don't need direct evidence to score a conviction," explains Axam, now recognized as one of Georgia's top death-penalty lawyers. "The reason they use it is because they may have no hard, physical evidence, but with conspiracy, they can bring in hearsay, rumor, innuendo."
Indeed, it's tough to imagine how anyone gets acquitted, considering the standard description of conspiracy law given to federal juries: "The fact that a defendant's acts appear not to be illegal when viewed in isolation does not bar his conviction. An act innocent in nature and of no danger to the victim or society suffices if it furthers the criminal venture."
Lord, who now specializes in patent law and FDA drug approval at her solo practice outside Las Vegas, admits she underestimated the far-reaching power of conspiracy law. "I was shocked that this little evidence could send someone up for 10 years," she says.
Still, why were prosecutors willing to let admitted pot-growers and convicted drug dealers off easy so they could nail a tax-paying businessman who hadn't been caught with any grass?
Doris Gore is convinced there was an element of vengeance in the DEA's pursuit of her sons because they had refused to roll over, to name names, to cop a plea. "They hated Gary because he wouldn't do what they said," she says.
She may be on to something. During the trial, Garfield Hammonds, then the Southeast's top DEA official, announced to the press that Gary was no mere entrepreneur: "He's a bum, he's a parasite, he's a master of deceit, he's a marijuana czar." Hammonds, who now sits on the state Board of Pardons and Parole, didn't return a CL phone call.
It didn't help that Joanne had followed Lord's lead in publicly baiting her accusers whenever the chance arose. "My husband is a political POW," she told one reporter. "We're fighting a political war, not a drug war."
Steve Tucker still believes he and Joanne were charged primarily as added leverage against Gary. When they wouldn't give him up, the government simply steamrolled over them as well.
Axam, who's since represented such high-profile defendants as Ray Lewis and Jamil Al-Amin, won't discuss the particulars of the Tuckers' defense, but he recalls vividly the feds' take-no-prisoners determination.
"The government had a clear policy that it didn't want hydroponics stores in business," he says. "If it looks long and hard enough at any industry it doesn't like, it can find those connections. "
Scheduled to begin in federal court in November 1993, United States v. Gary Tucker et al got off to a spectacularly inauspicious start.
On the morning of jury selection, activists with the Fully Informed Jury Association -- a radical libertarian group that believes juries should be empowered to dismiss charges and reject unjust laws -- were handing out flyers to everyone entering the Russell Federal Building, effectively disqualifying an entire day's jury pool for the Northern District of Georgia.
When Chief Judge William O'Kelly, who was to preside over the trial, was told Lord had been seen outside exchanging pleasantries with one of the activists, he was livid. Their courtroom relationship went downhill from there.
Resuming the first week of January 1994, the trial lasted four days. Assistant U.S. Attorney James Harper oversaw a parade of a dozen or so nervous plea-bargain witnesses, some of whom testified that Gary, and to a lesser extent, Steve and Joanne, had given them hemp-growing tips. Several claimed Gary had bought pot from them or traded hydroponic equipment for high-end herb. One said he'd glimpsed a freezer crammed with weed in the couple's garage. Another said Gary offered to look after his buds while he was out of town. A couple said Gary had privately confirmed that the vast majority of his customers were breaking the law.
The defense, spearheaded by Lord, scored too few points to overcome the damage. One witness didn't believe the Tuckers had done anything illegal. Another recalled bragging about his hemp garden, only to have Gary tell him to get rid of it. Several acknowledged hoping their testimony would spare them prison time.
One former Southern Lights customer, a 66-year-old ex-con we'll call "Bob" (who spoke to CL on condition he not be named), now says DEA agents tried to coax him into claiming the Tuckers were growing pot at their house, but stopped short of asking him to lie.
"'You help us and we'll help you,' is how they put it," he explains.
When asked to wear a wire into the store, Bob agreed -- then fled the state rather than aid an investigation he believed was intent on "railroading" the business owners.
Even though he eventually testified after police tracked him down, Bob received a four-year sentence, rather than the 18-month stretch he'd initially been offered.
"I disappointed [prosecutors] because I didn't say what they wanted me to," he says. "To my knowledge, the Tuckers didn't do anything other than sell chemicals and lights -- except for indulging."
Steve's own years behind bars have taught him not to be shocked at what someone might say on the witness stand.
"I was in prison with people who'd swear their own mother was Hitler if it would help them," he says, shaking his head. "I'll never have another close friend. I'll never be able to trust anyone that way, now that I've seen what people will do to protect their freedom."
While he concedes that he can't speak for his brother's actions, Steve insists he never offered growing advice or swapped weed with customers -- although he shared a joint on occasion.
Plain-spoken to the point of abrasive, Nancy Lord continued to criticize the DEA, pointedly suggesting that witnesses had been coerced to lie.
When the judge warned her at one point that Agent McLaughlin wasn't the one on trial, she shot back: "He should be." O'Kelly fumed that he was citing her for contempt. "If I go to jail, I go to jail," she shrugged.
"Nancy had some balls," Steve recalls, laughing. "She stood up to that judge."
But Lord now reflects that her confrontational style didn't serve her clients well, a point made painfully clear when O'Kelly told her he believed Joanne likely would have been acquitted if she'd been defended in a more professional manner.
"My problem was, I was too angry," Lord says. "I wanted to make a political statement -- to argue against the drug war -- and I thought the jury would go along with me. Now, I'd probably urge the Tuckers to re-examine taking a plea agreement."
The trial's low point came when Joanne took the stand in her own defense. The same woman who'd given tough-talking speeches defending her family and denouncing government scare tactics suddenly sounded uncertain and evasive when confronted by prosecutors.
"Joanne fell apart on the stand," Lord says. "It really was sad to watch."
Despite widespread criticism of the nation's ongoing War on Drugs, there's at least one battle Uncle Sam has convincingly won, depending on your definition of victory.
First taking effect in 1989, mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines -- combined with the elimination of federal parole -- ensure that even the most casual, recreational drug-user can be kept off his subdivision streets for many long years while paying his debt to society -- and there's not a damn thing any bleeding-heart federal judge can do about it.
Supposedly intended to iron out the sentencing inconsistencies between various district courts, mandatory minimums instead have only magnified the racial disparity of the prison population. More than 43 percent of all U.S. prison inmates are black males, and blacks outnumber whites in prison by a margin of more than 5-to-4, according to Department of Justice statistics released in July.
Bruce Harvey, Georgia's leading drug defense attorney, considers mandatory-minimum sentencing to be part of a collection of immoral federal laws whose combined impact is "nothing more than political genocide on a whole group of people -- and it's getting worse."
Because a federal drug offender's punishment now is effectively determined by the charges rather than a judge's experienced sense of justice, sentencing power lies in the hands of prosecutor, where it's frequently wielded to compel a defendant to make some agent's job easier.
Before the trial began, says Steve: "I was offered 24 months instead of 10 years if I'd testify against Gary. When I said no, they asked me to testify against Joanne. I mean, my brother or my brother's wife, what's the difference?"
Even after the jury had returned guilty verdicts against all three Tuckers, the prosecutors offered Steve one last deal: Give up the names of any pot-growers who had escaped their dragnet and get off with only two years.
"I figure I'm a man, I make my own decisions, and I'm not going to tear someone else down to spare myself some time," he says. "I said, 'I'll do my 10 years.'"
The way the Tuckers arrived at that sentencing threshold, however, involved a stunning use of statutory sleight-of-hand.
When the DEA would bust a pot farm, each plant -- from the tiniest seedling up to mature bushes in full flower -- would count as one kilo of hemp. Then the agents would break out the calculators: Assume an annual yield of five crops, multiply by the projected time the suspect had been growing, add in the number of actual plants confiscated, convert to kilos and voila!, all equaling one serious prison sentence.
In the Southern Lights case, for instance, one customer was caught growing 80 actual plants, which, after a run-in with the DEA's conversion chart, had blossomed into an "estimated" 1,200 plants, speaking of manufacturing marijuana.
The Tuckers had been charged in relation to 1,000 kilos -- exactly the amount needed to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years -- which consisted mostly of theoretical weed. Gary received an additional six years for masterminding the criminal enterprise.
"To this day, we don't know whose plants we were charged with," Steve says. Not that it mattered. Whoever they belonged to, there were plenty where those came from.
As Agent McLaughlin explained to the judge: "I stopped computing at 16,000 plants."
The one bright spot in the trial seemed to be the jury's decision to deny the federal forfeiture of Gary and Joanne's house, presumably because of the absence of evidence that it was paid for with drug money.
Nancy Lord says the government's final dirty trick came when the DEA agreed to drop its claim to the property -- only to have the home seized by the state.
Steve and Gary's introduction to Club Fed was a temporary stay -- mingling with some of the same guys who'd snitched on them -- at the minimum-security prison camp next to the notorious Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.
"What you see in the movies about prisons is pretty much true about the Atlanta Pen," Steve says.
After a few months, they were transferred to Alabama, a trip Steve recalls with disbelief: "When I left the Atlanta Prison Camp, they gave me $75 and a set of street clothes. I took a cab, a bus and another cab, and reported to my new prison. If they could trust me to do that, obviously, I'm not the kind of guy who needs to be in prison."
Even as they settled into the cell they shared at Talladega Federal Correctional Institute, Gary and Steve's convictions were being condemned in newsletters and described in magazine articles, discussed at political forums and featured in a CNN special.
The family was the subject of a chapter in the 1998 book Shattered Lives: Portraits From America's Drug War. Co-author Mikki Norris of El Cerrito, Calif., says the Tuckers' case was one of the more disturbing she studied.
"It made me very paranoid to think that you could be convicted of completing a drug transaction without even knowing it," she says.
As the months and then years wore on, the media furor eventually died down and the brothers fell into the mind-numbing routine of prison life. To keep busy, Steve edited the inmate-produced newspaper, "Prose and Cons," and counted out his time: 54 days off each year automatically for good behavior, a year off for completing a voluntary drug-rehab course.
"You work, you eat, you read -- prison's a lot like a small town," he says. "I read over 600 novels, mostly psycho-thrillers, and I wrote a few, too."
But it wasn't all dull. In October 1995, much of the federal inmate population was following the progress of a congressional bill to reduce the penalties for crack possession -- retroactively, for many already serving time.
One morning, news came that the bill had failed; a foreboding silence fell over the prison the rest of the day, Steve recalls. That evening, he says, word spread throughout the cafeteria that a California prison was rioting in protest of the vote in Washington. A few minutes later, the whole place erupted.
"We feared for our lives that night," Steve says. "The inmates tore that prison to hell. It was really harrowing."
Later, they found out the rumor about the California prison had been a hoax. Instead, it was the Talladega riot -- which caused $3 million in damages and left several buildings burned -- that had touched off at least three similar episodes in other states.
That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission downgraded the conversion weight for a marijuana plant from 1 kilo to 100 grams. Gary petitioned to have his sentence reduced accordingly, but Steve didn't file his own request out of concern it might somehow hurt his brother's chances.
Finally, in 1998, Judge O'Kelly reduced Gary's sentence to 10 years. In the end, it didn't make any difference.
Last December, five days after Steve was released from the halfway house where he'd spent the last few months of his sentence, Gary died of cancer at Emory Hospital.
He had been sick for a nearly a year, but prison officials refused to take his illness seriously until it was too late, his mother says.
"They'd give him an aspirin and send him back to his cell until he'd pass out and then they'd take him to the hospital," Gore says.
Steve was able to see Gary toward the end, but Joanne -- who'd been transferred from a Connecticut woman's prison to a Macon halfway house -- wasn't allowed to visit her husband the week before he died.
The diagnosis was non-Hodgkin' s lymphoma, a cancer closely associated with exposure to Agent Orange, the deadly herbicide used in Vietnam. It would seem Gary's government had succeeded in killing him after all.
Even though his prison sentence has been served and he's returned to his old job, Steve Tucker wouldn't call himself a free man. Not when he has to call in every morning for the next four years so a recorded message can tell him whether he's been randomly selected to pee in a cup that day. Not since he had to give up his lifelong pastime of hunting because he can never again hold a gun. Not after he's seen politicians get elected on the promise to pass more draconian drug laws, and knowing he's forever lost his right to vote.
For the first time in nearly a decade, Steve brought his son and daughter, in their mid-teens, to spend Thanksgiving with his mother in Cochran, a half-hour south of Macon. He was required to seek written approval from his probation officer weeks in advance of the visit.
"When I got out, I had to learn my way around Atlanta again, but I went back to work like I'd never left; there was no adjustment problem," he says. "The hardest part is the probation, because you have to get permission to do just about everything."
In prison, Steve met guys who told him they had violated their probation on purpose because another 16 months in the big house was better than three more years of having people always looking over your shoulder, waiting for you to fuck up.
The thing about federal prison that made the biggest impression on Steve was how many inmates were much like himself: small-time, non-violent offenders serving big-time sentences for reasons that made little sense.
"Even if I was guilty, 10 years seems excessive when there were bank robbers who were in there for two or three years, and I got 10 years for selling light bulbs," he says, his voice rising as if framing a question.
"This drug war forced two little kids to grow up without their dad and my ex-wife to go without child-support for eight years, and for what?" he continues. "I'm not saying I'm above the law, but I know in my heart I'm not the type of person who needed to be in prison."
And yet, once there, the outrageousness of his circumstances blended into a background of statistics: He simply became another of the anonymous drug offenders who make up 57 percent of all federal inmates.
If anything, the War on Drugs has only built momentum through the political backing of such powerful interest groups as prison guard unions; the billion-dollar drug-testing industry; private prison construction and management companies; and, of course, the DEA, which commands a $1.8-billion budget and has, in the past 30 years, more than tripled the number of special agents on its payroll.
Over the last decade, drug convictions have accounted for more than 80 percent of the growth of the federal prison population, so it's hardly surprising that, as the drug war swirled outside, amassing new victims, Steve Tucker was essentially forgotten.
His sister-in-law, Joanne, now remarried and relocated, wants to forget as well. Declining to be interviewed, she explains: "Digging up something from 10 years ago isn't going to help anything now."
Trying to piece together a ruined life takes time, but there's a freedom that comes with starting over, and Steve is hoping to write his own second act.
He's looking for a literary agent to publish one of the novels he wrote in prison, a mystery set in a town modeled loosely on Cochran. As they say, you write what you know.
"People ask me if I'm going to write about everything I've been through, but I don't think so," he says wistfully. "Who wants to read about some guy who got busted for pot?"
We are everywhere--
We are everywhere--
For those who forget that the incarcerated humans in this country are indeed just that - HUMAN - I would like you to think on this the next time you talk about "inmates, criminals, convicts, etc...". These humans have families and those who love them despite whatever they did. Look around you and wonder, because this is who we are....
We take care of your children and grandchildren in nursery
schools, we give them shots in the doctor's office, we are dental assistants, we are school teachers and Sunday school teachers, we stand behind you in the grocery store, we prepare your medicine in the drug store, we work in banks, we approve your loans, we service your insurance claims, we work for newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, we read your electric meters and water meters, we are your
landlords, your neighbors, we take care of your elderly parents in nursing homes, we are nurses, lab technicians, X-ray technicians, we own beauty shops, flower shops, printing shops, we are welders, plumbers, tree trimmers, we work for the IRS, the State Dept., in the courthouse, schools, churches, drug stores and toy stores, we are legal secretaries, lawyers, school board members, we are bus
drivers, we prepare meals for your kids in school, we are city
council members, bank tellers, we process your checking account, your saving account, we work at your Social Security office, your insurance company, we take care of your IRA, stocks, bonds, we sell your kids bikes, school supplies, clothes, shoes, eyeglasses, we repair your cars, we are real estate agents, car dealers, college professors, psychologists, administrative assistants, safety engineers and ranchers. We work at Ralphs, Albertsons, Trader Joe's, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Macy's, Nordstrom and Saks 5th Avenue. We sell Avon and Tupperware. We are not all "on welfare",
no matter what the government would like you to think.
There are two million people in prison in America and twice that many on parole and probation. Add in mothers, fathers, children, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends and about sixteen million people are personally affected by the prison system
in the United States.
We are tired of letting ourselves feel humiliated or embarrassed because our loved one is in prison. WE did nothing wrong, and they are paying for their crime!
We are tired of fearing the loss of our jobs or evictions from our housing should anyone find out we have a loved one in prison.
We are tired of being made to feel inferior or unwelcome in churches, clubs, organizations or society in general simply because we refuse to abandon our loved ones.
We are ready to unite, to come out of hiding and openly support each other and our loved ones. It's a new day, America and we're here to prove it!
We are ready to speak out against the "they deserve what they get" attitude we hear you talk about in stores, theaters and restaurants.
We number in the millions, we are everywhere, every state, county, city and town. We may even live next door to you.
Sixteen million & counting. We are everywhere.
Think about it
For those who forget that the incarcerated humans in this country are indeed just that - HUMAN - I would like you to think on this the next time you talk about "inmates, criminals, convicts, etc...". These humans have families and those who love them despite whatever they did. Look around you and wonder, because this is who we are....
We take care of your children and grandchildren in nursery
schools, we give them shots in the doctor's office, we are dental assistants, we are school teachers and Sunday school teachers, we stand behind you in the grocery store, we prepare your medicine in the drug store, we work in banks, we approve your loans, we service your insurance claims, we work for newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, we read your electric meters and water meters, we are your
landlords, your neighbors, we take care of your elderly parents in nursing homes, we are nurses, lab technicians, X-ray technicians, we own beauty shops, flower shops, printing shops, we are welders, plumbers, tree trimmers, we work for the IRS, the State Dept., in the courthouse, schools, churches, drug stores and toy stores, we are legal secretaries, lawyers, school board members, we are bus
drivers, we prepare meals for your kids in school, we are city
council members, bank tellers, we process your checking account, your saving account, we work at your Social Security office, your insurance company, we take care of your IRA, stocks, bonds, we sell your kids bikes, school supplies, clothes, shoes, eyeglasses, we repair your cars, we are real estate agents, car dealers, college professors, psychologists, administrative assistants, safety engineers and ranchers. We work at Ralphs, Albertsons, Trader Joe's, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Macy's, Nordstrom and Saks 5th Avenue. We sell Avon and Tupperware. We are not all "on welfare",
no matter what the government would like you to think.
There are two million people in prison in America and twice that many on parole and probation. Add in mothers, fathers, children, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends and about sixteen million people are personally affected by the prison system
in the United States.
We are tired of letting ourselves feel humiliated or embarrassed because our loved one is in prison. WE did nothing wrong, and they are paying for their crime!
We are tired of fearing the loss of our jobs or evictions from our housing should anyone find out we have a loved one in prison.
We are tired of being made to feel inferior or unwelcome in churches, clubs, organizations or society in general simply because we refuse to abandon our loved ones.
We are ready to unite, to come out of hiding and openly support each other and our loved ones. It's a new day, America and we're here to prove it!
We are ready to speak out against the "they deserve what they get" attitude we hear you talk about in stores, theaters and restaurants.
We number in the millions, we are everywhere, every state, county, city and town. We may even live next door to you.
Sixteen million & counting. We are everywhere.
Think about it
Still behind bars
Still behind bars
December 26, 2006
Gov. Schwarzenegger' s plan for prison reform includes most of the elements conventional wisdom would suggest to deal with California's prison overcrowding and recidivism crises. It could have been better if it had moved beyond conventional wisdom to consider the fundamental purposes of a system of criminal justice.
California now houses about 174,000 prisoners in facilities designed for about 100,000 inmates, so many inmates sleep in facilities designed as gymnasiums or cafeterias. This overcrowding means rehabilitative programs are crowded out. Combined with sentencing laws patched together over the years, the troubling outcomes are that some who should be in prison for longer periods are released early, while some perpetrators of minor or victimless crimes serve overly long sentences.
The governor proposes to build facilities housing 78,000 new beds – including 45,000 in local jails, where criminals with sentences three years and below can serve their time – and spend $1 billion to improve health care facilities. The proposal provides funds to implement Jessica's Law, passed in November, which would monitor sex offenders with GPS systems and restrictions on where they may live after serving their sentences.
The proposal includes a Sentencing Commission, a 17-member panel to rethink California's jumble of sentences for various crimes. Its first assignment would be to reform the parole system. California is one of only two states where every offender is required to serve parole, which means parole officers must monitor a large population rather than focusing on those who might pose a larger threat to public safety.
All this is to be financed by almost $11 billion in bonds – a big price tag – plus a token amount from the General Fund and $1.1 billion in local matching funds.
Sentencing reform is a good start, but the governor made a mistake in declaring California's Three Strikes law off the table. Along with considering reform of drug laws, which make addicts who might benefit from medical attention the responsibility of the police and which have other deleterious side effects, reconsideration of what crimes merit lengthy incarceration would be part of a genuinely comprehensive reform program.
A hard road
After years of dormancy, moves toward a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine are appearing on several fronts. The Iraq Study Group report contends that an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is essential to a reasonable outcome in Iraq, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled to the region and vowed to step up support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Abbas last month agreed to a cease-fire in the Gaza strip.
And Mr. Olmert has offered significant concessions, including the release of numerous Palestinian prisoners, in exchange for the release of an Israeli soldier whose abduction this summer touched off the latest military conflict, between Israel and Lebanon. And Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas have announced that they plan to meet before the end of the year, their first meeting since Mr. Olmert became prime minister in January.
Secretary of State Rice has said it is less important than one might think for Palestine to have a unity government, noting the United States is planning to give the Abbas government tens of millions of dollars.
Israel is also on the verge of releasing to President Abbas some $600 million in Palestinian taxes it has withheld since the Hamas victory.
All this looks relatively hopeful. The United States, however, should resist the temptation to jump into negotiations or actively to offer carrots or sticks to various parties.
http://www.vvdailyp ress.com/ news/20061226/ still-behind- bars
December 26, 2006
Gov. Schwarzenegger' s plan for prison reform includes most of the elements conventional wisdom would suggest to deal with California's prison overcrowding and recidivism crises. It could have been better if it had moved beyond conventional wisdom to consider the fundamental purposes of a system of criminal justice.
California now houses about 174,000 prisoners in facilities designed for about 100,000 inmates, so many inmates sleep in facilities designed as gymnasiums or cafeterias. This overcrowding means rehabilitative programs are crowded out. Combined with sentencing laws patched together over the years, the troubling outcomes are that some who should be in prison for longer periods are released early, while some perpetrators of minor or victimless crimes serve overly long sentences.
The governor proposes to build facilities housing 78,000 new beds – including 45,000 in local jails, where criminals with sentences three years and below can serve their time – and spend $1 billion to improve health care facilities. The proposal provides funds to implement Jessica's Law, passed in November, which would monitor sex offenders with GPS systems and restrictions on where they may live after serving their sentences.
The proposal includes a Sentencing Commission, a 17-member panel to rethink California's jumble of sentences for various crimes. Its first assignment would be to reform the parole system. California is one of only two states where every offender is required to serve parole, which means parole officers must monitor a large population rather than focusing on those who might pose a larger threat to public safety.
All this is to be financed by almost $11 billion in bonds – a big price tag – plus a token amount from the General Fund and $1.1 billion in local matching funds.
Sentencing reform is a good start, but the governor made a mistake in declaring California's Three Strikes law off the table. Along with considering reform of drug laws, which make addicts who might benefit from medical attention the responsibility of the police and which have other deleterious side effects, reconsideration of what crimes merit lengthy incarceration would be part of a genuinely comprehensive reform program.
A hard road
After years of dormancy, moves toward a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine are appearing on several fronts. The Iraq Study Group report contends that an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is essential to a reasonable outcome in Iraq, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled to the region and vowed to step up support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Abbas last month agreed to a cease-fire in the Gaza strip.
And Mr. Olmert has offered significant concessions, including the release of numerous Palestinian prisoners, in exchange for the release of an Israeli soldier whose abduction this summer touched off the latest military conflict, between Israel and Lebanon. And Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas have announced that they plan to meet before the end of the year, their first meeting since Mr. Olmert became prime minister in January.
Secretary of State Rice has said it is less important than one might think for Palestine to have a unity government, noting the United States is planning to give the Abbas government tens of millions of dollars.
Israel is also on the verge of releasing to President Abbas some $600 million in Palestinian taxes it has withheld since the Hamas victory.
All this looks relatively hopeful. The United States, however, should resist the temptation to jump into negotiations or actively to offer carrots or sticks to various parties.
http://www.vvdailyp ress.com/ news/20061226/ still-behind- bars
Thursday, November 30, 2006
7M in U.S. jails, on probation or parole
7M in U.S. jails, on probation or parole
KASIE HUNT
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.
More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.
Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.
"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration' s impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."
From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.
The numbers are from the annual report from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. The report breaks down inmate populations for state and federal prisons and local jails.
Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men - about one in 13 - are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. And it's not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as likely as white women to be in prison.
Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 percent, followed by Maryland with a 2.4 percent decrease and Louisiana with a 2.3 percent drop.
KASIE HUNT
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.
More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.
Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.
"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration' s impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."
From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.
The numbers are from the annual report from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. The report breaks down inmate populations for state and federal prisons and local jails.
Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men - about one in 13 - are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. And it's not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as likely as white women to be in prison.
Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 percent, followed by Maryland with a 2.4 percent decrease and Louisiana with a 2.3 percent drop.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation concerns
Honorable Judge Thelton Henderson
United States District Court
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation concerns
Dear Judge Henderson,
I am writing this letter out of concern for the appalling conditions of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the recent placement of its medical care under Federal Receivership. Since the receivership was ordered little has changed for the inmates. There is still a lack of proper medical diagnosis and treatment.
It is quite clear that the entire system is on the brink of failure. Our loved ones will continue to suffer and die inside CDCR’s walls and fences.
As noted previously in letters to you, the entire CDCR system is plagued with racial tension and is on the verge of collapse. The CCPOA union is responsible for this and continually makes and enforces decisions to create chaos, turmoil, and violence to assure their staff receives optimum benefits and nearly impossible overtime pay.
The action of placing violent offenders in population is simply a tool by the CCPOA to create and maintain their hold on the CDCR system through violence which in turn guarantees union employee benefits and excessive overtime pay to the tune of more than $100,000.00 per year for several CDCR employees. We are all aware of how powerful the CCPOA union is and how they wield their political clout. This matter is beyond state control and the CDCR is already in such a quagmire it won’t escape without untold numbers of assaults and deaths of both inmates and staff.
Now we have the transferring of inmates to other states that are just as overcrowded as California. How will this ease anything? The cost is high on both sides. For those that are being transferred, what about visits with family? Not to mention the cost of collect calls, and packages. We are simply "warehousing" & "storing" - there is no rehabilitation. Would not the money that is being allocated for these transfers be better utilized for programs, or expanding the facilities we have?
The CDCR system has collapsed and is not about corrections or rehabilitation. The only viable option is to take the steps to place the entire system under receivership and bring in federal authority to recoup the system before a total breakdown occurs and countless inmates are allowed to die from medical neglect or murder in a hostile environment meant to rehabilitate and return them to society
.
There are hundreds of thousands of family members, friends, and concerned citizens who urge prison reform on the failed CDCR system. Please consider all of our pleas to correct this system by placing the CDCR under complete federal receivership before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Carol Leonard
http://www.groups. yahoo.com/ group/PrisonMovement
Prison Reform is NOT soft on crime
United States District Court
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation concerns
Dear Judge Henderson,
I am writing this letter out of concern for the appalling conditions of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the recent placement of its medical care under Federal Receivership. Since the receivership was ordered little has changed for the inmates. There is still a lack of proper medical diagnosis and treatment.
It is quite clear that the entire system is on the brink of failure. Our loved ones will continue to suffer and die inside CDCR’s walls and fences.
As noted previously in letters to you, the entire CDCR system is plagued with racial tension and is on the verge of collapse. The CCPOA union is responsible for this and continually makes and enforces decisions to create chaos, turmoil, and violence to assure their staff receives optimum benefits and nearly impossible overtime pay.
The action of placing violent offenders in population is simply a tool by the CCPOA to create and maintain their hold on the CDCR system through violence which in turn guarantees union employee benefits and excessive overtime pay to the tune of more than $100,000.00 per year for several CDCR employees. We are all aware of how powerful the CCPOA union is and how they wield their political clout. This matter is beyond state control and the CDCR is already in such a quagmire it won’t escape without untold numbers of assaults and deaths of both inmates and staff.
Now we have the transferring of inmates to other states that are just as overcrowded as California. How will this ease anything? The cost is high on both sides. For those that are being transferred, what about visits with family? Not to mention the cost of collect calls, and packages. We are simply "warehousing" & "storing" - there is no rehabilitation. Would not the money that is being allocated for these transfers be better utilized for programs, or expanding the facilities we have?
The CDCR system has collapsed and is not about corrections or rehabilitation. The only viable option is to take the steps to place the entire system under receivership and bring in federal authority to recoup the system before a total breakdown occurs and countless inmates are allowed to die from medical neglect or murder in a hostile environment meant to rehabilitate and return them to society
.
There are hundreds of thousands of family members, friends, and concerned citizens who urge prison reform on the failed CDCR system. Please consider all of our pleas to correct this system by placing the CDCR under complete federal receivership before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Carol Leonard
http://www.groups. yahoo.com/ group/PrisonMovement
Prison Reform is NOT soft on crime
PROCLAMATION - STATE OF EMERGENCY IN CDCR
PROCLAMATION
10/04/2006
cc
PROCLAMATION
by the
Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is required by California law to house inmates committed to state prison; and
WHEREAS, various trends and factors, including population increases, parole policies, sentencing laws, and recidivism rates have created circumstances in which the CDCR is now required to house a record number of inmates in the CDCR prison system, making the CDCR prison system the largest state correctional system in the United States, with a total inmate population currently at an all-time high of more than 170,000 inmates; and
WHEREAS, due to the record number of inmates currently housed in prison in California, all 33 CDCR prisons are now at or above maximum operational capacity, and 29 of the prisons are so overcrowded that the CDCR is required to house more than 15,000 inmates in conditions that pose substantial safety risks, namely, prison areas never designed or intended for inmate housing, including, but not limited to, common areas such as prison gymnasiums, dayrooms, and program rooms, with approximately 1,500 inmates sleeping in triple-bunks; and
WHEREAS, the current severe overcrowding in 29 CDCR prisons has caused substantial risk to the health and safety of the men and women who work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in them, because:
With so many inmates housed in large common areas, there is an increased, substantial risk of violence, and greater difficulty controlling large inmate populations.
With large numbers of inmates housed together in triple-bunks, there is an increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illnesses.
The triple-bunks and tight quarters create line-of-sight problems for correctional officers by blocking views, creating an increased, substantial security risk.
WHEREAS, the current severe overcrowding in these 29 prisons has also overwhelmed the electrical systems and/or wastewater/sewer systems, because those systems are now often required to operate at or above the maximum intended capacity, resulting in an increased, substantial risk to the health and safety of CDCR staff, inmates, and the public, because:
Overloading the prison electrical systems has resulted in power failures and blackouts within the prisons, creating increased security threats. It has also damaged fuses and transformers.
Overloading the prison sewage and wastewater systems has resulted in the discharge of waste beyond treatment capacity, resulting in thousands of gallons of sewage spills and environmental contamination.
And when the prisons “overdischarge” waste, bacteria can contaminate the drinking water supply, putting the public’s health at an increased, substantial risk.
WHEREAS, overloading the prison sewage and water systems has resulted in increased, substantial risk of damage to state and privately owned property and has resulted in multiple fines, penalties and/or notices of violations to the CDCR related to wastewater/sewer system overloading such as groundwater contamination and environmental pollution; and
WHEREAS, overcrowding causes harm to people and property, leads to inmate unrest and misconduct, reduces or eliminates programs, and increases recidivism as shown within this state and in others; and
WHEREAS, in addition to all of the above, in the 29 prisons with severe overcrowding, the following circumstances exist:
Avenal State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 5,768 inmates, but it currently houses 7,422 inmates, with 1,654 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 64 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 31 of them against CDCR staff — along with 15 riots/melees, and 27 weapon confiscations.
The California Correctional Center has an operational housing capacity of 5,724 inmates, but it currently houses 6,174 inmates, with 450 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 128 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 16 of them against CDCR staff — along with 34 riots/melees, and 21 weapon confiscations.
The California Correctional Institution has an operational housing capacity of 4,931, but it currently houses 5,702 inmates, with 771 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 125 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 79 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 57 weapon confiscations.
Centinela State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,368, but it currently houses 4,956 inmates, with 588 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 141 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 30 of them against CDCR staff — along with 10 riots/melees, and 151 weapon confiscations.
The California Institution for Men has an operational housing capacity of 5,372, but it currently houses 6,615 inmates, with 1,243 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 170 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 57 of them against CDCR staff — along with 21 riots/melees, and 47 weapon confiscations.
The California Institution for Women has an operational housing capacity of 2,228, but it currently houses 2,624 inmates, with 396 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 65 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 26 of them against CDCR staff — and 6 weapon confiscations.
The California Men’s Colony has an operational housing capacity of 6,294, but it currently houses 6,574 inmates, with 280 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 151 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 33 of them against CDCR staff — along with 11 riots/melees, and 29 weapon confiscations.
The California State Prison at Corcoran has an operational housing capacity of 4,954, but it currently houses 5,317 inmates, with 363 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 147 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 58 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 111 weapon confiscations.
The California Rehabilitation Center has an operational housing capacity of 4,660, but it currently houses 4,856 inmates, with 196 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 65 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 28 of them against CDCR staff — 9 riots/melees, and 34 weapon confiscations.
The Correctional Training Facility has an operational housing capacity of 6,157, but it currently houses 7,027 inmates, with 870 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 85 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 26 of them against CDCR staff — along with 9 riots/melees, and 27 weapon confiscations.
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 3,443, but it currently houses 4,292 inmates, with 849 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 50 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 11 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 21 weapon confiscations.
Deuel Vocational Institution has an operational housing capacity of 3,115, but it currently houses 3,911 inmates, with 796 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 114 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 54 of them against CDCR staff — along with 7 riots/melees, and 37 weapon confiscations.
High Desert State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,346, but it currently houses 4,706 inmates, with 360 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 351 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 44 of them against CDCR staff — along with 6 riots/melees, and 289 weapon confiscations.
Ironwood State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,185, but it currently houses 4,665 inmates, with 480 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 96 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 19 of them against CDCR staff — along with 14 riots/melees, and 52 weapon confiscations.
Kern Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,566, but it currently houses 4,686 inmates, with 120 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 146 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 60 of them against CDCR staff — along with 10 riots/melees, and 46 weapon confiscations.
TheCalifornia State Prison at Los Angeles has an operational housing capacity of 4,230, but it currently houses 4,698 inmates, with 468 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 211 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 123 of them against CDCR staff — along with 4 riots/melees, and 101 weapon confiscations.
Mule Creek State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 3,197, but it currently houses 3,929 inmates, with 732 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 65 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 35 of them against CDCR staff — along with 1 riot/melee, and 28 weapon confiscations.
North Kern State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 5,189, but it currently houses 5,365 inmates, with 176 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 135 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 43 of them against CDCR staff — along with 16 riots/melees, and 70 weapon confiscations.
Pelican Bay State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 3,444, but it currently houses 3,604 inmates, with 160 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 256 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 88 of them against CDCR staff — along with 9 riots/melees, and 106 weapon confiscations.
Pleasant Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,368, but it currently houses 5,112 inmates, with 744 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 205 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 59 of them against CDCR staff — along with 12 riots/melees, and 26 weapon confiscations.
The Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility has an operational housing capacity of 4,120, but it currently houses 4,720 inmates, with 600 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 244 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 118 of them against CDCR staff — along with 11 riots/melees, and 96 weapon confiscations.
The California State Prison at Sacramento has an operational housing capacity of 2,973, but it currently houses 3,213 inmates, with 240 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 264 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 159 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 118 weapon confiscations.
The California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran has an operational housing capacity of 6,360, but it currently houses 7,593 inmates, with 1,233 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 120 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 53 of them against CDCR staff — along with 20 riots/melees, and 124 weapon confiscations.
The Sierra Conservation Center has an operational housing capacity of 5,657, but it currently houses 6,107 inmates, with 450 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 61 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 18 of them against CDCR staff — along with 19 riots/melees, and 50 weapon confiscations.
The California State Prison at Solano has an operational housing capacity of 5,070, but it currently houses 5,858 inmates, with 788 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 60 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 26 of them against CDCR staff — along with 4 riots/melees, and 114 weapon confiscations.
San Quentin State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,933, but it currently houses 5,183 inmates, with 287 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 262 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 123 of them against CDCR staff — along with 15 riots/melees, and 118 weapon confiscations.
Salinas Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,200, but it currently houses 4,680 inmates, with 480 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 181 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 82 of them against CDCR staff — along with 7 riots/melees, and 91 weapon confiscations.
Valley State Prison for Women has an operational housing capacity of 3,902, but it currently houses 3,958 inmates, with 56 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 125 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 75 of them against CDCR staff — and 15 weapon confiscations.
Wasco State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 5,838, but it currently houses 6,098 inmates, with 260 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 226 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 97 of them against CDCR staff — along with 32 riots/melees, and 82 weapon confiscations.
WHEREAS, some of these 29 severely overcrowded prisons may even be housing more inmates, because the inmate population continually fluctuates among the CDCR prisons; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the 1,671 incidents of violence perpetrated in these 29 severely overcrowded prisons by inmates against CDCR staff last year, and the 2,642 incidents of violence perpetrated in these prisons on inmates by other inmates in the last year, the suicide rate in these 29 prisons is approaching an average of one per week; and
WHEREAS, the federal court in the Coleman case found mental-health care in CDCR prisons to be below federal constitutional standards due in part to the lack of appropriate beds and space; and
WHEREAS, the use of common areas for inmate housing has severely modified or eliminated certain inmate programs in the 29 prisons with severe overcrowding; and
WHEREAS, the severe overcrowding has also substantially limited or restricted inmate movement, causing significantly reduced inmate attendance in academic, vocational, and rehabilitation programs; and
WHEREAS, overcrowded prisons in other states have experienced some of the deadliest prison riots in American history, including:
In 1971, the nation’s deadliest prison riot occurred in Attica, New York, resulting in the death of 43 people. On the day of this riot, the prison — which was built for 1600 — housed approximately 2,300 inmates.
In 1981, a riot occurred in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. More than 30 inmates were killed, more than 100 people were injured, and 12 officers were taken hostage, some of whom were beaten, sexually assaulted, and/or raped. On the day of this riot, the prison — which was built for 900 — housed approximately 1,136 inmates.
In 1993, a riot occurred in Lucasville, Ohio. One officer was murdered, four officers were seriously injured, and nine inmates were killed. On the day of this riot, the prison — which was built for 1600 — housed approximately 2,300 inmates.
WHEREAS, I believe immediate action is necessary to prevent death and harm caused by California’s severe prison overcrowding; and
WHEREAS, because of the housing shortage in CDCR prisons, the CDCR has current contracts with four California counties to house 2,352 additional state inmates in local adult jails, but this creates the following overcrowding problem in the county jails:
According to a report by the California State Sheriffs’ Association in June 2006, adult jails recently averaged a daily population of approximately 80,000 inmates. On a typical day, the county jails lacked space for more than 4,900 inmates across the state.
Based on the same report, 20 of California’s 58 counties have court-imposed population caps resulting from litigation brought by or on behalf of inmates in crowded jails and another 12 counties have self-imposed caps.
Most of California’s jail population consists of felony inmates, but when county jails are full, someone in custody must be released before a new inmate can be admitted.
The 2006 Sheriffs’ Association report states that last year, 233,388 individuals statewide avoided incarceration or were released early into local communities because of the lack of jail space.
WHEREAS, overcrowding conditions are projected to get even worse in the coming year, to the point that the CDCR expects to run out of all common area space to house prisoners in mid-2007, and will be unable to receive any new inmates; and
WHEREAS, in January 2006, I proposed $6 billion in the Strategic Growth Plan to help manage inmate population at all levels of government by increasing the number of available local jail beds and providing for two new prisons and space for 83,000 prisoners to address California’s current and future incarceration needs; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature failed to act upon this proposal; and
WHEREAS, in March 2006, a proposal was submitted as part of my 2006-07 budget to enable the CDCR to contract for a total of 8,500 beds in community correctional facilities within the state; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature denied this proposal; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, I issued a proclamation calling the Legislature into special session because I believed urgent action was needed to address this severe problem in California’s prisons, and I wanted to give the Legislature a further opportunity to address this crisis; and
WHEREAS, the CDCR submitted detailed proposals to the Legislature to address the immediate and longer-term needs of the prison system in an effort resolve the overcrowding crisis; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature failed to adopt the proposals submitted by the CDCR, and also failed to adopt any proposals of its own; and
WHEREAS, in response, my office directed the CDCR to conduct a survey of certain inmates in California’s general population to determine how many might voluntarily transfer to out-of-state correctional facilities; and
WHEREAS, the CDCR reports that more than 19,000 inmates expressed interest in voluntarily transferring to a correctional facility outside of California; and
WHEREAS, the overcrowding crisis gets worse with each passing day, creating an emergency in the California prison system.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, in light of the aforementioned, find that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist in the 29 CDCR prisons identified above, due to severe overcrowding, and that the magnitude of the circumstances exceeds the capabilities of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any geographical area in this state. Additionally, the counties within the state are harmed by this situation, as the inability to appropriately house inmates directly impacts local jail capacity and the early release of felons. This crisis spans the eastern, western, northern, and southern parts of the state and compromises the public’s safety, and I find that local authority is inadequate to cope with the emergency. Accordingly, under the authority of the California Emergency Services Act, set forth at Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 7 of the California Government Code, commencing with section 8550, I hereby proclaim that a State of Emergency exists within the State of California’s prison system.
Pursuant to this proclamation:
I. The CDCR shall, consistent with state law and as deemed appropriate by the CDCR Secretary for the sole purpose of immediately mitigating the severe overcrowding in these 29 prisons and the resulting impacts within California, immediately contract for out-of-state correctional facilities to effectuate voluntary transfers of California prison inmates to facilities outside of this state for incarceration consisting of constitutionally adequate housing, care, and programming.
II. The CDCR Secretary shall, after exhausting all possibilities for voluntary transfers of inmates, and in compliance with the Interstate Corrections Compact and the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, and as he deems necessary and appropriate to mitigate this emergency, effectuate involuntary transfers of California prison inmates, based on criteria set forth below, to institutions in other states and those of the federal government for incarceration consisting of constitutionally adequate housing, care, and programming. In such instance, because strict compliance with California Penal Code sections 11191 and 2911 would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the severe overcrowding in these prisons, applicable provisions of these statutes are suspended to the extent necessary to enable the CDCR to transfer adult inmates, sentenced under California law, to institutions in other states and those of the federal government without consent. This suspension is limited to the scope and duration of this emergency.
A. The CDCR Secretary shall prioritize for involuntary transfer the inmates who meet the following criteria:
1. Inmates who: (a) have been previously deported by the federal government and are criminal aliens subject to immediate deportation; or (b) have committed an aggravated felony as defined by federal statute and are subject to deportation.
2. Inmates who are paroling outside of California.
3. Inmates who have limited or no family or supportive ties in California based on visitation records and/or other information deemed relevant and appropriate by the CDCR Secretary.
4. Inmates who have family or supportive ties in a transfer state.
5. Other inmates as deemed appropriate by the CDCR Secretary.
B. No person under commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice may be considered for such transfer.
III. The CDCR Secretary shall, before selecting any inmate for transfer who has individual medical and/or mental-health needs, consult with the court-appointed Receiver of the CDCR medical system and/or the court-assigned Special Master in the Coleman mental-health case, depending on the healthcare needs of the inmate, to determine whether a transfer would be appropriate.
IV. The CDCR Secretary shall, before effectuating any inmate transfer, carefully and thoroughly evaluate all appropriate factors, including, but not limited to, the cost-effectiveness of any such transfer and whether an inmate selected for transfer has any pending appeals or hearings that may be impacted by such transfer.
V. The CDCR shall, as deemed appropriate by the CDCR Secretary, contract for facility space, inmate transportation, inmate screening, the services of qualified personnel, and/or for the supplies, materials, equipment, and other services needed to immediately mitigate the severe overcrowding and the resulting impacts within California. Because strict compliance with the provisions of the Government Code and the Public Contract Code applicable to state contracts would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the severe overcrowding in these prisons, applicable provisions of these statutes, including, but not limited to, advertising and competitive bidding requirements, are suspended to the extent necessary to enable the CDCR to enter into such contracts as expeditiously as possible. This suspension is limited to the scope and duration of this emergency.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this proclamation be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this proclamation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 4th day of October 2006.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Governor of California
ATTEST:
BRUCE McPHERSON
Secretary of State
10/04/2006
cc
PROCLAMATION
by the
Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is required by California law to house inmates committed to state prison; and
WHEREAS, various trends and factors, including population increases, parole policies, sentencing laws, and recidivism rates have created circumstances in which the CDCR is now required to house a record number of inmates in the CDCR prison system, making the CDCR prison system the largest state correctional system in the United States, with a total inmate population currently at an all-time high of more than 170,000 inmates; and
WHEREAS, due to the record number of inmates currently housed in prison in California, all 33 CDCR prisons are now at or above maximum operational capacity, and 29 of the prisons are so overcrowded that the CDCR is required to house more than 15,000 inmates in conditions that pose substantial safety risks, namely, prison areas never designed or intended for inmate housing, including, but not limited to, common areas such as prison gymnasiums, dayrooms, and program rooms, with approximately 1,500 inmates sleeping in triple-bunks; and
WHEREAS, the current severe overcrowding in 29 CDCR prisons has caused substantial risk to the health and safety of the men and women who work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in them, because:
With so many inmates housed in large common areas, there is an increased, substantial risk of violence, and greater difficulty controlling large inmate populations.
With large numbers of inmates housed together in triple-bunks, there is an increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illnesses.
The triple-bunks and tight quarters create line-of-sight problems for correctional officers by blocking views, creating an increased, substantial security risk.
WHEREAS, the current severe overcrowding in these 29 prisons has also overwhelmed the electrical systems and/or wastewater/sewer systems, because those systems are now often required to operate at or above the maximum intended capacity, resulting in an increased, substantial risk to the health and safety of CDCR staff, inmates, and the public, because:
Overloading the prison electrical systems has resulted in power failures and blackouts within the prisons, creating increased security threats. It has also damaged fuses and transformers.
Overloading the prison sewage and wastewater systems has resulted in the discharge of waste beyond treatment capacity, resulting in thousands of gallons of sewage spills and environmental contamination.
And when the prisons “overdischarge” waste, bacteria can contaminate the drinking water supply, putting the public’s health at an increased, substantial risk.
WHEREAS, overloading the prison sewage and water systems has resulted in increased, substantial risk of damage to state and privately owned property and has resulted in multiple fines, penalties and/or notices of violations to the CDCR related to wastewater/sewer system overloading such as groundwater contamination and environmental pollution; and
WHEREAS, overcrowding causes harm to people and property, leads to inmate unrest and misconduct, reduces or eliminates programs, and increases recidivism as shown within this state and in others; and
WHEREAS, in addition to all of the above, in the 29 prisons with severe overcrowding, the following circumstances exist:
Avenal State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 5,768 inmates, but it currently houses 7,422 inmates, with 1,654 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 64 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 31 of them against CDCR staff — along with 15 riots/melees, and 27 weapon confiscations.
The California Correctional Center has an operational housing capacity of 5,724 inmates, but it currently houses 6,174 inmates, with 450 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 128 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 16 of them against CDCR staff — along with 34 riots/melees, and 21 weapon confiscations.
The California Correctional Institution has an operational housing capacity of 4,931, but it currently houses 5,702 inmates, with 771 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 125 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 79 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 57 weapon confiscations.
Centinela State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,368, but it currently houses 4,956 inmates, with 588 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 141 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 30 of them against CDCR staff — along with 10 riots/melees, and 151 weapon confiscations.
The California Institution for Men has an operational housing capacity of 5,372, but it currently houses 6,615 inmates, with 1,243 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 170 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 57 of them against CDCR staff — along with 21 riots/melees, and 47 weapon confiscations.
The California Institution for Women has an operational housing capacity of 2,228, but it currently houses 2,624 inmates, with 396 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 65 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 26 of them against CDCR staff — and 6 weapon confiscations.
The California Men’s Colony has an operational housing capacity of 6,294, but it currently houses 6,574 inmates, with 280 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 151 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 33 of them against CDCR staff — along with 11 riots/melees, and 29 weapon confiscations.
The California State Prison at Corcoran has an operational housing capacity of 4,954, but it currently houses 5,317 inmates, with 363 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 147 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 58 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 111 weapon confiscations.
The California Rehabilitation Center has an operational housing capacity of 4,660, but it currently houses 4,856 inmates, with 196 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 65 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 28 of them against CDCR staff — 9 riots/melees, and 34 weapon confiscations.
The Correctional Training Facility has an operational housing capacity of 6,157, but it currently houses 7,027 inmates, with 870 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 85 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 26 of them against CDCR staff — along with 9 riots/melees, and 27 weapon confiscations.
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 3,443, but it currently houses 4,292 inmates, with 849 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 50 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 11 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 21 weapon confiscations.
Deuel Vocational Institution has an operational housing capacity of 3,115, but it currently houses 3,911 inmates, with 796 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 114 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 54 of them against CDCR staff — along with 7 riots/melees, and 37 weapon confiscations.
High Desert State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,346, but it currently houses 4,706 inmates, with 360 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 351 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 44 of them against CDCR staff — along with 6 riots/melees, and 289 weapon confiscations.
Ironwood State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,185, but it currently houses 4,665 inmates, with 480 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 96 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 19 of them against CDCR staff — along with 14 riots/melees, and 52 weapon confiscations.
Kern Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,566, but it currently houses 4,686 inmates, with 120 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 146 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 60 of them against CDCR staff — along with 10 riots/melees, and 46 weapon confiscations.
TheCalifornia State Prison at Los Angeles has an operational housing capacity of 4,230, but it currently houses 4,698 inmates, with 468 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 211 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 123 of them against CDCR staff — along with 4 riots/melees, and 101 weapon confiscations.
Mule Creek State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 3,197, but it currently houses 3,929 inmates, with 732 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 65 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 35 of them against CDCR staff — along with 1 riot/melee, and 28 weapon confiscations.
North Kern State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 5,189, but it currently houses 5,365 inmates, with 176 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 135 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 43 of them against CDCR staff — along with 16 riots/melees, and 70 weapon confiscations.
Pelican Bay State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 3,444, but it currently houses 3,604 inmates, with 160 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 256 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 88 of them against CDCR staff — along with 9 riots/melees, and 106 weapon confiscations.
Pleasant Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,368, but it currently houses 5,112 inmates, with 744 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 205 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 59 of them against CDCR staff — along with 12 riots/melees, and 26 weapon confiscations.
The Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility has an operational housing capacity of 4,120, but it currently houses 4,720 inmates, with 600 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 244 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 118 of them against CDCR staff — along with 11 riots/melees, and 96 weapon confiscations.
The California State Prison at Sacramento has an operational housing capacity of 2,973, but it currently houses 3,213 inmates, with 240 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 264 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 159 of them against CDCR staff — along with 5 riots/melees, and 118 weapon confiscations.
The California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran has an operational housing capacity of 6,360, but it currently houses 7,593 inmates, with 1,233 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 120 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 53 of them against CDCR staff — along with 20 riots/melees, and 124 weapon confiscations.
The Sierra Conservation Center has an operational housing capacity of 5,657, but it currently houses 6,107 inmates, with 450 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 61 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 18 of them against CDCR staff — along with 19 riots/melees, and 50 weapon confiscations.
The California State Prison at Solano has an operational housing capacity of 5,070, but it currently houses 5,858 inmates, with 788 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 60 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 26 of them against CDCR staff — along with 4 riots/melees, and 114 weapon confiscations.
San Quentin State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,933, but it currently houses 5,183 inmates, with 287 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 262 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 123 of them against CDCR staff — along with 15 riots/melees, and 118 weapon confiscations.
Salinas Valley State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 4,200, but it currently houses 4,680 inmates, with 480 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 181 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 82 of them against CDCR staff — along with 7 riots/melees, and 91 weapon confiscations.
Valley State Prison for Women has an operational housing capacity of 3,902, but it currently houses 3,958 inmates, with 56 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 125 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 75 of them against CDCR staff — and 15 weapon confiscations.
Wasco State Prison has an operational housing capacity of 5,838, but it currently houses 6,098 inmates, with 260 inmates housed in areas designed for other purposes. At the same time, in the last year, there were 226 incidents of assault/battery by inmates — 97 of them against CDCR staff — along with 32 riots/melees, and 82 weapon confiscations.
WHEREAS, some of these 29 severely overcrowded prisons may even be housing more inmates, because the inmate population continually fluctuates among the CDCR prisons; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the 1,671 incidents of violence perpetrated in these 29 severely overcrowded prisons by inmates against CDCR staff last year, and the 2,642 incidents of violence perpetrated in these prisons on inmates by other inmates in the last year, the suicide rate in these 29 prisons is approaching an average of one per week; and
WHEREAS, the federal court in the Coleman case found mental-health care in CDCR prisons to be below federal constitutional standards due in part to the lack of appropriate beds and space; and
WHEREAS, the use of common areas for inmate housing has severely modified or eliminated certain inmate programs in the 29 prisons with severe overcrowding; and
WHEREAS, the severe overcrowding has also substantially limited or restricted inmate movement, causing significantly reduced inmate attendance in academic, vocational, and rehabilitation programs; and
WHEREAS, overcrowded prisons in other states have experienced some of the deadliest prison riots in American history, including:
In 1971, the nation’s deadliest prison riot occurred in Attica, New York, resulting in the death of 43 people. On the day of this riot, the prison — which was built for 1600 — housed approximately 2,300 inmates.
In 1981, a riot occurred in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. More than 30 inmates were killed, more than 100 people were injured, and 12 officers were taken hostage, some of whom were beaten, sexually assaulted, and/or raped. On the day of this riot, the prison — which was built for 900 — housed approximately 1,136 inmates.
In 1993, a riot occurred in Lucasville, Ohio. One officer was murdered, four officers were seriously injured, and nine inmates were killed. On the day of this riot, the prison — which was built for 1600 — housed approximately 2,300 inmates.
WHEREAS, I believe immediate action is necessary to prevent death and harm caused by California’s severe prison overcrowding; and
WHEREAS, because of the housing shortage in CDCR prisons, the CDCR has current contracts with four California counties to house 2,352 additional state inmates in local adult jails, but this creates the following overcrowding problem in the county jails:
According to a report by the California State Sheriffs’ Association in June 2006, adult jails recently averaged a daily population of approximately 80,000 inmates. On a typical day, the county jails lacked space for more than 4,900 inmates across the state.
Based on the same report, 20 of California’s 58 counties have court-imposed population caps resulting from litigation brought by or on behalf of inmates in crowded jails and another 12 counties have self-imposed caps.
Most of California’s jail population consists of felony inmates, but when county jails are full, someone in custody must be released before a new inmate can be admitted.
The 2006 Sheriffs’ Association report states that last year, 233,388 individuals statewide avoided incarceration or were released early into local communities because of the lack of jail space.
WHEREAS, overcrowding conditions are projected to get even worse in the coming year, to the point that the CDCR expects to run out of all common area space to house prisoners in mid-2007, and will be unable to receive any new inmates; and
WHEREAS, in January 2006, I proposed $6 billion in the Strategic Growth Plan to help manage inmate population at all levels of government by increasing the number of available local jail beds and providing for two new prisons and space for 83,000 prisoners to address California’s current and future incarceration needs; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature failed to act upon this proposal; and
WHEREAS, in March 2006, a proposal was submitted as part of my 2006-07 budget to enable the CDCR to contract for a total of 8,500 beds in community correctional facilities within the state; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature denied this proposal; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, I issued a proclamation calling the Legislature into special session because I believed urgent action was needed to address this severe problem in California’s prisons, and I wanted to give the Legislature a further opportunity to address this crisis; and
WHEREAS, the CDCR submitted detailed proposals to the Legislature to address the immediate and longer-term needs of the prison system in an effort resolve the overcrowding crisis; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature failed to adopt the proposals submitted by the CDCR, and also failed to adopt any proposals of its own; and
WHEREAS, in response, my office directed the CDCR to conduct a survey of certain inmates in California’s general population to determine how many might voluntarily transfer to out-of-state correctional facilities; and
WHEREAS, the CDCR reports that more than 19,000 inmates expressed interest in voluntarily transferring to a correctional facility outside of California; and
WHEREAS, the overcrowding crisis gets worse with each passing day, creating an emergency in the California prison system.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, in light of the aforementioned, find that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist in the 29 CDCR prisons identified above, due to severe overcrowding, and that the magnitude of the circumstances exceeds the capabilities of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any geographical area in this state. Additionally, the counties within the state are harmed by this situation, as the inability to appropriately house inmates directly impacts local jail capacity and the early release of felons. This crisis spans the eastern, western, northern, and southern parts of the state and compromises the public’s safety, and I find that local authority is inadequate to cope with the emergency. Accordingly, under the authority of the California Emergency Services Act, set forth at Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 7 of the California Government Code, commencing with section 8550, I hereby proclaim that a State of Emergency exists within the State of California’s prison system.
Pursuant to this proclamation:
I. The CDCR shall, consistent with state law and as deemed appropriate by the CDCR Secretary for the sole purpose of immediately mitigating the severe overcrowding in these 29 prisons and the resulting impacts within California, immediately contract for out-of-state correctional facilities to effectuate voluntary transfers of California prison inmates to facilities outside of this state for incarceration consisting of constitutionally adequate housing, care, and programming.
II. The CDCR Secretary shall, after exhausting all possibilities for voluntary transfers of inmates, and in compliance with the Interstate Corrections Compact and the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, and as he deems necessary and appropriate to mitigate this emergency, effectuate involuntary transfers of California prison inmates, based on criteria set forth below, to institutions in other states and those of the federal government for incarceration consisting of constitutionally adequate housing, care, and programming. In such instance, because strict compliance with California Penal Code sections 11191 and 2911 would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the severe overcrowding in these prisons, applicable provisions of these statutes are suspended to the extent necessary to enable the CDCR to transfer adult inmates, sentenced under California law, to institutions in other states and those of the federal government without consent. This suspension is limited to the scope and duration of this emergency.
A. The CDCR Secretary shall prioritize for involuntary transfer the inmates who meet the following criteria:
1. Inmates who: (a) have been previously deported by the federal government and are criminal aliens subject to immediate deportation; or (b) have committed an aggravated felony as defined by federal statute and are subject to deportation.
2. Inmates who are paroling outside of California.
3. Inmates who have limited or no family or supportive ties in California based on visitation records and/or other information deemed relevant and appropriate by the CDCR Secretary.
4. Inmates who have family or supportive ties in a transfer state.
5. Other inmates as deemed appropriate by the CDCR Secretary.
B. No person under commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice may be considered for such transfer.
III. The CDCR Secretary shall, before selecting any inmate for transfer who has individual medical and/or mental-health needs, consult with the court-appointed Receiver of the CDCR medical system and/or the court-assigned Special Master in the Coleman mental-health case, depending on the healthcare needs of the inmate, to determine whether a transfer would be appropriate.
IV. The CDCR Secretary shall, before effectuating any inmate transfer, carefully and thoroughly evaluate all appropriate factors, including, but not limited to, the cost-effectiveness of any such transfer and whether an inmate selected for transfer has any pending appeals or hearings that may be impacted by such transfer.
V. The CDCR shall, as deemed appropriate by the CDCR Secretary, contract for facility space, inmate transportation, inmate screening, the services of qualified personnel, and/or for the supplies, materials, equipment, and other services needed to immediately mitigate the severe overcrowding and the resulting impacts within California. Because strict compliance with the provisions of the Government Code and the Public Contract Code applicable to state contracts would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the severe overcrowding in these prisons, applicable provisions of these statutes, including, but not limited to, advertising and competitive bidding requirements, are suspended to the extent necessary to enable the CDCR to enter into such contracts as expeditiously as possible. This suspension is limited to the scope and duration of this emergency.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this proclamation be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this proclamation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 4th day of October 2006.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Governor of California
ATTEST:
BRUCE McPHERSON
Secretary of State
PRISON BREAK- LIFER PAROLE'S
My name is Carl McQuillion. I was ordered released on parole by the Ninth Circuit after Governor Wilson's "no-parole" board rescinded my 1979 grant of parole 7 months after my 1994 release date expired. He reversed all of them. It took me nine years of pro se litigation before the Ninth Circuit found the rescission board had NO EVIDENCE at all to justify reversing a grant that had been given 15 years earlier and been repeatedly approved by at least 15 subsequent commissioners at Progress Hearings. I learned to be a paralegal inside, and now own and operate my own freelance service. I do exclusively lifer parole litigation for several law firms throughout California, and have been hired as a consultant by attorneys working on some of the most notorious cases. I am considered an expert in this field. I live in a nice neighborhood, work 7 days a week most of the time, have a nice little house, two cars, a new wife, and am very happy. I am considered a compassionate, honorable, and honest person, and am very respected by the lawyers who know me and the life prisoners inside. I have spoken on national radio twice, on KQED earlier this year, and often speak out on prison issues at the State capital. I keep in touch with many of the paroled lifers who are doing quite well out here, living honest lives.
I know that the parole board is ethically and morally bankrupt and populated with people paid a lot of money to deny most lifers. I know they manipulate the law to give the appearance of doing their jobs, but in reality they only let out a few to give that apparance. I know that Arnold tightened up on paroles after the Victims Rights groups, like the loudmouth Harriet Solarno, and the CCPOA held a rally in 2004 criticizing Anrold for letter 94 lifers out. He reduced that by 2/3rds, and recently, as elections drew near, he cut even that to a trickle. This is all politics, and such decisions should be made on the law, not politics, and certainly not politics warped by "mob rule" mentality.
I know that the CCPOA needs a serious RICO action taken against it for the corruption it manifests throughout the system, and for allowing and defending the incredible brutality and horrific conditions inmates suffer now.
I know that if I were the Director of Corrections with full authority I could straighten the entire system out within a years time. But the CCPOA likes the Department of Chaos the way it is. It, and its members, make lots of money the way it is.
What is needed is not deference to the CCPOA or the victims rights groups, nor to the board members themselves. The reality is that they are all breaking the laws to do what they do, and the media should understand that. And expose it. ... As long as the media and the officialdom operate with the view that the commissioners are doing an honest job, the corruption will continue unchecked. One only has to read some of the state and federal court cases to see what is going on.
Arnold is no bleeding heart. He is doing what his advisors say to do, and early on his main advisors were Pete Wilson and James Nielsen, who were responsible for the onslaught of the no-parole policy in the first place. No one can see Arnold directly who would be able to tell him the truth about all this. His advisors won't allow it.
Carl McQuillion
.
| Posted on Sun, Oct. 29, 2006 |  | |
| ||
| MERCURY NEWS SPECIAL REPORT PRISON BREAK Mercury News Locked up in a state prison cell in Tracy, Alan Mann was so excited he had to put down his newspaper when he got word that Gov. Gray Davis had been tossed from office in the historic 2003 recall election. As a convicted felon serving a life sentence for killing his best buddy in a San Jose field in 1980, Mann couldn't vote. But he had more than a passing interest in seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger replace Davis -- and it had nothing to do with traditional politics or the state's energy crisis. For Mann and the 29,000 state inmates serving life sentences for murder and other serious crimes, there was virtually no chance of parole under Davis. In fact, just months earlier, the parole board had voted to free Mann, but Davis reversed the decision. With Schwarzenegger' s election, there was renewed hope that the politics of parole could shift in California. ``Word was all over the place that Schwarzenegger had won,'' Mann says now. ``I was like `Wow. Maybe I can get a chance to get out.' '' A year later, Mann became one of the state's lucky ``lifers.'' In California's fickle parole system, prisoners serving life terms have had a much better chance of release under Schwarzenegger. A Mercury News review of the 126 cases in which Schwarzenegger paroled lifers shows that dozens of them involved the same inmates Davis rejected. To experts, it's a clear sign that a Republican governor with a ``Terminator' ' role on his résumé feels better insulated against political attack on the issue than a Democrat worried about looking soft on crime. The odds are still against convicted murderers and others serving life terms because Schwarzenegger reverses his parole board's decision to release lifers about 75 percent of the time. But he has let 126 of these inmates go free in his three years in office, while Davis paroled just nine lifers in about five years. Schwarzenegger also has nearly surpassed former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, who allowed 132 lifer inmates to be paroled in eight years. Luck of the draw • Same set of facts, but different outcomes Lifer inmates striving for a chance to start new lives outside prison are depending on the luck of the draw from one governor to another. Mann's case is typical. Like nearly half the lifers paroled by Schwarzenegger, the facts of his case were essentially the same as when Davis had reversed his parole. The decision to free an inmate is supposed to be based on an objective set of standards, but everyone involved in the system acknowledges that the outcome partly depends on a governor's subjective view of whether an inmate still poses a risk to the community. Andrea Hoch, Schwarzenegger' s legal-affairs secretary and lead adviser on parole matters, concedes, ``It's not science. We're dealing with human beings.'' And luck. Schwarzenegger has avoided the type of Willie Horton episode that haunted former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in his 1988 campaign. Unlike Horton, California lifers are for the most part behaving after they get out. One of them is an ordained Episcopalian priest at a church in Berkeley. Five lifers paroled by Schwarzenegger have violated parole, four of those for drug relapses, well below the recidivism rate of 60 percent for the state's overall prison population, prison figures show. Governors do not have any direct say over the thousands of parole decisions made each year in cases involving inmates eligible for parole who are not serving potential life terms. While parole has not been a major issue in the contest between Schwarzenegger and his Democratic rival, Phil Angelides, California is just one of three states that gives a governor the power to overturn a parole board's decision to release a prisoner serving a life term for crimes ranging from kidnapping to first-degree murder. And California has by far the largest such inmate population in the nation. ``This is really something that needs to be one of the most non-political things a governor does,'' said Eric George, Wilson's deputy legal-affairs secretary. ``You are dealing with a question of life and a question of liberty.'' Within months of taking office, Schwarzenegger paroled dozens of lifers, signaling that he would be different. Schwarzenegger was keenly aware of Davis' reluctance to grant parole and personally reviews each case during weekly meetings, said Peter Siggins, the governor's legal-affairs secretary until last year. ``He felt the possibility of parole meant a possibility, '' said Siggins, now a San Francisco appeals court justice. ``Not, `No way, no how, no possibility. ' '' An analysis of thousands of pages of parole hearing transcripts shows that the typical lifer inmate earning parole from Schwarzenegger was under 21 years old at the time of the crime, often a teenager, and in many instances was not the main culprit. They have usually spent at least 20 years in prison. Twenty-two of the parolees have been women, nearly every one of them arguing they committed crimes because they were battered by spouses or boyfriends. Parole experts say lifer inmates who are released generally fare better than repeat offenders who cycle through the prison system, in part because they tend to have grown into middle age behind bars and have used their time for self-improvement. Ollie Johnson • Battered woman kicks drugs, behaves herself Ollie Johnson is one such inmate. The East Palo Alto native was serving a 16-years-to- life term for stabbing her boyfriend to death in the chest with a butcher knife in 1986. She had gone through rehab for drug addiction, taken vocational courses and stayed out of trouble in prison. And she had lawyers on her side, contending that she was entitled to parole because of strong evidence her boyfriend had battered her before the crime. In 2002, the parole board recommended that she be released, over the objections of San Mateo County prosecutors, who argued that she was unfit. But Davis overturned the board. ``It was very sad for him to tell me I wasn't suitable for parole based on the past,'' Johnson says now. ``I worked hard to become the person I should have been a long time ago, before I got to prison.'' Last year, Schwarzenegger agreed. Johnson became one of about 20 female inmates who successfully argued that they had been battered at the time they killed and should be paroled. Johnson, 49, is now living in a drug-treatment home in East Palo Alto, looking for work, hoping to move out on her own and helping with a battered women's organization in San Francisco. She stays in regular touch with other female inmates who were paroled. She savors life outside prison, including frills that didn't exist two decades ago. While ordering a caramel frappuccino at Starbucks recently, she gushed to the cashier that it was only her ``second one in 21 years.'' ``I appreciate those who did open the door to me and I'm entitled to a second chance,'' Johnson said as she sipped her frappuccino. Growing caseload • Sometimes good policy takes political heat Paroling inmates serving life terms has become a more pressing issue over the past 10 to 15 years, as California has put more inmates behind bars for life than ever. Davis and Schwarzenegger have been forced to confront the issue more than their predecessors at a time when it is considered good politics to look as tough on crime as possible. And governors will continue to face unprecedented numbers of parole decisions for lifers as a generation of inmates sentenced under California's 1994 ``three strikes, you're out'' law reach parole eligibility in coming years. Davis reversed his own board's parole recommendations with such regularity that his stance was challenged to the California Supreme Court. In a crucial decision, the court in 2002 deferred to a governor's power to deny parole as long as there is some factual justification for the decision. Davis, now in a Los Angeles law firm, did not respond to interview requests for this story, but during his tenure defended his policy and the need to protect public safety. Prison and sentencing experts say Davis' approach was consistent with national trends, particularly for Democratic governors who do not want to look soft on crime. Schwarzenegger has his critics on law-and-order issues, but crime has not been a political vulnerable spot. Davis had to constantly stress his tough-on-crime credentials to offset fallout from his days as former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's chief of staff. ``The Democrats tend to be more cautious,'' said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., non-profit that last year studied the national increase in inmates serving life terms. ``I don't know what they are afraid of, but they are afraid.'' Angelides campaign spokesman Dan Newman criticized the governor's record, saying he has ``failed to protect the public.'' Victims' rights advocates also criticize his parole of convicted murderers. ``I know he looks like he's tough on crime, but we have a great concern about it,'' said Harriet Salarno, president of California's Crime Victims United. ``We're watching it -- we don't want one of them to explode.'' Broken pledge? • Critics want governor to parole even more Critics on the other side insist that while Schwarzenegger has been more receptive to parole than Davis, he's still too stingy. He's gone back, they say, on his early pledge to defer to the parole board in most instances. The governor has upheld about 25 percent of parole recommendations. The board has approved parole dates in more than 500 lifer cases during the Schwarzenegger administration, still a relatively small percentage of the thousands of cases it considers each year. The governor's critics also say he's playing politics by tightening his parole policy as this year's election has drawn near. Schwarzenegger permitted the parole of 72 lifers in 2004, but just 13 this year, according to parole board figures. Prisoner rights advocates say the system remains arbitrary, with many inmates rejected for parole who are little different from some who are released. They have filed court challenges. Last year, an appeals court ordered a San Mateo County man, George Scott, to be released, overruling Schwarzenegger' s decision to block parole because he failed to justify keeping Scott behind bars. Scott, in his 60s, had served 19 years for killing his wife's lover. ``I don't think there's an appreciable difference in this governor's approach -- it's still only a handful of people who get out, out of 5,000 hearings every year,'' said Keith Wattley, a lawyer for San Quentin's Prison Law Office. Hoch, Schwarzenegger' s current legal-affairs secretary, said the governor emphasizes public safety and decides each case on the facts. ``This is an area where it's totally about someone's life,'' Hoch said. ``Politics does not play a role at all.'' Alan Mann • Prototypical parolee of Schwarzenegger' s Alan Mann may not agree. But he's turned out to be the prototypical Schwarzenegger parolee. He was 20 when he got into a late-night argument with a friend over whether he ought to confront a drug dealer for owed money. Mann killed him with a sawed-off shotgun in a booze and LSD haze near San Jose's Guadalupe Creek. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sent to San Quentin to serve a 15 years to life sentence. In prison he sobered up, earned a high school degree, embraced church and set his sights on parole. Mann, now 47, expresses remorse for the killing, which he blames on the drugs and booze. ``It's something I'll never forget,'' he says. ``He was a friend of mine.'' Santa Clara County prosecutors opposed parole for Mann at hearings before the parole board. Deputy District Attorney Ron Rico, who supervises the county's lifer cases, expressed concern at a 2003 hearing about Mann's potential threat to public safety and past substance abuse problems. Rico declined to discuss Mann's parole, but had this to say generally: ``If a lifer inmate gets a date and is released, I certainly hope that the board is right,'' he said. These days Mann lives in Milpitas where he works as a yard supervisor for a company that refurbishes gas stations. Helped by an old friend from church, he had his job lined up when he left prison. He attends church, dotes on his new truck and hopes to travel to visit a brother in Idaho when he gets off probation in about three years. He makes a point of saying he doesn't drink or smoke. He understands that breaking the law now would make Gray Davis's decision to keep him in prison right and he's intent on not proving Schwarzenegger wrong. ``If I screw up and go back, they are going to say, `See?' '' Mann says. ``It's not only a bad mark on the parole board and the governor and me, it's real bad for the other lifers trying to get out. That keeps me on the straight and narrow.'' Contact Howard Mintz at hmintz@mercurynews. com or (408) 286-0236. | ||
http://www.mercuryn ews.com/mld/ mercurynews/ news/local/ crime_courts/ 15878573. htm?source= rss
Carol Leonard
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)