CAPITOL TOWNHALL MEETING ON CDCR
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Public Townhall Meeting
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS in CRISIS
FOCUSING on SOLUTIONS
&
Survivors Breaking Barriers
A Candlelight Vigil Memorial Rally
Join TiPS for our August 10th public town hall
meeting in our State Capitol building to be a part of the decision making process and help craft a plan of action for CDCR with a select panel of respected leaders. Be a part of this historic event and share your experiences, insight, and ideas on ways to reform the California prison system, including the possibility of having a federal receiver take control of all of CDCR.
Our expert panel has been specially chosen for their leadership in making public policy, as well as their vision to make our department of corrections work as intended to improve public safety. The forum is the first ever public opportunity to interact directly with these experts and have your input heard.
After the forum there will be a rally to honor our loved ones, as well as a moment of silence for those we have lost.
This is a day for all persons to come together and restore common sense to our correctional system. Participation prior to and or during the rally is encouraged.
The rally is to commemorate those PERSONS WHO HAVE:
v Lost their lives while incarcerated
v Lost loved ones due to crime
v Loved ones whose lives have been impacted by neglect or abuse
Volunteers may contact:
Marie Wallach Capp Director roscocat@msn.com
Mary Tunstall: National PRUP Coordinator Marerob_2000@yahoo.com
When: August 10th, 2006
Time: Town hall meeting 1-5 Memorial Rally 5-8 pm
Where: State Capitol Building, Sacramento
TiPS CaPP PRUP
Uniting Ideas Hopes and Understanding
Saturday, July 01, 2006
My story should be told!
I was the victim of a violent crime here in Cherokee County, Georgia, and I was FALSELY ARRESTED as the PERPETRATOR! I filed a report that same day, yet critical statements that I told the deputy were left out of my report. When I got a copy of the report I franticly attempted to contact the deputy to correct this. He did not return several calls so I went to the precinct to file a “Supplemental Report” with the correct facts, and I was DENIED THIS RIGHT and THREATENED WITH ARREST! I was then FALSELY ARRESTED and after my arrest, the former detective Peavy committed heinous crimes in his every attempt to MANUFACTURE my guilt. The only witness at the scene, a very respectable citizen, was NEVER interviewed. A recorded interview with the accuser contradicted virtually every statement in her initial report! A transcript from a recorded conversation with the accuser and I, that proved my innocence, was DOCTORED to end just before statements were made by the accuser that CLEARED ME and PROVED THE ACCUSER TO BE VIOLENT AND A LIAR. Critical exculpatory evidence was IGNORED when collected by the State and then this critical evidence was ALTERED before being brought into MY TRIAL.
The only reason I WON THIS BATTLE was because I was always a step ahead of them. I had recorded the other end of the conversation of the doctored transcript. I had gotten an expert witness to observe this evidence that cleared me, months before it was collected by the State and then altered before being brought into my trial.
The crime of Felony Tampering with Evidence was committed in order to eliminate critical evidence that was the crux of my defense. Then the judge made light of this crime and covered up for it!
This NIGHTMARE IN GEORGIA when on and on and on. I went to nine more trial calendars, but they would never take me to trial again. It was four years and three months from the date of the incident before I received the order that ALL MY CHARGES had been DISMISSED. Sadly and tragically, two weeks after the death of my beautiful, sweet and talented mother.
Patrick Swiney is innocent, just as I was innocent. I should, by all indications, be sitting in prison for 20 to 35 years for AGGRAVATED ASSAULT and several misdemeanor crimes that I DID NOT COMMIT. IN FACT I WAS THE VICTIM!!!!! The LEGAL SYSTEM IS BROKEN and the IMMUNITY LAWS ARE ABSURD, and each individual must have the courage to stand up to it in order to bring about the change that is so desperately needed.
Simply put “Kerry Walker Story” in a search engine and read all about my REALITY. This should NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA but it happens so much that it should make you sick! Now I lost my home and only own a small cabin. I have no money and I have not been able to find a regular job. My health has been ruined and it's difficult to function for long periods of time. I wonder if we should call this winning...
Kerry Craig Walker
Shared by:
Sherry Swiney
Director, P.A.T.R.I.C.K.
www.patrickcrusade.org
Member of the Board, NJCDLP
http://www.njcdlp.org/
Patrick Swiney-innocent in prison (GSR exonerates him)
www.patrickswiney.com
http://www.patrickswiney.com/legal_index.html
"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing" Edmund Burke (1729–1797), Irish philosopher, statesman. "The courts are completely dysfunctional and the system is utterly broken."
The only reason I WON THIS BATTLE was because I was always a step ahead of them. I had recorded the other end of the conversation of the doctored transcript. I had gotten an expert witness to observe this evidence that cleared me, months before it was collected by the State and then altered before being brought into my trial.
The crime of Felony Tampering with Evidence was committed in order to eliminate critical evidence that was the crux of my defense. Then the judge made light of this crime and covered up for it!
This NIGHTMARE IN GEORGIA when on and on and on. I went to nine more trial calendars, but they would never take me to trial again. It was four years and three months from the date of the incident before I received the order that ALL MY CHARGES had been DISMISSED. Sadly and tragically, two weeks after the death of my beautiful, sweet and talented mother.
Patrick Swiney is innocent, just as I was innocent. I should, by all indications, be sitting in prison for 20 to 35 years for AGGRAVATED ASSAULT and several misdemeanor crimes that I DID NOT COMMIT. IN FACT I WAS THE VICTIM!!!!! The LEGAL SYSTEM IS BROKEN and the IMMUNITY LAWS ARE ABSURD, and each individual must have the courage to stand up to it in order to bring about the change that is so desperately needed.
Simply put “Kerry Walker Story” in a search engine and read all about my REALITY. This should NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA but it happens so much that it should make you sick! Now I lost my home and only own a small cabin. I have no money and I have not been able to find a regular job. My health has been ruined and it's difficult to function for long periods of time. I wonder if we should call this winning...
Kerry Craig Walker
Shared by:
Sherry Swiney
Director, P.A.T.R.I.C.K.
www.patrickcrusade.org
Member of the Board, NJCDLP
http://www.njcdlp.org/
Patrick Swiney-innocent in prison (GSR exonerates him)
www.patrickswiney.com
http://www.patrickswiney.com/legal_index.html
"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing" Edmund Burke (1729–1797), Irish philosopher, statesman. "The courts are completely dysfunctional and the system is utterly broken."
Striking Down Hope for Inmates
Striking Down Hope for Inmates
By Mark L. Earley
"What happens inside jails and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons," a distinguished bipartisan private commission said in a sobering report issued earlier this month. "It comes home with prisoners." And, of course, it affects whole neighborhoods, cities and even states. In other words: The violence bred inside our nation's prisons endangers the safety of our communities.
By coincidence, this report by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, whose members include a former U.S. attorney general and a former FBI director, came out just six days after a federal judge in Iowa declared one very effective faith-based program for prisoners unconstitutional. It was the kind of decision that can only worsen a situation cited by the commission: the severe lack of programs to help prisoners prepare for reentry to society.
The commission rightly notes that nothing contributes more to violence and danger in prisons than idleness. "But because lawmakers have reduced funding for programming," it says, "prisoners today are largely inactive and unproductive. Highly structured programs are proven to reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and to lower recidivism rates after release."
You'd think, then, that the last thing the courts would do would be to take a proven tool away from prison administrators by closing down a highly structured, intensive program that offers character education, community service, pre-release training and mentoring by community volunteers on the outside.
But that's precisely what a federal judge in Iowa did this month. In deciding a lawsuit filed by Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt ruled such a program unconstitutional and ordered it shut down within 60 days. Why? Because the program -- run by the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) -- is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. As such, he ruled, it cannot contract with and receive funds from the state of Iowa, even though 60 percent of IFI's funds were privately donated and even though state funds are used only for nonsectarian aspects of the program.
Never mind that independent studies by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the University of Pennsylvania have shown that IFI reduces recidivism. Or that the judge himself recognized that recidivism is a major problem in Iowa and that the primary purpose of the Iowa Department of Corrections' contract with IFI was to reduce recidivism. Never mind that no other organization offers such comprehensive and intensive treatment and educational opportunities for inmates.
The judge ruled that IFI "coerced" prisoners into enrolling. How? Basically by offering them a quality program and the tools they need to succeed on the outside. As if drug treatment, job preparation and general education are some kind of bait to lure unsuspecting prisoners into a Christian program where they can be converted.
Every single prisoner who testified at trial said that he was not coerced into enrolling in the program. Participants are exposed to the religious aspects of the program only as a result of their voluntary choice to enroll. Every potential participant is told about the religious aspects of the program. And participants may leave it at any time without penalty. (By the way, the IFI program is continuing to operate while the case is appealed.)
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the court's decision was its gross oversimplification of evangelical Christianity. The court relied heavily on "expert" testimony that evangelical Christians by definition must seek to convert others and that any actions they take must be construed to that end. That generalization weighed more heavily in the judge's decision than did testimony from IFI staff members that they did not try to convert inmates to Christianity and that IFI made allowances for non-evangelical Christian inmates to attend services of their choice, observe Ramadan or attend sweat-lodge ceremonies.
To add injury to insult, the judge ordered that IFI refund the $1.5 million it had received from the state of Iowa for services rendered -- funds that Iowa believes have been well spent and does not want back. This is unprecedented and unfair. Under a valid contract arrived at through a competitive bidding process, Prison Fellowship and IFI in good faith spent time, resources and human capital providing needed services to prisoners. And prisoners and Iowa corrections officials testified that the program is working.
The extreme and punitive nature of the judge's ruling sends a clear message to faith-based organizations that provide needed social services -- social services that few governments or other private organizations have the resources to provide. The judge's message is this: Go away. Go away, even if your program is working and inmates are volunteering and asking for the services.
Given the warehousing of prisoners today and the tragically disproportionate number of minorities behind bars, that's the worst message any government could send. With 2.3 million Americans in prison, this year alone, more than 600,000 of them will be released back to our communities. And within three years, two-thirds of them will be arrested for new crimes against new victims.
"We all bear responsibility for creating correctional institutions that are safe, humane, and productive," the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons concludes. "This is the moment to confront confinement in the United States."
It is certainly not the moment to exclude programs -- faith-based or not -- that offer "safe, humane, and productive" solutions.
The writer, a former attorney general of Virginia, is president of Prison Fellowship (http://www.prisonfellowship.org), which works with prisoners and their families.
By Mark L. Earley
"What happens inside jails and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons," a distinguished bipartisan private commission said in a sobering report issued earlier this month. "It comes home with prisoners." And, of course, it affects whole neighborhoods, cities and even states. In other words: The violence bred inside our nation's prisons endangers the safety of our communities.
By coincidence, this report by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, whose members include a former U.S. attorney general and a former FBI director, came out just six days after a federal judge in Iowa declared one very effective faith-based program for prisoners unconstitutional. It was the kind of decision that can only worsen a situation cited by the commission: the severe lack of programs to help prisoners prepare for reentry to society.
The commission rightly notes that nothing contributes more to violence and danger in prisons than idleness. "But because lawmakers have reduced funding for programming," it says, "prisoners today are largely inactive and unproductive. Highly structured programs are proven to reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and to lower recidivism rates after release."
You'd think, then, that the last thing the courts would do would be to take a proven tool away from prison administrators by closing down a highly structured, intensive program that offers character education, community service, pre-release training and mentoring by community volunteers on the outside.
But that's precisely what a federal judge in Iowa did this month. In deciding a lawsuit filed by Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt ruled such a program unconstitutional and ordered it shut down within 60 days. Why? Because the program -- run by the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) -- is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. As such, he ruled, it cannot contract with and receive funds from the state of Iowa, even though 60 percent of IFI's funds were privately donated and even though state funds are used only for nonsectarian aspects of the program.
Never mind that independent studies by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the University of Pennsylvania have shown that IFI reduces recidivism. Or that the judge himself recognized that recidivism is a major problem in Iowa and that the primary purpose of the Iowa Department of Corrections' contract with IFI was to reduce recidivism. Never mind that no other organization offers such comprehensive and intensive treatment and educational opportunities for inmates.
The judge ruled that IFI "coerced" prisoners into enrolling. How? Basically by offering them a quality program and the tools they need to succeed on the outside. As if drug treatment, job preparation and general education are some kind of bait to lure unsuspecting prisoners into a Christian program where they can be converted.
Every single prisoner who testified at trial said that he was not coerced into enrolling in the program. Participants are exposed to the religious aspects of the program only as a result of their voluntary choice to enroll. Every potential participant is told about the religious aspects of the program. And participants may leave it at any time without penalty. (By the way, the IFI program is continuing to operate while the case is appealed.)
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the court's decision was its gross oversimplification of evangelical Christianity. The court relied heavily on "expert" testimony that evangelical Christians by definition must seek to convert others and that any actions they take must be construed to that end. That generalization weighed more heavily in the judge's decision than did testimony from IFI staff members that they did not try to convert inmates to Christianity and that IFI made allowances for non-evangelical Christian inmates to attend services of their choice, observe Ramadan or attend sweat-lodge ceremonies.
To add injury to insult, the judge ordered that IFI refund the $1.5 million it had received from the state of Iowa for services rendered -- funds that Iowa believes have been well spent and does not want back. This is unprecedented and unfair. Under a valid contract arrived at through a competitive bidding process, Prison Fellowship and IFI in good faith spent time, resources and human capital providing needed services to prisoners. And prisoners and Iowa corrections officials testified that the program is working.
The extreme and punitive nature of the judge's ruling sends a clear message to faith-based organizations that provide needed social services -- social services that few governments or other private organizations have the resources to provide. The judge's message is this: Go away. Go away, even if your program is working and inmates are volunteering and asking for the services.
Given the warehousing of prisoners today and the tragically disproportionate number of minorities behind bars, that's the worst message any government could send. With 2.3 million Americans in prison, this year alone, more than 600,000 of them will be released back to our communities. And within three years, two-thirds of them will be arrested for new crimes against new victims.
"We all bear responsibility for creating correctional institutions that are safe, humane, and productive," the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons concludes. "This is the moment to confront confinement in the United States."
It is certainly not the moment to exclude programs -- faith-based or not -- that offer "safe, humane, and productive" solutions.
The writer, a former attorney general of Virginia, is president of Prison Fellowship (http://www.prisonfellowship.org), which works with prisoners and their families.
Arresting prison reform
From the Los Angeles Times
EDITORIAL
Arresting prison reform After starting strong early in his term, Gov. Schwarzenegger has backpedaled on important changes.
June 28, 2006
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER'S collapse on prison reform is one of the most disappointing failures of his tenure. Soon after taking office in 2003, he embraced initiatives to reduce the inmate population. The extent of his retreat in the face of opposition from the guards union is evident in his new four-part plan for the prisons.
The centerpiece of the governor's plan is a bill by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) to build two prisons using lease revenue bonds, which are advantageous for politicians because they don't require voter approval. The downside is that they are horribly expensive, with higher interest rates than voter-approved bonds. The two prisons, which would cost at least $500 million each to build, could end up costing taxpayers a total of at least $2 billion.
The expense might be worth it if building new prisons were the solution to California's correctional problems. It is not, which is why voters refuse to back them. New prisons are much like new freeways, in that they don't do much to solve overcrowding problems — as soon as you build them, they fill up. Further, although overcrowding is a serious issue, the state's corrections system also is plagued by ineffective management and a dangerous shortage of guards; building more prisons alone would only exacerbate the latter two problems while doing little to solve the former.
The governor also wants to use lease revenue bonds to build "parole reentry facilities" — secure detention centers in communities where male inmates would be released and where those near the end of their sentences could be sent for mental health counseling and job training. It's a fine idea, though politically impractical — if there is a community in California that would welcome the construction of a small prison, we'd like to see it. The costs of these facilities are unknown, but the funding mechanism guarantees that they would be steep.
Equally problematic is the governor's proposal to shift 4,500 nonviolent female inmates to community rehab centers near their homes. This might work if there were enough existing centers to house the inmates or guards to staff them, but there aren't. That means building even more expensive mini-prisons in communities that don't want them.
The governor's plan does nothing to address the concerns of a federal judge investigating abuses of inmates by guards. It doesn't address the shortage of guards nor the management problems that make California's prisons a national embarrassment. Though ostensibly aimed at overcrowding, it doesn't even propose genuine solutions to that problem, such as reforms in sentencing laws and a major boost in rehabilitation programs. If the Legislature, which met in special session Tuesday night to discuss the governor's proposals, wants to set things right, a radical shift in approach is required.
EDITORIAL
Arresting prison reform After starting strong early in his term, Gov. Schwarzenegger has backpedaled on important changes.
June 28, 2006
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER'S collapse on prison reform is one of the most disappointing failures of his tenure. Soon after taking office in 2003, he embraced initiatives to reduce the inmate population. The extent of his retreat in the face of opposition from the guards union is evident in his new four-part plan for the prisons.
The centerpiece of the governor's plan is a bill by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) to build two prisons using lease revenue bonds, which are advantageous for politicians because they don't require voter approval. The downside is that they are horribly expensive, with higher interest rates than voter-approved bonds. The two prisons, which would cost at least $500 million each to build, could end up costing taxpayers a total of at least $2 billion.
The expense might be worth it if building new prisons were the solution to California's correctional problems. It is not, which is why voters refuse to back them. New prisons are much like new freeways, in that they don't do much to solve overcrowding problems — as soon as you build them, they fill up. Further, although overcrowding is a serious issue, the state's corrections system also is plagued by ineffective management and a dangerous shortage of guards; building more prisons alone would only exacerbate the latter two problems while doing little to solve the former.
The governor also wants to use lease revenue bonds to build "parole reentry facilities" — secure detention centers in communities where male inmates would be released and where those near the end of their sentences could be sent for mental health counseling and job training. It's a fine idea, though politically impractical — if there is a community in California that would welcome the construction of a small prison, we'd like to see it. The costs of these facilities are unknown, but the funding mechanism guarantees that they would be steep.
Equally problematic is the governor's proposal to shift 4,500 nonviolent female inmates to community rehab centers near their homes. This might work if there were enough existing centers to house the inmates or guards to staff them, but there aren't. That means building even more expensive mini-prisons in communities that don't want them.
The governor's plan does nothing to address the concerns of a federal judge investigating abuses of inmates by guards. It doesn't address the shortage of guards nor the management problems that make California's prisons a national embarrassment. Though ostensibly aimed at overcrowding, it doesn't even propose genuine solutions to that problem, such as reforms in sentencing laws and a major boost in rehabilitation programs. If the Legislature, which met in special session Tuesday night to discuss the governor's proposals, wants to set things right, a radical shift in approach is required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)