Christopher Zoukis's Blog, page 13
May 21, 2016
Filling Prisons Won’t Cut Crime, Seek Alternatives: new report
As the White House observed the week of April 24-30 as National Reentry Week, the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a new report that claims other law enforcement, economic and social programs would be far more cost-effective ways to battle crime than building more prisons would be.
CEA’s report, titled “Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System,” began by noting 2.2 million prisoners are currently incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities, at a total annual cost above $80 billion (points echoing President Obama’s April 23 weekly address on the topic of criminal justice reform).
At an April 25 White House event to publicize the new CEA report, presidential special advisor Valerie Jarrett claimed that the statistics “are very clear” that criminal justice reform will lead to safer communities and a stronger economy.
The event on the new CEA economic report also featured representatives from both the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice and the conservative American Enterprise Institute; each praised the report’s attempt to examine the nation’s mass incarceration through an economic focus.
Outlining the main findings of the 79-page report released that day, CEA chairman Jason Furman first sketched the main trends of incarceration over the past several decades. Since 1980, he noted, the population behind bars had grown by 350%, even though the crime rates had fallen substantially during the same period (the rates for violent crime fell by 39% and for property crime by 52% between 1980 and 2014).
According to the CEA chairman, economic research shows the crime rate decreases may be due to various factors – among them, economic improvements, demographic changes, and improved policing – but the large increase in incarceration was not a likely explanation.
He was equally clear on the cause of prison overcrowding even while the crime rates were falling: changes in criminal justice policies, including mandatory minimum sentences, and longer average time served. The CEA’s report calculated that if admission rates and average time served for state prisons had remained unchanged from 1984 levels, prisoner counts would have fallen by 7%, instead of increasing by 125%.
The report also noted arrest rates, especially on drug charges, have declined more slowly than crime rates, and cited research showing blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system, at every stage from searches, arrests, convictions and incarcerations (where they comprise 50% of prisoners, compared with their 30% of the general population).
The CEA presented “back-of-the-envelope” cost-benefit estimates of increased incarceration versus other policy alternatives. Spending another $10 billion on incarceration could reduce crimes somewhere between 1% and 4%, but because of collateral economic losses (such as increased unemployment and poverty) could also reduce net benefits by as much as $8 million and could at most raise net benefits by $1 billion.
In contrast, spending $10 billion on improved policing would cut crime anywhere from 5% to 16% and produce a net benefit to society ranging from $4 billion to $38 billion. Raising the minimum hourly wage rate to $12 by the year 2020 would cut crime 3% to 5% and produce a net benefit ranging from $8 billion to $17 billion.
CEA’s report, titled “Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System,” began by noting 2.2 million prisoners are currently incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities, at a total annual cost above $80 billion (points echoing President Obama’s April 23 weekly address on the topic of criminal justice reform).
At an April 25 White House event to publicize the new CEA report, presidential special advisor Valerie Jarrett claimed that the statistics “are very clear” that criminal justice reform will lead to safer communities and a stronger economy.
The event on the new CEA economic report also featured representatives from both the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice and the conservative American Enterprise Institute; each praised the report’s attempt to examine the nation’s mass incarceration through an economic focus.
Outlining the main findings of the 79-page report released that day, CEA chairman Jason Furman first sketched the main trends of incarceration over the past several decades. Since 1980, he noted, the population behind bars had grown by 350%, even though the crime rates had fallen substantially during the same period (the rates for violent crime fell by 39% and for property crime by 52% between 1980 and 2014).
According to the CEA chairman, economic research shows the crime rate decreases may be due to various factors – among them, economic improvements, demographic changes, and improved policing – but the large increase in incarceration was not a likely explanation.
He was equally clear on the cause of prison overcrowding even while the crime rates were falling: changes in criminal justice policies, including mandatory minimum sentences, and longer average time served. The CEA’s report calculated that if admission rates and average time served for state prisons had remained unchanged from 1984 levels, prisoner counts would have fallen by 7%, instead of increasing by 125%.
The report also noted arrest rates, especially on drug charges, have declined more slowly than crime rates, and cited research showing blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system, at every stage from searches, arrests, convictions and incarcerations (where they comprise 50% of prisoners, compared with their 30% of the general population).
The CEA presented “back-of-the-envelope” cost-benefit estimates of increased incarceration versus other policy alternatives. Spending another $10 billion on incarceration could reduce crimes somewhere between 1% and 4%, but because of collateral economic losses (such as increased unemployment and poverty) could also reduce net benefits by as much as $8 million and could at most raise net benefits by $1 billion.
In contrast, spending $10 billion on improved policing would cut crime anywhere from 5% to 16% and produce a net benefit to society ranging from $4 billion to $38 billion. Raising the minimum hourly wage rate to $12 by the year 2020 would cut crime 3% to 5% and produce a net benefit ranging from $8 billion to $17 billion.
May 2, 2016
Virginia Governor Orders Voting Rights Restored for Felons
In a sweeping action likely to face court challenge, Virginia’s Democratic governor Terence McAuliffe last week signed an executive order to remove a provision in the state’s constitution, dating back to the Civil War, which strips former felons of their voting rights.
Under the governor’s order, all Virginia felons who have completed their sentence and any subsequent probation or parole will automatically have restored their rights to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office. In announcing the change, the governor estimated up to 206,000 ex-felons could regain voting rights.
McAuliffe also stated that, after issuing his “Restoration of Rights” order, he would issue new orders periodically restoring the rights of those who have recently completed their sentences and post-release supervision.
The governor’s order observed the state’s disenfranchising of ex-felons dates back to the Civil War which, like poll taxes and literacy tests, was a tool used by white supremacists to restrict voting by African-Americans. It also noted stripping voting rights from felons disproportionately affects low-income and African-American citizens, citing estimates that past felony convictionsaffect about 7% of the state’s voting-age residents and around one-fifth of African-Americans inVirginia.
Long one of the handful of states that disenfranchise all felons for life except those who, after a prescribed waiting period, applied for and received restoration of their voting rights, Virginia has over the past dozen or so years seen governors from both parties reduce or eliminate the waitingperiod for certain groups of ex-felons. But they also have declared they lacked the power underthe state constitution to issue orders restoring the voting rights of entire classes of ex-offenders – as McAuliffe’s order would do.
Unlike his predecessors, McAuliffe claims the state constitution allows him that power, but the state’s Republican legislative majority is likely to file suit to contest that. Some critics of the governor’s action claim it is more motivated by political rather than by civil rights concerns. They note, for example, that McAuliffe is a former Democratic National Committee chair and headed Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid. In their view, the governor intends to make create potentially hundreds of thousands of eligible new voters from demographic groups with patterns of backing Democratic candidates, in a year in which Virginia is a likely to be swing state in the race for the White House.
If former felons in Virginia register and vote at the same relatively low rates as their counterparts in other states where recent law changes have made ex-offenders newly-eligible, Democratic vote totals might increase by about half a percentage point – a small difference that would only be significant if the election tightens to be closer than any state was in 2012.
The Republican speaker of Virginia’s House, for example, reacted to McAuliffe’s order by pronouncing himself unsurprised at the “lengths to which he is willing to go to deliver Virginia to Hillary Clinton in November.”
In recent months, politically charged battles over restoring voting rights to ex-felons have played out in Kentucky (where the incoming Republican governor rescinded an order like McAuliffe’s issued by his Democratic predecessor) and Maryland (where the GOP government vetoed a similar measure passed by the Democratic legislature, which ultimately reversed the veto.
Under the governor’s order, all Virginia felons who have completed their sentence and any subsequent probation or parole will automatically have restored their rights to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office. In announcing the change, the governor estimated up to 206,000 ex-felons could regain voting rights.
McAuliffe also stated that, after issuing his “Restoration of Rights” order, he would issue new orders periodically restoring the rights of those who have recently completed their sentences and post-release supervision.
The governor’s order observed the state’s disenfranchising of ex-felons dates back to the Civil War which, like poll taxes and literacy tests, was a tool used by white supremacists to restrict voting by African-Americans. It also noted stripping voting rights from felons disproportionately affects low-income and African-American citizens, citing estimates that past felony convictionsaffect about 7% of the state’s voting-age residents and around one-fifth of African-Americans inVirginia.
Long one of the handful of states that disenfranchise all felons for life except those who, after a prescribed waiting period, applied for and received restoration of their voting rights, Virginia has over the past dozen or so years seen governors from both parties reduce or eliminate the waitingperiod for certain groups of ex-felons. But they also have declared they lacked the power underthe state constitution to issue orders restoring the voting rights of entire classes of ex-offenders – as McAuliffe’s order would do.
Unlike his predecessors, McAuliffe claims the state constitution allows him that power, but the state’s Republican legislative majority is likely to file suit to contest that. Some critics of the governor’s action claim it is more motivated by political rather than by civil rights concerns. They note, for example, that McAuliffe is a former Democratic National Committee chair and headed Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid. In their view, the governor intends to make create potentially hundreds of thousands of eligible new voters from demographic groups with patterns of backing Democratic candidates, in a year in which Virginia is a likely to be swing state in the race for the White House.
If former felons in Virginia register and vote at the same relatively low rates as their counterparts in other states where recent law changes have made ex-offenders newly-eligible, Democratic vote totals might increase by about half a percentage point – a small difference that would only be significant if the election tightens to be closer than any state was in 2012.
The Republican speaker of Virginia’s House, for example, reacted to McAuliffe’s order by pronouncing himself unsurprised at the “lengths to which he is willing to go to deliver Virginia to Hillary Clinton in November.”
In recent months, politically charged battles over restoring voting rights to ex-felons have played out in Kentucky (where the incoming Republican governor rescinded an order like McAuliffe’s issued by his Democratic predecessor) and Maryland (where the GOP government vetoed a similar measure passed by the Democratic legislature, which ultimately reversed the veto.
April 24, 2016
Arizona Prisons Annually See Hundreds of Self-Injury, Suicide Attempts
Even though official records for the Arizona prison system show six successful suicides in the most recent fiscal year by inmates, almost 500 other inmates tried to harm or kill themselves, compared with 379 attempts and eight suicides in the same period.
According to the grisly statistics in ‘Inmate Assault, Self-Harm, & Mortality Data’ – an Arizona Department of Corrections report issued in January – the 499 Arizona inmates who attempted self-harm or suicide in the fiscal year ended in November 15, 2015 included 197 who cut, bit or stabbed themselves, 146 who overdosed on authorized or contraband drugs or swallowed razor blades or other objects, 93 who suffered blunt force trauma from throwing themselves down or battering themselves against walls or other hard surfaces, 50 who attempted to hang themselves, and 13 who burned themselves.
The latest report also reveals that, of the total of 888 deaths of Arizona prisoners over the past ten years, 75 have been suicides; there were also 34 homicides and 47 accidental deaths, with the remainder attributed to natural causes.
Clearly, inmate suicide attempts are not just a recent problem for Arizona prisons. A ground-breaking series of in-depth articles in the Arizona Republic in 2012 showed poor or non-existent medical and psychological care that helped create a so-called “second Death Row” for prisoners in the state. It also highlighted careless supervision of prisoners, shoddy record keeping and limited access to what prison and coroner’s records existed.
In the time period examined by the Republic series, assuming the state’s official records were complete (a belief not universally shared), Arizona prisons had a suicide rate 60% above the national average, as drawn from Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers.
In the years following those press disclosures, the Arizona Department of Corrections came under several court orders to do a better job delivering psychiatric services and providing essential services to inmates. A particular focus was on the solitary confinement areas of the state’s prisons (Arizona made higher-than-average use of prisoner isolation); the press probe had also found that most suicides happened in maximum security areas, which housed under 9% of the overall prison population.
Nor is then rash of suicides limited only to state prisons. As recently summarized in Prison Legal News, a Phoenix newspaper reported last month that in the jails of Maricopa County, the state’s largest, since Joe Arpaio became sheriff in 1993, coroner’s records show an astounding 39 of the 157 reported inmate deaths, or almost one-quarter of the total, were attributed to suicide.
The press account further notes that already high percentage could actually be low, since records on inmate deaths are remarkably spotty: no cause was given for 34 deaths, and in 39 other cases, the record merely stated the inmate had died while hospitalized, without explaining why the inmate was in the hospital. The account also notes Maricopa County has paid out over $140 million during Sheriff Arpaio’s tenure to fight and settle claims of brutal or incompetent treatment of inmates.
According to the grisly statistics in ‘Inmate Assault, Self-Harm, & Mortality Data’ – an Arizona Department of Corrections report issued in January – the 499 Arizona inmates who attempted self-harm or suicide in the fiscal year ended in November 15, 2015 included 197 who cut, bit or stabbed themselves, 146 who overdosed on authorized or contraband drugs or swallowed razor blades or other objects, 93 who suffered blunt force trauma from throwing themselves down or battering themselves against walls or other hard surfaces, 50 who attempted to hang themselves, and 13 who burned themselves.
The latest report also reveals that, of the total of 888 deaths of Arizona prisoners over the past ten years, 75 have been suicides; there were also 34 homicides and 47 accidental deaths, with the remainder attributed to natural causes.
Clearly, inmate suicide attempts are not just a recent problem for Arizona prisons. A ground-breaking series of in-depth articles in the Arizona Republic in 2012 showed poor or non-existent medical and psychological care that helped create a so-called “second Death Row” for prisoners in the state. It also highlighted careless supervision of prisoners, shoddy record keeping and limited access to what prison and coroner’s records existed.
In the time period examined by the Republic series, assuming the state’s official records were complete (a belief not universally shared), Arizona prisons had a suicide rate 60% above the national average, as drawn from Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers.
In the years following those press disclosures, the Arizona Department of Corrections came under several court orders to do a better job delivering psychiatric services and providing essential services to inmates. A particular focus was on the solitary confinement areas of the state’s prisons (Arizona made higher-than-average use of prisoner isolation); the press probe had also found that most suicides happened in maximum security areas, which housed under 9% of the overall prison population.
Nor is then rash of suicides limited only to state prisons. As recently summarized in Prison Legal News, a Phoenix newspaper reported last month that in the jails of Maricopa County, the state’s largest, since Joe Arpaio became sheriff in 1993, coroner’s records show an astounding 39 of the 157 reported inmate deaths, or almost one-quarter of the total, were attributed to suicide.
The press account further notes that already high percentage could actually be low, since records on inmate deaths are remarkably spotty: no cause was given for 34 deaths, and in 39 other cases, the record merely stated the inmate had died while hospitalized, without explaining why the inmate was in the hospital. The account also notes Maricopa County has paid out over $140 million during Sheriff Arpaio’s tenure to fight and settle claims of brutal or incompetent treatment of inmates.
Federal Prison Guards Now Armed With Pepper Spray
A new federal law, passed by Congress without a dissenting vote and signed by President Barack Obama, directs the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide pepper spray to corrections officers in all federal prisons except minimum- or low-security facilities.
The measure (S. 238, the “Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act”) cleared both chambers of Congress under parliamentary procedures used for non-controversial measures that allowed the bill to bypass committee hearings and votes, and required only a voice vote, not the recording each legislator’s vote, in each house. The bill had bipartisan sponsorship and the support of prison workers’ groups.
Public Law 104-133 bears the name of a 34-year-old correctional officer who was killed in February 2013 in the high-security federal prison in Canaan, Pennsylvania. While working alone to oversee a routine evening lockdown in a high-security housing unit with two levels and over 100 inmates, Williams was blindsided by an attack by an inmate on the cellblock’s second level.
The attack knocked him down a flight of stairs, where the attacking inmate beat Williams so severely that the corrections officer’s skull was crushed. The officer was also stabbed more than 100 times with a shank, a crude prison-made weapon.
The inmate who killed Williams was serving an 11-year term for drug trafficking for the New Mexican Mafia gang, and has also been convicted of the first-drug murder of a rival gang member in Arizona. Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty when he is tried later this year for Williams’ murder.
BOP policy forbids corrections officers bringing weapons into cellblocks. At the time of his death, Officer Williams had only a radio, handcuffs, and keys; the blind-side attack was so sudden the corrections officer was unable to hit the alarm button on his radio, nor did he have any defensive gear or equipment to repel an attack.
Nor was there any back-up help nearby: in 2005, the year the Canaan penitentiary opened, a cost-cutting BOP measure reduced cellblock staffing from two officers to a single officer. Government records show a very similar fatal attack on a corrections guard occurred in a federal penitentiary in California in 2008.
At the time of Officer Williams’ murder, BOP had begun a pilot program, which did not include the Canaan penitentiary, on pepper spray use. That non-lethal but incapacitating self-defense and riot control compound (more formally known as oleoresin capsicum), irritates the eyes, causing tears, pain, breathing difficulty and temporary blindness.
The new law directs the BOP to issue pepper spray routinely to BOP officers and other employees of all federal prisons, except minimum- or low-security facilities, who may be required to respond to a prison emergency; it can also decide to issue it to other staffers. Initial staff training is required before they can carry pepper spray, along with annual refreshers. The law specifically allows pepper spray use to reduce violent acts by prisoners against other prisoners, BOP staff or prison visitors.
The new statute also requires the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress within three years on the effectiveness of pepper spray in reducing prison crime and violence, the advisability and cost of expanding it to minimum- and low-security prisons, and other steps to improve the safety of BOP prison officers and staff.
Hopefully, the BOP will closely monitor its new self-defense measure to ensure proper training of correctional staff as well as to ensure it is used within reason to benefit both correctional staff and inmate safety.
The measure (S. 238, the “Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act”) cleared both chambers of Congress under parliamentary procedures used for non-controversial measures that allowed the bill to bypass committee hearings and votes, and required only a voice vote, not the recording each legislator’s vote, in each house. The bill had bipartisan sponsorship and the support of prison workers’ groups.
Public Law 104-133 bears the name of a 34-year-old correctional officer who was killed in February 2013 in the high-security federal prison in Canaan, Pennsylvania. While working alone to oversee a routine evening lockdown in a high-security housing unit with two levels and over 100 inmates, Williams was blindsided by an attack by an inmate on the cellblock’s second level.
The attack knocked him down a flight of stairs, where the attacking inmate beat Williams so severely that the corrections officer’s skull was crushed. The officer was also stabbed more than 100 times with a shank, a crude prison-made weapon.
The inmate who killed Williams was serving an 11-year term for drug trafficking for the New Mexican Mafia gang, and has also been convicted of the first-drug murder of a rival gang member in Arizona. Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty when he is tried later this year for Williams’ murder.
BOP policy forbids corrections officers bringing weapons into cellblocks. At the time of his death, Officer Williams had only a radio, handcuffs, and keys; the blind-side attack was so sudden the corrections officer was unable to hit the alarm button on his radio, nor did he have any defensive gear or equipment to repel an attack.
Nor was there any back-up help nearby: in 2005, the year the Canaan penitentiary opened, a cost-cutting BOP measure reduced cellblock staffing from two officers to a single officer. Government records show a very similar fatal attack on a corrections guard occurred in a federal penitentiary in California in 2008.
At the time of Officer Williams’ murder, BOP had begun a pilot program, which did not include the Canaan penitentiary, on pepper spray use. That non-lethal but incapacitating self-defense and riot control compound (more formally known as oleoresin capsicum), irritates the eyes, causing tears, pain, breathing difficulty and temporary blindness.
The new law directs the BOP to issue pepper spray routinely to BOP officers and other employees of all federal prisons, except minimum- or low-security facilities, who may be required to respond to a prison emergency; it can also decide to issue it to other staffers. Initial staff training is required before they can carry pepper spray, along with annual refreshers. The law specifically allows pepper spray use to reduce violent acts by prisoners against other prisoners, BOP staff or prison visitors.
The new statute also requires the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress within three years on the effectiveness of pepper spray in reducing prison crime and violence, the advisability and cost of expanding it to minimum- and low-security prisons, and other steps to improve the safety of BOP prison officers and staff.
Hopefully, the BOP will closely monitor its new self-defense measure to ensure proper training of correctional staff as well as to ensure it is used within reason to benefit both correctional staff and inmate safety.
Digging Deeper into the Latest Exonerations Report
During the last week of March, I summarized a report on the prisoners who were exonerated last year of major crimes for which they had been incarcerated, often for decades. Issued by the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations, the report is the latest annual summary tracking trends in this often ignored area. Today I want to go a little deeper into some lessons to be gained from a close reading of that report.
Long-tolerated bad science: An extraordinary 75 of last year’s 149 exonerations came in cases where it was belatedly discovered no crime had been proved. Most of these were drug cases where re-testing of seized material showed no controlled substance; trials had often used unreliable field tests, which have misidentified as drugs such substances as chalk, motor oil and Jolly Rancher candies.
Five cases where on review no crime had been proved were supposedly arson-homicides. They involved fatal fires which occurred 25 to 34 years ago, predating a landmark 1992 reference guide that professionalized investigation of fires and explosions. After that guide appeared, wouldn’t you think someone might have taken a second look at those convictions, this time using sound science to assess whether the fires were actually arson?
Similarly, the FBI made headlines last year by admitting its crime lab’s analysis of hair samples almost always overstated the reliability of such evidence, and the Justice Department is now looking at whether similar problems affect its analysis of other types of crime-scene evidence, making it likely exonerations will continue to mount in future years.
The human cost: Statistical summaries are usually not very exciting, and it would be easy for most readers to assume, if the 149 exonerations set an all-time annual record for the number of prisoners exonerated of crimes, that mistaken charges or wrongful conviction of innocent defendants must not really be all that common or troublesome problems. Everybody makes mistakes, right? So if the police, prosecutors, judges or juries manage to make a bad call once in a while, well, stuff happens.
Let’s recall the 149 prisoners exonerated last year spent an average of about fourteen-and-a-half years imprisoned for convictions that turned out to be unmerited. In the aggregate, that’s over 21 centuries of imprisonment. Maybe someone should have been looking harder, or working faster, to determine whether these 149 people should have been locked up?
Second, an appendix to the report includes brief write-ups of seven exonerations that punch home the outrageous miscarriages of justice that sent innocent defendants to prison for as long as 34 years. It’s impossible to read these heartbreaking stories without coming to the firm conclusion that we must establish mechanisms and procedures to undo such life-shattering mistakes, and to keep them from recurring.
Finally, to his credit, the report’s author warns readers not to assume wrongful convictions are at worst a minor problem; instead, he notes a growing public awareness it’s a “substantial, widespread and tragic problem.” He estimates tens of thousands of wrongful convictions occur each year.
Doesn’t that say to you there needs to be a systematic way to review the way convictions are won, to make sure they’re not sending – or have already sent – innocent defendants to prison, or even to Death Row?
Long-tolerated bad science: An extraordinary 75 of last year’s 149 exonerations came in cases where it was belatedly discovered no crime had been proved. Most of these were drug cases where re-testing of seized material showed no controlled substance; trials had often used unreliable field tests, which have misidentified as drugs such substances as chalk, motor oil and Jolly Rancher candies.
Five cases where on review no crime had been proved were supposedly arson-homicides. They involved fatal fires which occurred 25 to 34 years ago, predating a landmark 1992 reference guide that professionalized investigation of fires and explosions. After that guide appeared, wouldn’t you think someone might have taken a second look at those convictions, this time using sound science to assess whether the fires were actually arson?
Similarly, the FBI made headlines last year by admitting its crime lab’s analysis of hair samples almost always overstated the reliability of such evidence, and the Justice Department is now looking at whether similar problems affect its analysis of other types of crime-scene evidence, making it likely exonerations will continue to mount in future years.
The human cost: Statistical summaries are usually not very exciting, and it would be easy for most readers to assume, if the 149 exonerations set an all-time annual record for the number of prisoners exonerated of crimes, that mistaken charges or wrongful conviction of innocent defendants must not really be all that common or troublesome problems. Everybody makes mistakes, right? So if the police, prosecutors, judges or juries manage to make a bad call once in a while, well, stuff happens.
Let’s recall the 149 prisoners exonerated last year spent an average of about fourteen-and-a-half years imprisoned for convictions that turned out to be unmerited. In the aggregate, that’s over 21 centuries of imprisonment. Maybe someone should have been looking harder, or working faster, to determine whether these 149 people should have been locked up?
Second, an appendix to the report includes brief write-ups of seven exonerations that punch home the outrageous miscarriages of justice that sent innocent defendants to prison for as long as 34 years. It’s impossible to read these heartbreaking stories without coming to the firm conclusion that we must establish mechanisms and procedures to undo such life-shattering mistakes, and to keep them from recurring.
Finally, to his credit, the report’s author warns readers not to assume wrongful convictions are at worst a minor problem; instead, he notes a growing public awareness it’s a “substantial, widespread and tragic problem.” He estimates tens of thousands of wrongful convictions occur each year.
Doesn’t that say to you there needs to be a systematic way to review the way convictions are won, to make sure they’re not sending – or have already sent – innocent defendants to prison, or even to Death Row?
March 31, 2016
Exonerations of Convicted Prisoners Set Record Last Year
In 2015, the highest-ever number of convicted prisoners were exonerated of the crimes for which they were incarcerated, according to a recent report by the National Registry of Exonerations, a project run by the law school of the University of Michigan, which has tracked prisoner exonerations since 1989, the year of the first U.S. exoneration based on DNA evidence.
The 149 prisoners exonerated in 2015 had served an average of 14.5 years on the dismissed charges. The exonerations came in 29 states and the District of Columbia, plus a few from the federal system and U.S. possessions. Just two years earlier, exonerations totaled 89 nationwide.
Texas accounted by far for the most exonerations with 54, followed by New York (17), Illinois (13), and Alaska (6); California and North Carolina each had five prisoners exonerated. Alabama, Connecticut and Wisconsin each saw four prisoners exonerated, and three prisoners were exonerated apiece in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the federal prison system.
The exoneration report also showed the increasing effectiveness the 14 conviction-integrity units that have been added to some prosecution offices to monitor and review the fairness of conviction. Over a third of the exonerations stemmed from these offices.
What crimes were the most common for prisoner exonerations last year? Of the 149 exonerations, 58, or roughly 39% of the total, and another all-time record, were for homicide convictions (including four manslaughter cases). In five cases, the convicted prisoner had been handed down a death sentence, while 19 were serving life sentences.
Drug possession charges were involved for 47 exonerated convicts last year (yet another record number), and about one-third of all exonerations. Nearly all of the exonerations of drug possession charges came from Texas, where Harris County (home to Houston) wiped out 42 guilty pleas, after the county D.A.’s Post-Conviction Review Section discovered a pattern of defendants who pled guilty even when the crime lab report showed no controlled substances were present.
While in the early years of the exoneration registry DNA-based evidence accounted for most exonerations, that’s no longer the case. In 2015, just 26 exonerations, or about 17% of the total, were based in whole or part on DNA evidence.
The most exonerations in 2015 came from the “no-crime” category: in 75 cases, a review found no evidence showing the defendant who had been convicted had committed any crime at all. Of these, 48 were drug cases where materials seized from defendants were tested and turned out not to contain an illegal substance. Other convictions overturned for lack of evidence included six homicides and 14 other violent felony charges.
Other frequent reasons for exonerating prisoners included guilty pleas, usually made to avoid even harsher charges, and official misconduct, either by police or prosecutors. Each of those factored in 65 exonerations. (Since exoneration can be based on more than one factor, some double-counting is possible). In 27 exonerations last year, the prisoner was found to have made a false confession; in 22 cases, this happened with homicide defendants, most of them younger than 18 and/or mentally impaired.
The 149 prisoners exonerated in 2015 had served an average of 14.5 years on the dismissed charges. The exonerations came in 29 states and the District of Columbia, plus a few from the federal system and U.S. possessions. Just two years earlier, exonerations totaled 89 nationwide.
Texas accounted by far for the most exonerations with 54, followed by New York (17), Illinois (13), and Alaska (6); California and North Carolina each had five prisoners exonerated. Alabama, Connecticut and Wisconsin each saw four prisoners exonerated, and three prisoners were exonerated apiece in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the federal prison system.
The exoneration report also showed the increasing effectiveness the 14 conviction-integrity units that have been added to some prosecution offices to monitor and review the fairness of conviction. Over a third of the exonerations stemmed from these offices.
What crimes were the most common for prisoner exonerations last year? Of the 149 exonerations, 58, or roughly 39% of the total, and another all-time record, were for homicide convictions (including four manslaughter cases). In five cases, the convicted prisoner had been handed down a death sentence, while 19 were serving life sentences.
Drug possession charges were involved for 47 exonerated convicts last year (yet another record number), and about one-third of all exonerations. Nearly all of the exonerations of drug possession charges came from Texas, where Harris County (home to Houston) wiped out 42 guilty pleas, after the county D.A.’s Post-Conviction Review Section discovered a pattern of defendants who pled guilty even when the crime lab report showed no controlled substances were present.
While in the early years of the exoneration registry DNA-based evidence accounted for most exonerations, that’s no longer the case. In 2015, just 26 exonerations, or about 17% of the total, were based in whole or part on DNA evidence.
The most exonerations in 2015 came from the “no-crime” category: in 75 cases, a review found no evidence showing the defendant who had been convicted had committed any crime at all. Of these, 48 were drug cases where materials seized from defendants were tested and turned out not to contain an illegal substance. Other convictions overturned for lack of evidence included six homicides and 14 other violent felony charges.
Other frequent reasons for exonerating prisoners included guilty pleas, usually made to avoid even harsher charges, and official misconduct, either by police or prosecutors. Each of those factored in 65 exonerations. (Since exoneration can be based on more than one factor, some double-counting is possible). In 27 exonerations last year, the prisoner was found to have made a false confession; in 22 cases, this happened with homicide defendants, most of them younger than 18 and/or mentally impaired.
Funding Crisis Handicaps Louisiana’s Public Defender Offices
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Gideon v. Wainwright decision, which unanimously held the Constitution’s fair trial and due process provisions require appointment of defense counsel for an indigent charged with a felony in state court.
That guarantee may not be good in parts of Louisiana, however. Critically short on funds and staff, public defender offices throughout the state find themselves unable to provide needed services. Many public defender offices in Louisiana – coincidentally the state with the nation’s highest incarceration rate – are on the verge of shutting down or have put new would-be clients on waiting lists. About 85% of all defendants look for representation by public defenders.
Meanwhile, judges in some local courts are ordering private lawyers, some without experience in criminal law or courts, to defend indigent clients, or considering alternatives such as postponing trials or even releasing prisoners if unable to meet constitutional speedy trial requirements.
The crisis did not catch the Pelican State unawares: for years it has been predicted, caused by undependable revenue sources, shrinking budgets and political paralysis. The leader of a campaign to win adequate state funding for state public defender offices says the crisis illustrates the “instability, unreliability and inadequacy” of the state’s current system.
Until the state passed a reorganization law in 2007, the court in each jurisdiction set up its own Indigent Defense Board and acted independently in running the public defender function. The 2007 law created the Louisiana Public Defender Board and set standards for openness and accountability.
What the consolidated system lacked then, and still does now, is a reliable funding source. Unlike every other state, Louisiana funds public defender offices primarily through local governments: around two-thirds of their funds come from traffic fines and court fees (for example, every local criminal conviction in Louisiana carries a $45 fee to help support public defender offices).
Changing law enforcement focus, growth of diversion programs, and other factors have reduced those local revenues. The state’s faltering economy and budgetary woes (there’s about a $1 billion shortfall in next year’s budget, due in October) mean little help is forthcoming from the state. The predictable result of the revenue crunch: cutbacks in funds for lawyers and investigators in public defender offices.
For example, four years ago, the New Orleans public defender’s office had a $9.5 million budget; it’s now operating on $6 million, and took a $700,000 funding cut this year. To cope with a growing caseload but fewer staff attorneys – which, one study found, leaves each lawyer on its dwindling staff an annual caseload of about 350 cases, and about seven minutes to prepare for each new case – the New Orleans office announced January 11 it could not accept most new felony defendants.
Soon thereafter, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana filed a class-action federal lawsuit against its traditional ally, the public defender’s office, for failing to meet its responsibilities. The lawsuit also claims the situation wrongly deprives indigent defendants of their rights to be represented in court, and means they’re locked up longer while awaiting court hearings. The still-pending lawsuit seems aimed at pressing the state legislature to provide adequate funds for essential public defender services.
That guarantee may not be good in parts of Louisiana, however. Critically short on funds and staff, public defender offices throughout the state find themselves unable to provide needed services. Many public defender offices in Louisiana – coincidentally the state with the nation’s highest incarceration rate – are on the verge of shutting down or have put new would-be clients on waiting lists. About 85% of all defendants look for representation by public defenders.
Meanwhile, judges in some local courts are ordering private lawyers, some without experience in criminal law or courts, to defend indigent clients, or considering alternatives such as postponing trials or even releasing prisoners if unable to meet constitutional speedy trial requirements.
The crisis did not catch the Pelican State unawares: for years it has been predicted, caused by undependable revenue sources, shrinking budgets and political paralysis. The leader of a campaign to win adequate state funding for state public defender offices says the crisis illustrates the “instability, unreliability and inadequacy” of the state’s current system.
Until the state passed a reorganization law in 2007, the court in each jurisdiction set up its own Indigent Defense Board and acted independently in running the public defender function. The 2007 law created the Louisiana Public Defender Board and set standards for openness and accountability.
What the consolidated system lacked then, and still does now, is a reliable funding source. Unlike every other state, Louisiana funds public defender offices primarily through local governments: around two-thirds of their funds come from traffic fines and court fees (for example, every local criminal conviction in Louisiana carries a $45 fee to help support public defender offices).
Changing law enforcement focus, growth of diversion programs, and other factors have reduced those local revenues. The state’s faltering economy and budgetary woes (there’s about a $1 billion shortfall in next year’s budget, due in October) mean little help is forthcoming from the state. The predictable result of the revenue crunch: cutbacks in funds for lawyers and investigators in public defender offices.
For example, four years ago, the New Orleans public defender’s office had a $9.5 million budget; it’s now operating on $6 million, and took a $700,000 funding cut this year. To cope with a growing caseload but fewer staff attorneys – which, one study found, leaves each lawyer on its dwindling staff an annual caseload of about 350 cases, and about seven minutes to prepare for each new case – the New Orleans office announced January 11 it could not accept most new felony defendants.
Soon thereafter, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana filed a class-action federal lawsuit against its traditional ally, the public defender’s office, for failing to meet its responsibilities. The lawsuit also claims the situation wrongly deprives indigent defendants of their rights to be represented in court, and means they’re locked up longer while awaiting court hearings. The still-pending lawsuit seems aimed at pressing the state legislature to provide adequate funds for essential public defender services.
More Conservative Groups Call for Criminal Justice Reform
Not so long ago, the few groups working to achieve criminal justice reform were almost entirely traditional representatives of civil liberties or of prisoners’ families. Conservative political groups were solidly in the “tough on crime” camp, and the only disagreement came on which of them most merited that label.
Times have changed, however, and now some the rhetoric and positions issuing from some of the most conservative groups and political activists have started on some criminal justice issues to sound a lot like what you might expect from the ACLU.
Consider a recent blog entry for the libertarian Reason magazine on the latest Conservative Political Action Conference, held earlier this month outside Washington, D.C. The annual event draws a wide range of conservative activists, organizations and politicians (Donald Trump drew headlines this year by being the only Republican presidential contender to skip it).
Prominent at the 2016 CPAC conference were such conservative pro-criminal justice reform groups as Right on Crime, which dates from late 2010, and Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, which debuted at the 2013 CPAC conference. The foundation of the sponsoring organization, the American Conservative Union, also challenges traditional law-and-order approaches to sentencing and imprisonment through its Center for Criminal Justice Reform.
Many of the conservative advocates for criminal justice reform argue that policy in the area needs to be not just tough, but “tough and smart.” Besides sticking with core conservative values like the value of protecting public order and life, they urge adoption of pragmatic lessons learned as to what works and what doesn’t in preserving those values, and urge reforms they see as in line with further conservative goals, such as responsible budgeting and limiting the size of government.
In one of two criminal justice reform sessions at CPAC 2016, two conservative activists debated the hardline law-and-order sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The conservatives expressed admiration for the police official’s record in fighting street crime, but also argued that changes such as channeling more drug offenders away from prison and towards rehabilitation would be both less expensive and more effective.
Pointing to recent statistics, they also noted many states – often led by conservative governors and legislatures – have achieved reductions in both crime and incarceration rates after revising the harshness of their sentencing laws. Texas, for one, has been able to close three state prisons and avoid $2 billion in new prison construction costs by spending less than $300 million to expand rehabilitation programs and limiting mandatory sentences to just the most violent or repeat offenders. One criminal reform activist noted the value of local flexibility on crime policy, pointing out the government which sets policy for federal prisons also runs the postal system.
At the federal level, Senators backing a sentencing reform bill (S. 2123) intended to reduce current levels of incarceration by, among other things, reducing some mandatory minimums to set lighter penalties and afford judges greater leeway in sentencing for lower-level drug crimes, includes both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Its lead sponsor, Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), noted the bill was based on reforms made in Texas, which increased rehabilitation, cut crime rates and lowered public spending on corrections.
Times have changed, however, and now some the rhetoric and positions issuing from some of the most conservative groups and political activists have started on some criminal justice issues to sound a lot like what you might expect from the ACLU.
Consider a recent blog entry for the libertarian Reason magazine on the latest Conservative Political Action Conference, held earlier this month outside Washington, D.C. The annual event draws a wide range of conservative activists, organizations and politicians (Donald Trump drew headlines this year by being the only Republican presidential contender to skip it).
Prominent at the 2016 CPAC conference were such conservative pro-criminal justice reform groups as Right on Crime, which dates from late 2010, and Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, which debuted at the 2013 CPAC conference. The foundation of the sponsoring organization, the American Conservative Union, also challenges traditional law-and-order approaches to sentencing and imprisonment through its Center for Criminal Justice Reform.
Many of the conservative advocates for criminal justice reform argue that policy in the area needs to be not just tough, but “tough and smart.” Besides sticking with core conservative values like the value of protecting public order and life, they urge adoption of pragmatic lessons learned as to what works and what doesn’t in preserving those values, and urge reforms they see as in line with further conservative goals, such as responsible budgeting and limiting the size of government.
In one of two criminal justice reform sessions at CPAC 2016, two conservative activists debated the hardline law-and-order sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The conservatives expressed admiration for the police official’s record in fighting street crime, but also argued that changes such as channeling more drug offenders away from prison and towards rehabilitation would be both less expensive and more effective.
Pointing to recent statistics, they also noted many states – often led by conservative governors and legislatures – have achieved reductions in both crime and incarceration rates after revising the harshness of their sentencing laws. Texas, for one, has been able to close three state prisons and avoid $2 billion in new prison construction costs by spending less than $300 million to expand rehabilitation programs and limiting mandatory sentences to just the most violent or repeat offenders. One criminal reform activist noted the value of local flexibility on crime policy, pointing out the government which sets policy for federal prisons also runs the postal system.
At the federal level, Senators backing a sentencing reform bill (S. 2123) intended to reduce current levels of incarceration by, among other things, reducing some mandatory minimums to set lighter penalties and afford judges greater leeway in sentencing for lower-level drug crimes, includes both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Its lead sponsor, Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), noted the bill was based on reforms made in Texas, which increased rehabilitation, cut crime rates and lowered public spending on corrections.
Lone Senator Blocks Action on Juvenile Justice Bill
When the U.S. Senate met last month to take up a bill reauthorizing the main federal law on juvenile justice standards, prospects for the measure seemed good.
A bipartisan group of more than a dozen senators co-sponsored the reauthorization bill (S. 1169), but despite supporters’ expectations for at last being able to reauthorize the law, Senate procedures allowed a single member objecting to a single provision of the bill to stall action on the measure, whose fate now remains questionable.
Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) was one of its two lead sponsors of the February 11 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) reauthorization, and the measure had cleared committee by voice vote the previous July.
The bill’s supporters sought quick approval on the Senate floor, and decided to use a Senate procedure that required unanimous consent. That’s when freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) voiced his objection to taking up the bill, effectively blocking Senate action on it.
Sen. Cotton objected to a provision that would have phased out over three years an exception to the law’s bar on sending status offenders to juvenile detention facilities. Cotton also raised concerns the bill would allow thousands of violent criminals qualify for early release.
Known as the Valid Court Order (VCO) exception, this was added to the JJDPA in 1980, with the support of a group of juvenile and family court judges. It allows such judges to send a status offender to a juvenile facility for disobeying a previous order from the judge, including orders related to what are status offenses.
As a result, even though the JJPDA seeks to end institutional detention of juveniles for a status offense like truancy, the VCO exception allows youth to be sent there for disregarding a judge’s order to attend school regularly. The VCO exception was intended to give juvenile court judges an added tool for dealing with repeat status offenders, but its use varies widely among states.
The JJDPA spells out four areas of care and custody protections for youth in state juvenile justice systems, and conditions federal funding for delinquency prevention programs on state compliance with those standards.
These include: keeping juvenile offenders out of adult correction facilities, or if that isn’t possible, keeping juveniles away from contact with adult inmates; working to reduce the disproportionately high presence in juvenile facilities of minority group members; and keeping out of juvenile corrections facilities what are known as “status” offenders – juveniles who commit offenses such as running away from home, truancy, or curfew violations, which would not be crimes for adults.
Only about half the states have adopted the VCO exception (some have banned it), and even in other states, many use it sparingly or not at all. Of the 7,466 times the VCO exception was used to send a juvenile status offender to a detention facility in fiscal year 2014, Arkansas accounted for 747, trailing only Washington State (with 2,705) and Kentucky (with 1,048). Ironically, the judges’ group responsible for adding the VCO exception to the law in 2010 changed its mind, and no longer supports it.
Senate supporters say they’ll try to work out Sen. Cotton’s objections and bring the bill to the floor again, but that may be difficult in what’s likely to be a crowded, shorter election-year schedule. In addition, a companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives has not even seen committee action yet.
A bipartisan group of more than a dozen senators co-sponsored the reauthorization bill (S. 1169), but despite supporters’ expectations for at last being able to reauthorize the law, Senate procedures allowed a single member objecting to a single provision of the bill to stall action on the measure, whose fate now remains questionable.
Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) was one of its two lead sponsors of the February 11 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) reauthorization, and the measure had cleared committee by voice vote the previous July.
The bill’s supporters sought quick approval on the Senate floor, and decided to use a Senate procedure that required unanimous consent. That’s when freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) voiced his objection to taking up the bill, effectively blocking Senate action on it.
Sen. Cotton objected to a provision that would have phased out over three years an exception to the law’s bar on sending status offenders to juvenile detention facilities. Cotton also raised concerns the bill would allow thousands of violent criminals qualify for early release.
Known as the Valid Court Order (VCO) exception, this was added to the JJDPA in 1980, with the support of a group of juvenile and family court judges. It allows such judges to send a status offender to a juvenile facility for disobeying a previous order from the judge, including orders related to what are status offenses.
As a result, even though the JJPDA seeks to end institutional detention of juveniles for a status offense like truancy, the VCO exception allows youth to be sent there for disregarding a judge’s order to attend school regularly. The VCO exception was intended to give juvenile court judges an added tool for dealing with repeat status offenders, but its use varies widely among states.
The JJDPA spells out four areas of care and custody protections for youth in state juvenile justice systems, and conditions federal funding for delinquency prevention programs on state compliance with those standards.
These include: keeping juvenile offenders out of adult correction facilities, or if that isn’t possible, keeping juveniles away from contact with adult inmates; working to reduce the disproportionately high presence in juvenile facilities of minority group members; and keeping out of juvenile corrections facilities what are known as “status” offenders – juveniles who commit offenses such as running away from home, truancy, or curfew violations, which would not be crimes for adults.
Only about half the states have adopted the VCO exception (some have banned it), and even in other states, many use it sparingly or not at all. Of the 7,466 times the VCO exception was used to send a juvenile status offender to a detention facility in fiscal year 2014, Arkansas accounted for 747, trailing only Washington State (with 2,705) and Kentucky (with 1,048). Ironically, the judges’ group responsible for adding the VCO exception to the law in 2010 changed its mind, and no longer supports it.
Senate supporters say they’ll try to work out Sen. Cotton’s objections and bring the bill to the floor again, but that may be difficult in what’s likely to be a crowded, shorter election-year schedule. In addition, a companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives has not even seen committee action yet.
Coalition Asks FCC for More Protection of Prisoners' Communications
A broad coalition of public interest, civil rights and other groups has filed comments with the agency asking it to expand its protections in the area in the wake of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision last fall to control rates charged for communications services in jails, prisons and detention centers for immigrants,.
In a 3-2 ruling in October, the FCC adopted general $1.65-per-15-minutes caps on local and long-distance rates for inmate calls, lowered by as much as 50% an existing cap on interstate calls (with per-minute tiered rates ranging from 11 to 22 cents, for specialized service and small markets), and set sharp new limits on the fees and charges that can be added onto inmate calls. The agency’s press release said it acted to address “excessive rates and egregious fees,” noting prisoners’ calls could run as high as $14 per minute, with add-on fees and charges raising total costs by up to another 40%.
A February 8 filing with the agency by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 50 civil rights, labor and public interest groups – applauded those actions, but also urged the FCC to act in other areas identified as part of its multi-year probe of whether telecommunications charges to or from corrections and detention facilities have been set at predatory levels.
Calling communications often “essential to vindicate other civil and human rights,” the coalition’s comments seek further FCC action in such areas as: video visitation and other new forms of communication; protections for inmates who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled; plus a cap on rates for international calls; and a requirement that telecommunications providers submit contracts and data on costs for prison services.
Despite objections by the American Bar Association and the Department of Justice, video visitations are replacing in-person visits in some penal facilities, at often high charges. Because of lower income and “digital-divide” differences in the availability of home equipment and services, replacing in-person visits with video visitation will also have greater impact on minority group members, the coalition noted.
The coalition comments also asked the FCC to look at abuses in written electronic communications available to prisoners and their families. Unlike ordinary e-mail, inmate communications are usually subject to charges per message and limits on characters. Ancillary charges for written electronic communications – such as monthly account and “convenience” fees -- can be, the coalition stated, as shockingly exorbitant as those the FCC has already addressed for prison phone calls.
The FCC ought to act to set fair price caps for international phone calls, the coalition further urged, supporting a 16-cent per-minute rate. It offered examples, supplied by coalition member the American Immigration Lawyers Association, of immigration detention facilities charging as much as $45 for an international call lasting 15 minutes. Similarly, deaf and hearing-impaired inmates can face per-minute rates of $6 for teletypewriter-to-teletypewriter intrastate calls, and those who communicate primarily through sign language lack video relay systems, even though such systems might be available free of cost to jails, prisons and detention centers.
The coalition comments also complained that inmate communication services providers have been able to adopt fee-splitting arrangements with third-party financial services like MoneyGram and Western Union to evade FCC restrictions on fees for money transfers to prisoners. Finally, the coalition urged the agency to require the prison phone industry – which it notes is not very competitive and is seeing consolidation -- to submit data at least annually.
In a 3-2 ruling in October, the FCC adopted general $1.65-per-15-minutes caps on local and long-distance rates for inmate calls, lowered by as much as 50% an existing cap on interstate calls (with per-minute tiered rates ranging from 11 to 22 cents, for specialized service and small markets), and set sharp new limits on the fees and charges that can be added onto inmate calls. The agency’s press release said it acted to address “excessive rates and egregious fees,” noting prisoners’ calls could run as high as $14 per minute, with add-on fees and charges raising total costs by up to another 40%.
A February 8 filing with the agency by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 50 civil rights, labor and public interest groups – applauded those actions, but also urged the FCC to act in other areas identified as part of its multi-year probe of whether telecommunications charges to or from corrections and detention facilities have been set at predatory levels.
Calling communications often “essential to vindicate other civil and human rights,” the coalition’s comments seek further FCC action in such areas as: video visitation and other new forms of communication; protections for inmates who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled; plus a cap on rates for international calls; and a requirement that telecommunications providers submit contracts and data on costs for prison services.
Despite objections by the American Bar Association and the Department of Justice, video visitations are replacing in-person visits in some penal facilities, at often high charges. Because of lower income and “digital-divide” differences in the availability of home equipment and services, replacing in-person visits with video visitation will also have greater impact on minority group members, the coalition noted.
The coalition comments also asked the FCC to look at abuses in written electronic communications available to prisoners and their families. Unlike ordinary e-mail, inmate communications are usually subject to charges per message and limits on characters. Ancillary charges for written electronic communications – such as monthly account and “convenience” fees -- can be, the coalition stated, as shockingly exorbitant as those the FCC has already addressed for prison phone calls.
The FCC ought to act to set fair price caps for international phone calls, the coalition further urged, supporting a 16-cent per-minute rate. It offered examples, supplied by coalition member the American Immigration Lawyers Association, of immigration detention facilities charging as much as $45 for an international call lasting 15 minutes. Similarly, deaf and hearing-impaired inmates can face per-minute rates of $6 for teletypewriter-to-teletypewriter intrastate calls, and those who communicate primarily through sign language lack video relay systems, even though such systems might be available free of cost to jails, prisons and detention centers.
The coalition comments also complained that inmate communication services providers have been able to adopt fee-splitting arrangements with third-party financial services like MoneyGram and Western Union to evade FCC restrictions on fees for money transfers to prisoners. Finally, the coalition urged the agency to require the prison phone industry – which it notes is not very competitive and is seeing consolidation -- to submit data at least annually.
