We always like to talk about how a strong Democratic Party needs to be unwavering on specific issues to let the electorate understand the core concerns of the party and attract people to the brand.  This is no less true in California, where the Democratic brand is somewhat invisible (better than the Republican brand, which is shot).  This is a bold move on sentencing guidelines, and those who are supporting it are probably going to catch hell from the law-n-order crowd, but it’s important to plant the flag for sane sentencing so that we don’t turn massive percentages of the state into an unmanageable prison population.

Launching what promises to be one of the year’s fiercest debates in the Capitol, the Senate’s top Democrats on Thursday moved toward reforming California’s byzantine criminal sentencing system.

Unveiling legislation to create a sentencing review commission, Senate leader Don Perata of Oakland and Sen. Gloria Romero of Los Angeles said California should join 16 other states now revisiting the question of who goes to prison and for how long.

The lawmakers also urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to use his executive powers to create an interim working group that would begin collecting and analyzing sentencing data as early as February.

“We can’t wait,” Romero said, noting that prison overcrowding is so severe that federal judges may impose a cap on the inmate population, now at 172,000. “Public safety is not served with a broken corrections system.”

more…

Schwarzenegger has already proposed a sentencing commission, but asked them to spend their first year looking at parole guidelines, which would have no effect on the prison population in a time of crisis.  He’s constrained by a base that already hates him, who would view loosening sentencing restrictions as a final betrayal.  Democrats have little to gain from this proposal other than moving the state forward.  Surely it plays into the ridiculous stereotype conservatives hold of liberals as coddlers of criminals.  But the fact remains that the present system is incredibly dangerous, and Democrats in the legislature are being the grownups here by trying to do something about it.  Not just TALKING about it, like the Governor, but taking it out of the realm of politics and into a solutions-based environment.  There’s a rapidly approaching deadline where a federal judge will start capping the number of people in prison.  If something bold like this isn’t done, you’re going to see inmates let out of prisons in droves, and that STILL won’t solve the long-term structural problem.  Republicans want to live in this fantasy world where they can one-up each other on being “tough on crime” as if there are no real-world consequences.

In California, many experts have urged an overhaul of the sentencing system, calling it chaotic, unwieldy and complex. The nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission, which is poised to release a report on sentencing reform, found that California has added more than 1,000 laws and sentence enhancements – lengthening prison terms – over the last 30 years. Most of the changes were made by the Legislature, though some came through ballot initiatives such as the three-strikes measure of 1994.

Some critics say the state’s fixed-term sentencing system should be altered because it compels the release of inmates regardless of whether they are rehabilitated. Under such a system, there is no incentive for felons to change their lives, some scholars say.

Other experts say the biggest problem in California is a lack of uniformity, with felons convicted of the same crime receiving different sentences in different counties.

“The system we have now is a hodgepodge, and we need independent experts to help us put some sense into it,” Perata said. “Whether the Legislature has the political will to do that is another question. I’m skeptical.”

The reductio ad absurdum of this “tough on crime” pose is this shocking report from CPR about forced sterilization (you heard me right) in the prisons:

Given California’s shameful history with the forced sterilizations of thousands of people during the 20th century, you would think that bureaucrats would think twice before suggesting that the sterilization of an imprisoned woman could ever be freely chosen. And you would be wrong.

“Doing what is medically necessary” is how the Gender Responsiveness Strategies Commission of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation termed its July 18 recommendation to consider providing, in the course of delivering a baby, “elective” sterilization of women who give birth in prison, “either post-partum or coinciding with cesarean section.”

To describe a sterilization performed under such circumstances as voluntary is absurd. One’s ability to consent to sterilization, or anything else, during pregnancy and labor is limited in any setting, not to mention in a coercive environment such as a prison. Moreover, Robert Sillen, whom U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson appointed last year as federal receiver over California’ s prison health-care system, has documented that a person dies each day in California prisons due to gross medical neglect. How, in such an environment, could we trust prison staff to ensure informed consent to such a procedure?

It’s absolutely revolting, and it’s what you get when you have this dehumanization of criminals, a lack of emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, and a political environment where conservative frames on law enforcement are the only ones accepted as “serious.”

As this crisis reaches a point of no return, it’s not enough to just talk about blurring the lines on partisanship.  You have to take a stand to do something about it.  I have not been thrilled with the legislature’s performance out of the gate on health care (save for the great Sheila Kuehl).  Their response to this crisis has been solid, however, and taking stands like this will eventually resonate with the public as long as they’re able to get out the message.  I don’t think the state’s citizens are as conservative as law enforcement policy suggests.  It’s time to take back this issue, and call for sanity, call for determining consequences before action, and call for lifting up those who transgress, rather than trying to lock the problem away.

(the latest in my Courage Campaign compatriot’s ongoing series – promoted by Todd Beeton)

From The Courage Campaign

Just before the holidays, Governor Schwarzenegger outlined his plan to fix California's broken correctional system.  Prior to the Governor's announcement, and as part of our continuing series on the Governor's promises and actions, The Courage Campaign noted Schwarzenegger's stated commitment to reforming our prisons.  The Governor's early proposal shows that this issue remains near the top of the agenda for the state as we start the new year.

Follow me over the flip for details and analysis of Schwarzenegger's new proposal. 

 

The first question political analysts and pundits will ask relates to the timing of Schwarzenegger's announcement.  Why did he unveil this plan in late December and not during the State of the State Address on January 9?  Perhaps Schwarzenegger moved early on this political hot potato as a "trial balloon," a way to gauge public reaction before a major speech like the State of the State.  After considering initial response, Schwarzenegger might tweak his proposal and put revised language in the State of the State address.  Perhaps Schwarzenegger will simply avoid the highly contentious prison issue completely in the State of the State address, but this seems very unlikely given the massive and very urgent crisis in the prisons.  As Schwarzenegger stated himself, a federal takeover of California's prisons (an all-too-real possibility) would result in federally mandated and severe cuts in health care and education.  Schwarzenegger says that his plan would avoid a federal takeover.

 

The centerpiece of Schwarzenegger's proposal calls for 10.9 Billion borrowed dollars (bonds) to build enough new prison cells for 78,000 additional beds.  The very large expenditure, which would put California even further into debt, led critics like SEIU to say that the plan is "too heavy on the bricks and mortar and too light on rehabilitation and reform."

 

On rehabilitation and reform, Schwarzenegger's plan calls for a permanent, semi-independent commission to suggest changes to California's sentencing system.  Such a system would be new to California, but eighteen other states have sentencing commissions similar to the one outlined in Schwarzenegger's proposal.  This is the most progressive part of Arnold's plan, but critics say it doesn't go far enough in changing the way that the courts send people to the bursting-at-the-seams penitentiary system.

 

Most progressives suggest that any real reform must address the controversial "three strikes law," which mandates heavy sentences for a third conviction, even if the third conviction is a trivial offense.  For example, someone facing a third conviction for shoplifting a loaf of bread might face decades behind bars.  Such long sentences inevitably lead to overcrowding.  Governor Schwarzenegger said that he refuses to discuss changing three strikes and would simply reject any alterations to that law.

 

Also absent from Schwarzenegger's proposal is any mention of a cap on the prison population.  Given the severe overcrowding, in which more than 16,000 people (and counting) do not have regular prison beds to sleep on, a cap on the absolute maximum size of California's prisons seems to be absolutely necessary.  Indeed, California has already started shipping people to private prisons in far away states like Tennessee.  A cap on the prison population would be one way to force a reduction in the already-untenable size of the prison population.

 

Also getting short shrift in Schwarzenegger's plan is the defunct prison health care system.  Only about 1/10^th of Schwarzenegger's bond dollars would go to improvements for the prison health system, a system so badly broken that it's has already been taken over by federal courts.

  Clearly, the details of the plan need work.  But the larger question is one of leadership.  Last year, Schwarzenegger was accused of backing down and failing to follow through on his ideas for reforming our prisons.  We'll see if there are any changes to the plan in the State of the State, and whether Schwarzenegger can display the bold leadership necessary to move a progressive plan through the Legislature while fulfilling his promise to repair our broken prisons. 

I have to say that I don’t understand the outrage generated by this story about California prison guards earning massive amounts of overtime.  I guess it ties into the conservative culture of victimhood and the belief that someone’s always scheming to steal from them.

Here’s the deal.  Prison guards are getting a lot of overtime because they’re working a ton of hours.  Overtime is DESIGNED to increase exponentially with more hours worked.  The reason they’re working so much is that, a) inmates are stuffed into common areas where they need to be watched more closely than if they were all locked away in cells, and b) there aren’t enough guards for this extra workload.  The overtime isn’t “out of control,” as the President of the astroturf-like “National Tax Limitation Committee” said in the article; the prison system is out of control.  Would you rather there be no guards?  Would you rather everyone worked 40 hours a week and there was nobody on the job in common areas at night?

more on the flip…

The director of prisons is exactly right.

While relatively few officers are required to guard inmates housed in cells, far more are needed to watch those housed in gymnasiums and other areas not meant for sleeping, said Scott Kernan, acting director of adult prisons.

“Population is the biggest driving force” in the soaring overtime, Kernan said.

Corrections officers have a difficult job, made all the more difficult by overcrowding, gang warfare, a complete lack of health care which angers the prison population, and having to work all this overtime, which wears on anyone.  This isn’t a case of lucky-duckies living off the fat of the taxpayer.  There aren’t enough corrections officers, bottom line.  And if you want to blame somebody, blame whatever idiot thought this was a good idea:

(executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. Chuck) Alexander said the state could reduce overtime by hiring as many as 4,000 people to fill vacancies.

He blamed the guard shortage on a decision to shut the academy for new recruits for eight months in 2004.

At that time, the prison population had dipped, and some officials believed the decline would continue.

The drop turned out to be temporary.

Attorney Don Specter, director of the Prison Law Office, which is suing the state over prison crowding, agreed that the decision to shut the academy was a “mistake.”

“They don’t have enough officers to safely man the prisons,” Specter said.

I guarantee you that the Governor’s office was responsible for that stupidity.  “Hey, the population dipped for one year, let’s close the academy down!”  Brilliant!  It cuts costs, and fits a pattern of wishes turning into policy.  If we just BELIEVE that the prison population will go down some more, surely it will, right?

Meanwhile, the LA Times article from which this all comes flat-out lied about the Governor’s new plan, saying it focuses equally on building new facilities, rehabilitation and changing sentencing guidelines, while most of the money goes to building, little to rehab, and the only sentencing guidelines that will be reviewed in the first year will be parole sentences.

Gray Davis gave a very bloated contract to the prison guards’ union in exchange for campaign support, the results of which are being felt now.  Indeed it looks clear that Governor Schwarzenegger gave in to the guards’ union on whatever they wanted in an election year, and that wasn’t even enough to earn their support.  But let’s not demonize the corrections officers themselves for having to deal with a crisis that is not of their own design.

Shorter Arnold Schwarzenegger: We MUST change this system a federal judge has told us to change!

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday ordered his administration to fix problems in California’s lethal injection protocol “to ensure the death penalty procedure is constitutional.”

Schwarzenegger acted in response to a stinging decision issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, who said the state’s system “is broken, but … can be fixed.”

Fogel, who earlier visited the death chamber in San Quentin and held a four-day hearing in September, said the evidence “is more than adequate to establish” that the state’s implementation of its lethal injection procedure violates the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  The judge gave state officials 30 days to let him know what they planned to do and he urged the governor to get involved.

Why is this news? 

…by the way, time is running out, but you can still get your Arnold holiday stocking stuffers.  Good to know that the highest constitutional officer in the state sells shit on his website like he’s Bill O’Reilly.

(What is Grover Norquist so afraid of? Somebody besides corporatists with a little bit of power. It tears him up inside to see the power of collective action of CalPERS. It’s not something that should be messed with. It’s too important to the state and the global financial community. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

On Janurary 5 of 2005, Arnold proposed privatizing California’s public pension funds.  Referring to his proposal, Arnold said, “This is a national battle, like the recall was.”  He also said there will be “national money coming in to help us fight the battle”….

Pension Plans

National business groups have been upset with California’s public pension funds.  The presidents of both the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Rountable have criticized CalPERS.  One of the reasons they are upset is that CalPERS (under the leadership of Harrigan and Angelides) has been a leader in the corporate reform movement. It sued the NYSE and several specialist firms for engaging in trading manipulations.  It also sued WorldCom and Enron after their financial scandals, and it has withheld votes from directors for many businesses including Citigroup’s Sandy Weill (the banker who overturned the Glass-Steagall act).  It has divested from Sudan due to the government-backed genocide, and has lobbied the SEC to allow shareholders to nominate directors (which was vigorously opposed by the chamber).

Grover Norquist, who was an economist and chief speechwriter for the US Chamber of Commerce, said, “Just 115 people control $1 trillion in these funds. We want to take that power and destroy it.”

So on January 5 of 2005, Arnold proposed privatizing California’s public pension funds.  Referring to his proposal, Arnold said, “This is a national battle, like the recall was.”  He also said there will be “national money coming in to help us fight the battle.”

Arnold even withdrew four of his own nominees to the CalSTRS pension board after they voted against his plan.  They voted against it because the actuaries calculated that it would cost California taxpayers $5.9 billion over the next 10 years. One of the withdrawn nominees, Republican Jim Grey, said, “If you have to be in lock step, I guess I shouldn’t be one of his appointees.” 

Grover Norquist praised Arnold saying, “The governor of California has provided a useful example of things a governor can do to earn ideal ratings from Americans for Tax Reform.”  The San Francisco Chronicle reported,

“A group affiliated with Norquist sent out letters this week to Republican lawmakers across the country urging them to follow Schwarzenegger’s lead and call for pension reform in their states.”

Although Arnold backed off in 2005, Grover made it clear that they’re going after CalPERS again (similar to how Bush tried to privatize Social Security):

”Gov. Schwarzenegger has not backed away from the pressing need for a defined contribution system. He is merely responding to a small uncertainty concerning disability and survivor benefits within the current reform initiative. Gov. Schwarzenegger is slowing down, clarifying any misconceptions with his pension reform plan, and will resume his crucial push to save the retirement security of California state employees in 2006.”

Arnold has even started using Norquist’s rhetoric saying,

“Taking money out of the private sector is a no-no because we don’t want to feed the monster… We want to feed the private sector, and we want to starve the public sector.”

So Arnold cut state funding to colleges—causing tuition to rise. He also proposed to cut funding from programs for the disabled—an action that was protested by the disabled community— and for programs such as Medi-Cal.

Side note: To read more about Grover’s power go here, here, and here.  Thirty-five state legislators and 19 congressmen from California have signed Grover’s tax pledge. California signatories include Brian Bilbray, Richard Pombo, Jerry Lewis (chairman of the powerful U.S. House Appropriations Committee who’s under investigation), Duke Cunningham, Tom McClintock (running for Lt. Governor), Dick Ackerman (California Senate Minority Leader), Howard Kaloogian (Chairman of Recall Gray Davis Committee), and Jim Gilchrist (founder of the minuteman project).

VETOES

SB 698 – Media access to prisoners
1)  Current law allows the media to tour prisons and to conduct random interviews with inmates, but forbids interviews with specifically requested inmates (for more details see CDC regulations, Title 15, Section 3261.5 on page 88 of the document).

The bill Arnold vetoed would have allowed the media to conduct interviews with specifically requested inmates (with prior agreement of the inmate). The bill was authored because

“denying prisoners access to the media (and vice-versa) encourages increasing isolation of a prison system where human rights abuses can multiply freely free of public oversight.”

 

Arnold vetoed it saying, “it is important to avoid treating inmates as celebrities.”  In comparison, the Bush administration worries about PR moves while human rights abuses occur in their Guatanamo.

Did you know that California is the only state in the nation that allows segregation in its prisons? The prison system is so bad that in 2005, a judge put the California Department of Corrections under federal receivership.

AB 561-Prison Education Assessment
2) Arnold vetoed a law requiring educational assessments of prisoners and the implementation of programs to satisfy those needs.

SB 1050- Counting write in votes
3) In San Diego, a judge ruled that 5,500 ballots were invalid because voters had forgotten to fill in the oval after they had written in the name of Donna Frye (a write-in candidate).  Although Frye would have won, the judge gave the election to Republican Dick Murphy. 

The California Legislature passed a bill in response to “Bubblegate.”  It would’ve required that all write-in-votes be counted (even if the voter forgets to fill the oval). Arnold vetoed the bill explaining that it “will lead to an unnecessary delay in completing the canvass and certifying election results.”

Debra Bowen, who authored the bill, said,

“What ought to be apparent to everyone is that people who take the time to actually write in a candidate’s name deserve to have their votes counted…”

Sadly, in June 2006, San Diego passed a law barring write-in candidates from running in general elections. 

SB 469 (Bowen)- Petitioner Disclosure
4) Arnold vetoed another bill authored by Debra Bowen.  The bill would have required proposition signature gatherers to disclose the top five contributors to the effort and to disclose whether or not they are paid to collect signatures.

SB 455 –Enforcement of Pesticide Laws
5)  Current law gives county agricultural commissioners discretion to enforce pesticide laws. Arnold vetoed SB 455, which would have required “enforcement actions” to be taken for failure to protect people, animals, and property from pesticide drift contact, or for failure to provide workers with training and protective equipment.

According to coalitionforcleanair.org,

“In the year 2002, some 172 million pounds of pesticides – many highly toxic to humans – were used in the state, reports Californians for Pesticide Reform.  More than 90% of pesticides used in the state of California are prone to drift away from where they are applied and can become airborne toxins causing severe effects, including coughing, vomiting, and skin rashes, especially in children.  Long-term exposure to pesticides is linked with cancer, birth defects, spontaneous abortions, infertility, neurological illnesses and asthma.  Too often, when inspectors find violations of pesticide safety regulations they simply issue a warning and no fine… In over 40% of DPR’s 2002-03 inspections, washing supplies and protective gear were not provided for pesticide applicators and in 60% of inspections, fieldworker pesticide safety information was not provided. Also, many violations are found, but few penalties are assessed.  In fiscal year 2000-01, counties issued fines in fewer than 20% of cases where violations were confirmed.  In fiscal year 2003-04 counties found over 8,000 violations but only 582 fines for agricultural pesticide use violations and 370 fines for structural pesticide use violations were issued statewide. “

According to an article from Monteray County Weekly,

In fiscal year 2003-2004, the last year for which numbers are available, there were 112 documented pesticide-use violations in the county. Only one resulted in a civil penalty… Mendoza says it’s a simple change but one that can give a voice to fieldworkers who are afraid to come forward for fear of losing their jobs, despite the illegality of any such retaliation… She tells the story of a group of 30 workers, employed by Mesa Packing, who entered a broccoli field May 28 of last year and were exposed to a host of pesticides.“The workers shouldn’t have been in that field; they’d just sprayed it. But the employer sent them there anyway”… On another incident in August of 2004 involving a harvesting crew in Salinas working for Smith Packing, workers were exposed to pesticide drift. “Two violations were found: lack of fieldworker training and failure to provide prompt medical attention,” Mendoza says. No fines were issued. “Two months later, the same crew was exposed again. At that time, they still hadn’t received any training. Again, no fines were issued.” Ramos just wants something done to protect workers like herself. The 41-year-old single mother of four makes just over $8 an hour and has been working the fields in and around the Salinas Valley for 30 years. She’s concerned about what a lifetime of pesticide exposure will mean to her long-term health.“I am not the same since it happened,” she says of her exposure. “I have allergies now, with sneezing problems and itching. I’m different.”

Recommended Article: The New Colossus