Sentencing Law and Policy

"Slaw and Order: Hot-Dog Stand in Chicago Triggers a Frank Debate"

The title of this post is the amusing headline of this serious article from the front-page of today's Wall Street Journal.  Here is how the piece starts:

When James Andrews opened a hot-dog stand on this city's rough West Side, he thought he was doing a community service by hiring ex-convicts.  But some in the neighborhood think the name he chose -- Felony Franks -- is a crime.

An alderman has refused Mr. Andrews permission to hang a new sign or build a drive-through lane. A pastor accused the restaurant owner, who is not an ex-convict, of "pimping out" the community. Members of a neighborhood association have vowed to stay away from Felony Franks until the name is changed and the décor -- including paintings of cartoon hot dogs in prison stripes -- is removed. "I don't understand it," Mr. Andrews says. "I really don't."

The 64-year-old businessman has long employed ex-convicts at his main business, a company that supplies paper goods to restaurants.  He says he thinks people deserve a second chance and felons need stable jobs so they don't add to homelessness.  He thought of opening a hot-dog stand three years ago while driving past one. The name "Felony Franks" just popped into his head, he says.

Sunday sentencing sport: "Which elected politician said that?"

After I complete this post, I am heading down to my basement cave for a Sunday sports orgy with baseball, football and golf all vying for my attention.  Before calling it a day, I though I might provide a little sport for sentencing fans in the form of a contest to guess "Which elected politician said that?"  Here are the notable quotes:

1.  "America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life."

2.  "[T]here are thousands of non-violent offenders in the system whose future we cannot ignore.  Let’s focus more resources on rehabilitating those offenders so we can ultimately spend less money locking them up again."

3.  "We should not be resigned to allowing generation after generation to return to prison because they don’t have the tools to break the cycle.  I personally favor a number of these faith-based approaches.  But if there are other approaches, let’s try them.  This is an enormous problem, and since the ’70s, we have basically just said we’ll lock people up.”

4.  "The system has a very strong tendency to change them for the worse.  Everybody knows that, I think. Our current system is fundamentally immoral.”

5.  "I believe that we ought to be doing drug treatment rather than incarceration."

For serious sentencing fans, the first quote should be pretty easy.  And, as a hint for the others, I will add that the elected politicians who said these things are all members of the same political party.  The answers (and other notable quotes) can be found in this document, which I discovered thanks to Scott at Grits for Breakfast.

ABA hosting second annual "Sentencing Advocacy, Practice & Reform Institute"

I just received this notice of a great sentencing event taking place in DC in early November:

The ABA Criminal Justice Section, in cooperation with our co-sponsors, is proud to present a one-day seminar to address a broad array of sentencing and reentry issues, with a particular emphasis on sentencing practice in white-collar cases.  The conference will examine sentencing and reentry trends and opportunities for reform at both the federal and state levels.

The program will begin with a plenary session on the state of the sentencing union including rates of incarceration, sentencing trends, racial disparity, alternatives to incarceration, and recent federal legislation.  There will be two tracks of instruction focused on reentry and two focused on sentencing, each addressing issues of concern to different segments of the criminal justice community, including probation and parole officials, white collar crime defense attorneys, prosecutors, academics, public defenders, judges, sentencing consultants, mitigation specialists, corrections personnel, victim advocates and policy experts.  One track will focus on practice and procedure issues of particular concern to criminal defense attorneys in general and white collar practitioners in particular.

Confirmed speakers include Jeremy Travis, President of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the U. S. Sentencing Commission.  The second annual conference is hoped to again attract a broad cross-section of those involved in perhaps the most pressing criminal justice issues of our time.

Click on this link here for complete brochure.

The extra re-entry challenges for sex offenders after the Garrido case

The AP has this interesting new article headlined "California case casts harsh spotlight on sex offenders." Here is how it starts:

After being locked away for 25 years for sex crimes, Donald Robinson moved to a little block of unassuming homes in this city on the San Francisco Peninsula on Aug. 27. The timing couldn't have been worse. It was the day after Philip Garrido was arrested just 40 miles away on charges that he kidnapped 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard and held her captive for 18 years despite his long criminal record as a sex offender.

Police distributed fliers in Robinson's new neighborhood, alerting residents that he was living there. He has been targeted by a protest rally organized by the mayor and daily picketing outside his house. And the state is paying two security guards $800 a day each to protect him.

Robinson's case underscores just how hard it is for the government to move sex offenders back into society, especially at a time there is widespread outrage over the Garrido case and the missed opportunities to catch him. It's an issue that communities around the country have faced in an era when community notification laws in all 50 states let residents know where sex offenders live.

Looking at collateral consequences from "race and dignity" perspective

I just noticed on SSRN this new piece, titled "Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Confronting Issues of Race and Dignity," by Michael Pinard. Here is the abstract:

This article explores the racial dimensions of the various collateral consequences that attach to criminal convictions in the United States. The consequences include ineligibility for public and government-assisted housing, public benefits and various forms of employment, as well as civic exclusions such as ineligibility for jury service and felon disenfranchisement. To test its hypothesis that these penalties, both historically and contemporarily, are rooted in race, the article looks to England and Wales, Canada and South Africa. These countries have criminal justice systems similar to the United States’, have been influenced significantly by United States’ criminal justice practices in recent years, have turned to increasingly punitive punishment schemes and have histories of disproportionately incarcerating people of color. This article is the first that offers a detailed comparative examination of collateral consequences. The examination finds that the consequences in the United States are harsher and more pervasive than those in these other countries. It also shows that Canada and South Africa have articulated broad dignity protections for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals that are influenced by human rights notions of rights and privileges. Canada, in particular, has employed mechanisms to ease racial disparities in incarceration. Drawing lessons from these countries, the article offers steps to ease the legal burdens placed on individuals with criminal records in the United States, as well as to lessen the disproportionate impact these post-sentence consequences have on individuals and communities of color.

Uniform Law Commission passes important act concerning collateral consequences

As detailed in this press release, earlier this summer the Uniform Law Commission finalized and approved the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act.  Here is some background and the basic details from the release:

 [This Act] addresses the consequences of the conviction of a crime that are imposed by law in addition to direct penalties imposed by the judge. Traditionally, offenders are sentenced to fines, probation, and jail or prison terms. When this punishment is complete, as far as the criminal justice system is concerned, the offender has done the time and repaid his or her debt to society. However, today’s offenders learn — often too late — that they have only begun to suffer the consequences of their convictions after they have served their sentences. More and more, states are imposing subsequent penalties and disabilities on those convicted of particular crimes. These “collateral consequences” are in addition to those imposed at sentencing.  The sanctions vary from state to state, but they generally relate to restrictions on voting, occupational licensing, vehicle licensing, firearm restrictions, offender registration, and public benefits.  Preliminary studies show that, in many states, literally hundreds of these consequences may apply.  Unlike direct consequences of conviction, collateral consequences are often unknown, may prove devastating, and often last a lifetime.

To deal with this issue, the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act was approved by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) at its 118th Annual Meeting.... The provisions of the Uniform Act are largely procedural, and designed to rationalize and clarify polices and provisions which are already widely accepted in the states.

The Act includes provisions to ensure that defendants are aware of the existence of collateral sanctions before conviction, are reminded of them at release, govern the effect of out of state convictions, and provide limited means by which some offenders may obtain relief from many such consequences.

More details and documents concerning these issues can be found on this page at the website of The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

This new Act is especially timely and important as policy-makers consider reforming their sentencing laws in light of budget woes and as everyone focuses more on ways to improve prisoner reentry.  In addition, the important case of Padilla v. Kentucky (SCOTUSwiki coverage here), which concerns a defense lawyer's obligation to inform a defendant of certain consequences of pleading guilty, could have a big impact on how states and lawyers can and should be approaching these issues.

Federal felon Michael Vick allowed to return to work in NFL

Though it is pehaps too soon to call this latest news from the NFL evidence of a successful prisoner reentry, it is notable (and I think appropriate) that Michael Vick will be able to try to play professional football again now that he has completed his federal prison term.  Here are the basics:

Michael Vick can make a conditional return to the National Football League, about two years after he was indefinitely suspended after pleading guilty to federal dogfighting charges.

Vick can practice immediately and play in the preseason’s final two games, if he can find a team that will hire him, the NFL said in a news release.  Commissioner Roger Goodell will consider allowing Vick to play in regular season games by mid-October, the sixth week of the regular season. “My decision at that time will be based on reports from outside professionals, your probation officer and others charged with supervision your activities,” Goodell said in a letter to Vick.  “This step-by-step approach is not meant to be a further punishment and should not be viewed as such. Instead it is intended to maximize the prospect that you can successfully resume your career and your life.”

Important research that could help with reentry efforts

This new article in USA Today, which is headlined "Study could ease concerns over hiring ex-offenders," provides a report on a new study that has the potential to help reentry efforts for ex-offenders.  Here are the basics: 

A study funded by the Justice Department concludes that over time accused robbers, burglars and batterers pose no greater risk to employers than job candidates in the general population.

In a review of 88,000 arrestees in New York state, Carnegie Mellon University investigators found, for example, that after about 7 1/2 years the "hazard rate" for an 18-year-old first-time arrestee for robbery declined to the same rate as an 18-year-old in the general population.  For 18-year-olds arrested for aggravated assault, it took about four years to reduce the risk.  Hazard rates are calculated based on the time the suspect remains free from re-arrest. The calculation also accounts for the fact that risk of arrest generally declines with age.

"We believe that our analysis provides the criminal justice community with the first scientific method for estimating how long is long enough for someone with a prior record" to no longer be considered a special risk, according to the study authored by Carnegie Mellon criminologist Alfred Blumstein.   Blumstein and other criminal justice analysts say the ongoing research could ease employers' concerns about hiring former offenders and perhaps spark new legislative proposals to limit the liability for employers who do hire them....

The Society for Human Resource Management estimates that 80% of U.S. employers perform background checks. An estimated 74 million criminal records were contained in automated databases across the U.S., according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Computerized criminal records can have long memories, and this (study) is intended to provide guidance for imposing some limits to that memory," Blumstein says.

The study focused on three offenses — robbery, burglary and aggravated assault — because they represented some of the largest sample numbers. Murder was not included in the report and will not be part of future reports, because, Blumstein says, "nobody fully redeems a murderer."

"People are finally starting to get it. They would rather see people working, than to shut people out," says Veronica Ballard, a vice president of the Safer Foundation, which helps ex-offenders find work.

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., a sponsor of the Second Chance Act legislation designed to re-integrate offenders back into society, says any measure that might encourage potential employers to hire ex-offenders is a "powerful" tool.

USA Patrick Fitzgerald urges business leaders to hire felons

A helpful reader sent me this notable item from the Chicago papers, which is headlined " Fitzgerald: Fight crime by hiring felons: U.S. attorney says business could help cut murder rate, hire teens as interns."  Here are excerpts:

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald stood before a room packed with business officials Thursday and asked them to do something they probably have never considered: Hire felons.

Not exactly the kind of request you'd expect from the area's top federal law enforcement official, who's better known for locking up criminals. But Fitzgerald told the audience that while law enforcement targets the worst of the worst, the community needs to get more involved -- especially the business community -- to help drive down murder numbers and keep kids out of gangs.

Fitzgerald, speaking at a City Club of Chicago luncheon, said on any given day there are 4,000 Chicago Police officers on the streets and an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 gang-bangers in the city. "How in the world can we incarcerate our way out of the problem when we are outnumbered that much?" Fitzgerald said.

Part of the answer, he said, lies with corporations, who can help sponsor after-school programs or enlist teenagers from the projects to be summer interns -- or even hire felons. He urged business officials to reach out and invest in some of the most economically depressed areas of the city, such as Englewood, Back of the Yards or North Lawndale. They can do that, Fitzgerald said, by getting involved in Project Safe Neighborhoods, a program run through the U.S. attorney's office in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies....

Fitzgerald said research has shown that parolees who have attended a one-hour forum held by Project Safe Neighborhoods are 30 percent less likely to return to jail. The forum gives parolees job options and warns them that they'll be thrown back in prison if they cross the line.

Are there broader lessons to be drawn from Michael Vick's up-coming prisoner reentry story?

I cannot listen to sport radio without being reminded of an interesting criminal justice story unfolding this week: Michael Vick is scheduled to be released from the federal prison in Leavenworth after serving about 19 months of his 23-month federal sentence.  This local article provides some of the high-profile re-entry details for Vick:

When Michael Vick gets out of prison later this week, he'll join about 120,000 other federal ex-cons under court-ordered supervision.  Statistics show that about a third will end up back in prison.

Vick is scheduled to leave the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., either Wednesday or Thursday.  He'll arrive in Hampton [Virginia] and be immediately placed in home confinement.  A federal community corrections officer will be able to monitor his every move, with the help of an electronic tracking device.

Felicia Ponce, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, said Vick will have to follow a strict set of rules. Some of the rules will be standard, such as a curfew, and some tailored for him. "They look at the individual's security needs, and they develop a plan to help them integrate back into the community," she said.

Being on home confinement isn't the "peaches and cream that people think it is," said local defense attorney Andrew Protogyrou. "You're not allowed to go out to dinner. You're not allowed to go to a friend's house. The probation officer drops by unexpectedly. There is no freedom other than what the probation officer says you can do."...

Vick will live, at least initially, at 21 Haywagon Trail, Hampton, with his fiancee, Kijafa Frink, and their children.  He'll be allowed to travel to his job with the construction firm W.M. Jordan Co. and to his probation appointments and court appearances.

His attorneys say he plans to perform volunteer community service, even though the court has not obligated that.  He wanted to work for Habitat for Humanity, but the nonprofit denied his request. "We evaluated the request but have determined that we will not have a suitable work site available at the time of his release from prison," said Janet V. Green, executive director of Habitat's Peninsula office....

While he is free, Vick must remain on his best behavior.  When his two months of confinement are up, he'll be free, but on three years of supervised release, or probation, which comes with new rules and restrictions.

Standard conditions include not being able to travel outside of eastern Virginia without approval, maintaining employment, staying away from known criminals, and meeting with his probation officer regularly.   The judge who sentenced Vick also ordered additional conditions prohibiting him from incurring debt and mandating participation in a substance abuse treatment program. In addition, the judge ordered Vick not to "engage in the purchase, possession or sale of any canine."  If Vick violates the terms of his supervision, he could be sent back to prison for the remainder of the three years he's on probation. 

Not discussed in this article, but the topic of lots of other media attention, is whether NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will lift Vick's indefinite suspension and also which NFL team will give Vick a second chance on his football career.  Notably, according to this blog post, ESPN has wall-to-wall coverage planned for Vick's prison release.

As hinted in the title to this post, I think there are a lot of interesting (and blog-worthy) reentry stories related to this high-profile case.  But, because Vick is a unique person who committed a unique set of federal crimes, these stories may not have much broader relevance.  So, dear readers, I ask you to help me figure out whether I ought to join ESPN in doing wall-to-wall coverage or should instead just leave this story to the sports pages.

"We Deserve Our Lives Back"

The title of this post is the name of this website.  Here is its mission statement:

We Deserve Our Lives Back is a non-profit organization established to locate bills/laws that work in conjunction with second chance agencies in providing a re-entry plateau for ex-offenders.  Our mission is to reduce recidivism by conversing, petitioning and sharing information through media outlets.  Our efforts need your assistance, we are one, yet together we are many, who deserve to have our lives back.  Gainful and meaningful employment is a stepping stone but a career is what we strive to regain.  We don’t ask that you level the playing field, we just want the opportunity to play.

Here is the start of the text of an e-mail I received asking me to spotlight this website in conjunction with an effort to generate support for a federal bill to enable expungement of a federal conviction:

I am writing to solicit your organization's support on behalf of the thousands of young men and women who, having been convicted of a Federal Felony and, regardless of the sentence handed down by the courts and having “paid their debt to society”, are also being handed a hidden life sentence that is not a part of any judicial proceeding. There is currently no appeal process for this life sentence.

I am speaking of the first time, non-violent offender who, due to the current federal policy, must spend the rest of their lives bearing the stigma of a federal felony conviction. Some of these offenders are only sentenced to probationary periods of six to twelve months so little was their involvement. Yet they must suffer the same life sentence as one who committed a much more serious violent crime. This is not justice.

Under current federal law, punishment for a felony offense amounts to a life sentence even though the offender has supposedly “paid his full debt to society.” Most, if not all, states provide a path for the expungement of criminal records for non-violent offenders when certain requirements are met.... In the case of a federal charge, no such avenues exist. Once a person is convicted of a federal felony their record cannot be expunged, not even by Presidential pardon. This is one of the most unjust and unfair practices in this country. A first time, non-violent offender who has paid their full debt deserves a second chance....

Therefore I am asking that your organization support H. R. 1529 sponsored by Congressman Charles Rangel. Previous versions of this bill have been allowed to die in committee. This cannot be to happen again. This is one of the most human and humane pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. The positive impact of this bill is incalculable. It is only right and just that federal law also allow former offenders the ability to lead productive lives without the stigma of a felony conviction haunting and handicapping them for the rest of their life.

Please post a link on your site to "We Deserve Our Lives Back," where a petition may be signed in support of this bill.  Urge your members to follow this with personal letters, e-mail and phone calls to their individual representative. Contact information for all members of congress can be found at the following site. You may also contact your representative through this site.

The concept of “permanent punishment” with no hope of restoration for a non-violent first offender is void of any of the commonly held concepts of fairness.  Compassion and mercy should not be viewed as being “soft on crime.”

"Rethinking Drug Courts: Restorative Justice as a Response to Racial Injustice"

The title of this post os the title of a new forthcoming article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review from Michael O'Hear. The piece is up at SSRN at this link, and here is the abstract:

Specialized drug treatment courts have become a popular alternative to more punitive approaches to the "war on drugs," with nearly 2,000 such courts now established across the United States. One source of their appeal is the belief that they will ameliorate the dramatic racial disparities in the nation's prison population -- disparities that result in large measure from the long sentences handed out for some drug crimes in conventional criminal courts. However, experience has shown that drug courts are not a "do-no-harm" innovation.  Drug courts can produce both winners and losers when compared to conventional court processing, and there are good reasons to suspect that black defendants are considerably less likely to benefit from the implementation of a drug court than white defendants. 

As a result, drug courts may actually exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, racial disparities in the incarceration rate for drug crimes.  Thus, the concerns of inner-city minority communities with the war on drugs may be better addressed through a different sort of innovation: a specialized restorative justice program for drug offenders.  Although treatment may be part of such a program, the real centerpiece is the "community conferencing" process, which involves mediated dialogue and collective problem-solving involving drug offenders and community representatives.  Where the drug treatment court gives a dominant role to criminal justice and therapeutic professionals, the community conferencing approach empowers lay community representatives, and is thereby capable of addressing some of the social capital deficits that plague inner-city minority communities with high crime and incarceration rates.

Linking education and corrections in battling recidivism

A couple of recent pieces in notable general-interest publications provide yet another opportunity to see the links between effective educational programs and effective corrections programs:

• From the New York Times here, "Read a Book, Get Out of Jail"
• From The New Republic here, "Con Ed: Reading 'Lolita' in the Big House"

I wish we could make all politicians read these articles whenever they are considering the latest "tough-on-crime" legislative proposal or when they are thinking about what prison programs to cut during these tough economic times.

Looking for hope and change in the DOJ part of the Obama budget

Via whitehouse.gov, I discovered that the full text of the budget for Fiscal Year 2010 is on the website of the Office of Management and Budget.  And here is a link to a few pages discussing funding for the Department of Justice, which starts this way:

The President’s Budget for the Department of Justice (DOJ) is $26.5 billion.  The Budget addresses the key priorities of the President and the Attorney General, including those for National Security and crime fighting programs in the FBI and other DOJ components, to include resources for combating financial fraud and protecting the public interest.  The Budget funds the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program, ensures that prison and detention programs are adequately funded, to include prisoner reentry programs, reinvigorates Federal civil rights enforcement, and increases border security.

Here is the specific discussion of reentry funding in the DOJ document:

Expands Prisoner Reentry Programs. The Budget includes $109 million for prisoner reentry programs, including an additional $75 million for the Office of Justice Programs to expand grant programs authorized by the Second Chance Act that provide counseling, job training, drug treatment, and other transitional assistance to former prisoners.

Because I have never been a budget maven, I am not sure whether or how these numbers might reflect "change we can believe in."  But, since all the hope and change talk has been slow to come to discussions of the federal criminal justice system, I doubt this budget portends any significant changes from the status quo with regard to federal crime and punishment issues.

An Ohio example of how the prison economy budget can mix up the usual political rhetoric

In my own home state of Ohio, a very tight budget and a growing prison population have created a fascinating and dynamic set of political and practical conversations about state sentencing reform.  This local article today, headlined "Seitz offers plan for prison reform: Overcrowding strains budgets," details some of the on-going debate and reveals why we are not quite seeing politics as usual:

State Sen. Bill Seitz says sweeping prison reform is the only way to reduce overcrowding and ease strain on Ohio's incarceration budget.  The conservative Green Township Republican last week introduced Senate Bill 22, which would allow more minor offenders to be sentenced to community programs, give more good-time credit to inmates, give the parole authority the ability to deal with parole violators and create sentencing alternatives for parents convicted of failing to pay child support.

"While it is important that the Legislature continues to pass strong laws to help keep our communities safe, this effort must be balanced with policies that work to responsibly reduce Ohio's prison population and its financial impact on taxpayers across the state," Seitz said....

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters stopped short of criticizing a fellow Republican, but said the bill would compromise safety and if the budget needs relief, cuts should be made elsewhere. "The problem with any of these laws is they are entirely budget driven, and not safety driven," Deters said.

"Bill is one of the best legislators I have ever met, he is very smart and he is looking for ways to get money out of the budget, but he is looking in the wrong place," Deters said. "The first job of government is to protect its citizens, and a viable prison system is critical to community safety."

Seitz, who served nearly eight years in the Ohio house before moving to the Senate in 2007, said reform has been needed for years. But the budget crisis means the legislature has to act now, he said.

Seitz's bill mirrors proposals by the [Democratic] Strickland administration.  Gov. Ted Strickland's two-year budget, which must be passed by June 30, proposes spending $3.65 billion in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to run prisons. Collins said there is about $10 million in the state budget for counties to fund community-correction programs, including halfway houses....

The Seitz bill varies slightly from Strickland's proposal, reducing earned credit to five days a month instead of seven. Violent offenders and sex offenders would not be eligible for good-time credits. "There are many things for Democrats and Republicans to fight about in this budget," Seitz said. "I hope this is not one of them."

Seitz said the reforms do not compromise safety. "We all want to increase the penalties for this and that," Seitz said. "And it might be warranted, but where is the money? The prison budget has been cut, cut, cut." Something has to give, he added....

Seitz said sentencing disparities for people convicted of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine crimes must be corrected, that judges need more authority over judicial release, and that inmates at the end of their sentences should transition into community-based correctional facilities....

Hearings could start as soon as next month, Seitz said. "Until people put their money where their mouth is on criminal sentences, there is no other choice," Seitz said.

Another prominent federal felon gets prominent TV gig

I always find it interesting how easy it is for the rich and famous to move past federal felony convictions.  Martha Stewart, some may recall, made lots of money during her incarceration because her company's stock rose significant while she served her federal prison sentence.  And Stewart's television show is still going strong.

Now, according to this news report, headlined "Rapper Lil' Kim joins 'Dancing with the Stars'," another well-known federal felon is going to get some notable post-release screen time:

Grammy-award winning rapper Lil' Kim, Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson and former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor will hit the floor for "Dancing With the Stars" when the show returns for an 8th season in March, ABC said on Monday....

Johnson, 17, who won an Olympic gold medal at the Beijing games in 2008, is the youngest ever competitor on the hit show which returns with a two-hour season premiere on March 9.

Singer and actress Lil' Kim, 33, spent a year in prison in 2005 after being found guilty of perjury and conspiracy for lying about the involvement of her friends in a 2001 shooting in New York....

"Dancing With the Stars" has proved a ratings smash for ABC.  Its last season, which ended in September 2008, drew about 19 million viewers per episode.

It is nice to see that at least some prominent persons do not have their lives completely changed by federal felony convictions (though, as regular readers know, apparently these felons forever lost their Second Amendment rights by virtue of their convictions).  Perhaps Stewart and Lil' Kim can become official celebrity endorsers of the federal Second Chance Act.

Latest faith-based executive order briefly mentions prisoner re-entry

As detailed in this CNN piece, President Barack Obama issued this executive order today to rename and rework the White House's faith-based office.  I was heartened to see the order included this little shout-out (highlighted by me below) for faith-based re-entry programming in the "policy" section of the executive order:

Faith-based and other neighborhood organizations are vital to our Nation's ability to address the needs of low-income and other underserved persons and communities. The American people are key drivers of fundamental change in our country, and few institutions are closer to the people than our faith-based and other neighborhood organizations. It is critical that the Federal Government strengthen the ability of such organizations and other nonprofit providers in our neighborhoods to deliver services effectively in partnership with Federal, State, and local governments and with other private organizations, while preserving our fundamental constitutional commitments guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws and the free exercise of religion and forbidding the establishment of religion.  The Federal Government can preserve these fundamental commitments while empowering faith-based and neighborhood organizations to deliver vital services in our communities, from providing mentors and tutors to school children to giving ex-offenders a second chance at work and a responsible life to ensuring that families are fed. 

I hope that, in addition to recognizing the valuable role played by faith-based re-entry programming, the Obama Administration will also voice support for the faith-based prison movement.

Some related posts on faith-based prison programs:

• Is faith the best thing to happen to prisons since ... the faithful started prisons?
• Interesting Ohio report on correctional faith-based initiatives
• Another report tentatively praising faith-based prisons
• The virtues of faith-based prisons
• Interesting examination of faith-based prison movement
• A thoughtful, but disappointing, attack on a faith-based prison program
• Religion, sentencing and corrections
• Having faith in prisons
• Say hallelujah for new faith-based prison scholarship
• Will the Obama Administration embrace and promote the faith-based prison movement?

Encouraging decarceration story out of New Hampshire

This local story from New Hampshire provide a nice reminder that not all government official at all levels want to increase incarceration.  The piece is headlined, "Worthy inmates may get sentence break," and it highlights efforts by the state's top corrections official to get some individuals out of prison earlier:

The state's top prison official said yesterday he is putting new emphasis on helping worthy inmates win a suspension of part of their sentences. State law allows the commissioner of corrections to intercede when an inmate wants to ask for a sentence suspension, but may not have been in prison long enough to qualify under the law.

Corrections Commissioner William Wrenn said he is using that power to help convince inmates to continue their education and obtain a high school diploma or equivalency while they are in prison. "All the studies out there say the higher level of education that somebody achieves, the less likely they are to recidivate," he said. "So we work hard to motivate them to try and get that diploma."

Corrections Department data shows about four out of five state prisoners dropped out of high school before earning a diploma. 

Wrenn's idea could save the state money. The average cost to house a prison inmate is $30,000 a year.  Like commissioners at other state agencies, Wrenn is under orders to cut his budgets for the next two years....

State truth-in-sentencing laws don't allow prisoners time off for good behavior. They do allow an inmate to ask the judge who imposed his sentence to suspend part of it, but only after serving the greater of four years or two-thirds of the minimum term. The same law allows Wrenn to forward a petition to the judge when he thinks it's justified.

Wrenn said some cases may warrant review before four years are up, but he is not about to install a revolving door in the prison walls..... "We're saying to inmates, 'Look, if you do lot of positive things in an attempt to change your behavior and the drivers of your behavior, and you're doing positive stuff, then we'll give you an opportunity to take your case back to a judge for a review.'"...

Corrections spokesman Jeffrey Lyons said that in 2007, less than 48 percent of 2,800 inmates had a diploma. During the year, 13 earned a high school diploma and 93 got a GED.

Wrenn hopes to boost those figures.... "Anything we can do to safely and with low risk to allow somebody back into the community, I think it is worthwhile," Wrenn said.

It is not surprising that tight budget times are leading some state corrections officials to look for creative and progressive ways to reduce incarceration costs.  Indeed, given that we still see so few politicians willing to break away from the old "tough-on-crime" thinking, the themes of "cost-effective-on-crime" may be the best hope toward moving away from expensive over-reliance on imprisonment in our nation's criminal justice systems.

"Putting Public Safety First"

The title of this post is the title of this new report from Pew Public Safety Performance Project.  Here is the text of an e-mail I received today about this report: 

A new policy brief from the Pew Public Safety Performance Project highlights community corrections strategies that can help policy makers and practitioners improve public safety and make better use of scarce public funds.  Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful Supervision and Reentry is part of an ongoing series of policy briefs published by The Pew Center on the States.  The 13 strategies outlined in this brief were the consensus findings from two meetings of national experts held over the past year by the Urban Institute, in collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the JEHT Foundation.

This briefing is a companion piece to a longer report produced by the Urban Institute with the support of the JEHT Foundation, NIC and the Bureau of Justice Assistance.  The report includes examples from the field and describes each of the 13 strategies in more detail....

We hope you can use this policy brief to help make the case for more cost-effective corrections in your work with policy makers and managers.

BET special on felon disenfranchisement issues

As detailed in this item from the Sentencing Project, BET News has a special segment running this weekend on felon disenfranchisement.  Here is a description of the program:

In “Locked Out: Ex-Cons and the Vote,” BET News correspondent Samson Styles investigates how disenfranchisement laws affect African-American turnout at the polls.  As one of the 5.3 million people in America who has lost the right to vote due to a criminal conviction, Styles sets out on a journey to regain his own voting rights, explore the state-to-state differences of disfranchisement laws, and investigate the national effects of such legislature. "Locked Out: Ex-Cons and the Vote" airs Friday at 11:30 p.m. and Sunday at 1:30 p.m.