GOP support for early release in AZ legislature this year...

Shocking. Even the GOP in the Senate isnt completely on board with Chuck Ryan's plan for new prisons...

------------

GOP legislator pushes Arizona bill to relieve prison crowding

Share Story

By Associated Press,   |  KTAR NEWS

February 6, 2015 @ 2:00 pm

 

PHOENIX -- A Republican state senator is pushing a bill to release thousands of non-violent inmates early in a bid to save money and ease pressure on crowded prisons.

Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott, said the legislation would expand an existing Department of Corrections program to help prisoners transition into daily life with services including counseling, case management and substance-abuse treatment.

The bill comes at a time when Gov. Doug Ducey's executive budget calls for $40 million for a new prison with 3,000 beds. Pierce said the size of the project could cost $70 million per year.

Arizona housed more than 42,000 inmates last year, and the Department of Corrections expects to add nearly 1,000 prisoners per year through 2016.

During that time, the Department of Corrections released 943 inmates through its three-month transition program and saved nearly $1 million, according to an annual report by the agency.

Senate Bill 1390 seeks to increase the number of inmates placed in the program to a minimum of 3,500 prisoners in the first year, and 5,000 in the second year. The program would serve low-risk, non-violent offenders and exclude those convicted of driving under the influence, sex offenses, arson or domestic violence.

Pierce said his bill would save the state money and avoid having to build another prison.

"We are spending an awful lot of money putting people and keeping people in jail that are non-violent criminals," he said. "I think more people need to be in treatment than in jail." 
The program has already proven to reduce the rate of return offenders compared with the general population, Pierce said.

When asked if the bill would provide a cost-effective alternative to building a new prison, the governor's office said it had not yet reviewed the legislation.

Corrections Department spokesman Doug Nick said the agency is aware of the legislation and monitoring it as the bill moves through the Legislature, but did not provide further comment.

Konopnicki: Evidence demands AZ re-visits Truth-in-Sentencing.

Great opinion piece from Bill Konopnicki in the Arizona Republic today...

------------------------

State can save money by reducing prison population

Bill Konopnicki  (March 3, 2012)

If in 2002 Arizonans were asked whether they'd like to move investments in our three great universities to prisons, they'd likely give a resounding "no!"

Yet that's exactly what we've done. In 2002, Arizona invested 40 percent more in universities than corrections. Ten years later the incarceration rate has risen, while universities have been severely cut, and the state is spending 40 percent more on prisons than universities.

Politicians harp on being "tough on crime," but we really need to be "smart on crime." States across the country are realizing they can improve public safety, enhance the likelihood of inmates reintegrating into society, and save money by reducing incarceration. We've already seen evidence of this in Arizona.

For the first time since we've kept prison statistics, Arizona has experienced a modest decline in its prison population. The reason has been evidence-based practices with our probation population, reducing those sent to prison. The Safe Communities Act of 2008, a bipartisan effort, sponsored by then State Sen. John Huppenthal, a Republican, gave county probation agencies incentives to reduce crime and violations rather than return offenders into state custody.

Under the law, offenders earn 20 days off their probation term for every month they meet all of their obligations, including payment of victim restitution if it was ordered. The Grand Canyon Institute's latest report "Reducing Incarceration Costs While Maintaining Public Safety," notes that in Maricopa County alone the drop in probation revocations to prison saved taxpayers $27 million annually over costs in 2008.

The Institute's report using classifications from a report written for the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council identifies that nearly 20 percent of our current prison population are nonviolent offenders at low risk for recidivism.

When I chaired an Arizona House Alternatives to Sentencing Workgroup in 2003, I called many prison wardens, and each one told me they could identify a couple hundred inmates who could be safely released. Our report estimates if low risk nonviolent offenders through good behavior and participation in education, vocational and treatment programs earned reduced prison time and moved into community supervision with appropriate follow up, the state of Arizona could save between $30 million and $73 million annually, depending on how eligibility was structured.

But to do that we have to revisit "Truth in Sentencing" for nonviolent offenders. Arizona is the only state that forces nonviolent offenders, regardless of risk, to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence behind bars. Mississippi was the only other state to also treat nonviolent offenders this way, and in 2001 and again in 2008, they changed paths and paroled thousands of nonviolent offenders, saving Mississippi about $200 million without impacting public safety.

The math is pretty simple. It costs $20,000 to incarcerate a nonviolent offender, but less than $4,500 to provide community supervision, often with electronic monitoring, and drug treatment and testing to the same person.

The alternative is continuing to build prisons. Gov. Jan Brewer proposed spending five times more on prison construction than on building schools this coming fiscal year.

Our prisons can be a revolving door. Last year, 19,055 people left the Arizona Department of Corrections and another 18,759 people replaced them. At least three in four have significant substance-abuse issues, yet last year only 1,810 received treatment. It's no wonder that repeat offenders make up seven out of every 10 inmates.

Arizona needs to adopt evidence-based practices that move us in a fiscally prudent manner that would enable our investments in universities to climb without imperiling public safety.

Former State Rep. Bill Konopnicki is a board member for the Grand Canyon Institute, a centrist think tank.

Arizona Prisoners: "Early Release" 2010.

A lot of people have been looking for information lately about the "early release" of state prisoners - specifically hoping that some will be paroled after serving only 65%, instead of the currently mandated 85%, of their sentence. I'm sorry to say, that doesn't appear to be what the deal is. That would require major sentence reform that the state legislature hasn't been willing to undertake in recent years.

It appears as if during one of the special sessions this past year, however, the legislature passed a bill which gave the Az Department of Corrections' Director, Charles Ryan, considerable leeway to release low-risk prisoners early as a means of easing the pressure on the budget. On October 1, 2010, Ryan issued a memo in response to this which details who might be eligible under what circumstances for what the rest of us tend to call "early release".

Here's the link to that memo, (also known as a Director's Instruction): DI#288. As best I can tell, no one's sentences are getting cut short, but you need to read it for yourself to determine how it applies to the situation you're involved in. It looks to me like the ADC is just cutting a handful of people loose from their parole tail so they go straight into their receiving county's hands for a term of probation, but I could be missing something.

Try using the current ADC Constituent Services Guidebook as a supplement to figure this out - if nothing else, it will direct you to the folks at the ADC central office who can better answer your questions.

Getting sentencing reform legislation next session is going to be hard. If you're the friend of family member of a prisoner, or otherwise interested in organizing with others on the issue of sentence reform and reduction, contact me soon. We have a better shot at it if we work together and draw in other members of our communities being decimated by the practice of mass incarceration and the lack of meaningful "correctional" programming going on during or after one's term of imprisonment. My contact info is in the side column of this page.

Sorry I don't have better news and didn't get this in your hands sooner. If anyone learns different from investigating this further, please contact me. If you write it up for us I'll post it as a guest blog.

Thanks,

Peg

Mother's Day, Sentencing, and the War on Drugs.

Women in Prison: Fact Sheet


The Issue: Sentencing and the War on Drugs


Amnesty International-USA (2007)


The Department of Justice found that women were over represented among low level drug offenders who were non-violent, had minimal or no prior criminal history, and were not principal figures in criminal organizations or activities, but nevertheless received sentences similar to “high level” drug offenders under the mandatory sentencing policies. From 1986 to 1996 the number of women sentenced to state prison for drug crimes increased ten-fold. Nationally one in three women in prison and one in four women in jail are incarcerated for violating a drug law. (Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoners in 1997)


· According to The Boston Globe, "nearly 26% of the nearly 2000 men and women crowding Massachusetts prisons for drug crimes are first-time offenders…. Worse, nearly three out of four drug traffickers who do get charged in major cases, but agree to forfeit substantial drug money to prosecutors, bargain their way out of the long sentences…. The result: those with no money or information to trade face the hard mandatory sentences."


· From 1986 to 1996, the number of women sentenced to state prison for drug crimes increased from 2,370 to 23,700. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington DC Prisoners in 1997)


· In 1986, 12.0% of women in prison were drug offenders. In 1991, 32.8% of women in prison were incarcerated for drug offenses. (Women in Prison, Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. US Department of Justice, March 1994, NCJ 145321)


The Issue: Sexual Assault and Misconduct Against Women in Prison


The imbalance of power between inmates and guards involves the use of direct physical force and indirect force based on the prisoners’ total dependency on officers for basic necessities and the guards’ ability to withhold privileges. Some women are coerced into sex for favors such as extra

food or personal hygiene products, or to avoid punishment.


· Powerlessness and Humiliation

There are 148,200 women in state and federal prisons. In federal women’s correctional facilities, 70% of guards are male. Records show correctional officials have subjected female inmates to rape, other sexual assault, sexual extortion, and groping during body searches. Male correctional officials watch women undressing, in the shower or the toilet. Male correctional officials retaliate, often brutally, against female inmates who complain about sexual assault and harassment


· Retaliation and Fear

In many states guards have access to and are encouraged to review the inmates’ personal history files (this includes any record of complaints against themselves or other prison authorities). Guards threaten the prisoner’s children and visitation rights as a means of silencing the women. Guards issue rule infraction tickets, which extend the woman’s stay in prison if she speaks out. Prisoners who complain are frequently placed in administration segregation.


· Impunity

Ineffective formal procedures, legislation and reporting capacity within US jails and prisons account for much of the ongoing sexual abuse of women. In 1997, according to the US Justice Department only 10 prison employees in the entire federal system were disciplined, and only 7 were prosecuted. If a prison official is found guilty, he is often simply transferred (“walked off the yard”) to another facility instead of being fired. The inmate may also be transferred.


The Issue: Medical Neglect of Women in US Prisons

Women are denied essential medical resources and treatments, especially during times of pregnancy and/or chronic and degenerative diseases.


· Failure to refer seriously ill inmates for treatment and delays in treatment

Women inmates suffering from treatable diseases such as asthma, diabetes, sickle cell anemia, cancer, late-term miscarriages, and seizures have little or no access to medical attention, sometimes resulting in permanent injury or death. Instances of failure to deliver life-saving drugs for inmates with HIV/AIDS have also been noted.


· Lack of qualified personnel and resources and use of non-medical staff

There is too few staff to meet physical and mental health needs. This often results in long delays in obtaining medical attention; disrupted and poor quality treatment causing physical deterioration of prisoners with chronic and degenerative diseases, like cancer; overmedication of prisoners with psychotropic drugs; and lack of mental health treatment. The use of non-medical staff to screen requests for treatment is also common.


· Charges for medical attention

In violation of international standards, many prisons/jails charge inmates for medical attention, arguing that the charge deters prisoners from seeking medical attention for minor matters or because they want to avoid work. In some supermaximum prisons, where prisoners cannot work at all, the US Justice Dept. expressed concern that charging prisoners impedes their access to health care.


· Inadequate Reproductive Health Care

In 1994, the National Institute of Corrections stated that provision of gynecological services for women in prison is inadequate. Only half of the state prison systems surveyed offer female-specific services such as mammograms and Pap smears, and often entail a long wait to be seen.


· Shackling During Pregnancy

Shackling of all prisoners, including pregnant prisoners, is standard policy in federal prisons and in the US Marshall Service and exists in almost all state prisons. Shackling during labor may cause complications during delivery such as hemorrhage or decreased fetal heart rate. If a caesarian section is needed, a delay of even 5 minutes may result in permanent brain damage to the baby.



· Lack of treatment for substance abuse

The gap between services available and treatment needs continues to grow. The number of prisoners with histories of drug abuse is growing, but the proportion of prisoners receiving treatment declined from 40% in 1991 to 18% in 1997.


· Lack of Adequate or Appropriate Mental Health Services

48-88% of women inmates suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder due to sexual or physical abuse experienced prior to coming to prison. Very few prison systems provide counseling. Women attempting to access mental health services are routinely given medication without opportunity to undergo psychotherapeutic treatment.



The Issue: Discrimination Based On Gender, Race and Sexual Orientation

The growth in incarceration has had its greatest impact on minorities, particularly African Americans. Women are most vulnerable to different forms of discrimination, including sexual harrasment or abuse. Women that do not fit the “norm”, such as lesbians, are more succeptable to torture and abuse.


Discrimination Based on Race:

· Over a five-year period, the incarceration rate of African American women increased by 828%. (NAACP LDF Equal Justice Spring 1998.) An African American woman is eight times more likely than a European American woman is to be imprisoned. African American women make up nearly half of the nation’s female prison population, with most serving sentences for nonviolent drug or property related offenses.


· Latina women experience nearly four times the rates of incarceration as European American women.


· State and federal laws mandate minimum sentences for all drug offenders. This eliminates the option for judges to refer first time non-violent offenders to drug treatment, counseling and education programs. The racial disparity revealed by the crack v. powder cocaine sentences insures that more African American women will land in prison.


Although 2/3 of crack users are white or Hispanic, defendants convicted of crack cocaine possession in 1994 were 84.5% African American. Crack is the only drug that carries a mandatory prison sentence for first time possession in the federal system.


Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation:

· Human Rights Watch has documented categories of women who are likely targets for sexual abuse. Perceived or actual sexual orientation is one of four categories that make a female prisoner a more likely target for sexual abuse, as well as a target for retaliation when she reports that abuse.


· If a woman is a lesbian, her criminal defense becomes more challenging. Jurors in the US were polled as to what factors would make them most biased against a defendant, and perceived sexual orientation was chosen as the most likely personal characteristic to bias a juror against a defendant, three times greater than race. (National Law Journal November 2, 1998.)


· The case of Robin Lucas depicts how sexual identity may subject a woman to further abuse or torture by a guard. She was placed in a men’s prison where male guards allowed male inmates to rape her. The male guards taunted her about her same sex relationship, saying to her “maybe we can change your mind”.


For more information on issues affecting women in prison and other women’s human rights issues, please visit the Women’s Human Rights Program website at www.amnestyusa.org/women or contact us at AIUSA 5 Penn Plaza-16th floor, New York, NY 10001 or at (212) 633-4292.

Words of wisdom: Rep. Cecil Ash on Sentencing Reform.

Here's to Truth, Peace and Justice - may all prevail in the New Year. 

-------------------------

From the East Valley Tribune

December 8, 2009

Sentencing reform needed for Arizona

By Cecil Ash
Commentary

In 1990, a 31-year-old man went into a Fry's grocery store. When no one was looking, he picked up a carton of cigarettes and walked quickly to the exit. All of this was captured on the store video, and he was apprehended in the parking lot with the cartoon of cigarettes and no receipt.

This offense could have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor, given the value of the cigarettes ($16.95). A misdemeanor may carry up to six months in jail. However, the prosecutor at the time elected to charge it as a felony, since he entered the store for the purpose of committing a crime. Because the defendant had two previous, nonrelated convictions, he was sentenced to prison for 8.3 years.

Question No. 1: Do taxpayers of the state want to pay $20,000-plus per year to incarcerate people for this kind of a crime?

Question No. 2: In this case, who had the greatest say in what the time served would be? The prosecutor or the judge? The apparent answer is the prosecutor. But ultimately the fate of this defendant was sealed by members of the Legislature who set up the mandatory sentencing parameters of our current criminal code.

In 2008, Arizona spent $951 million incarcerating felons, many of whom posed no danger to the general public. A recent Pew Center report indicates that in 2008, one in 33 adults in Arizona was under correctional control, which includes jail, prison, parole and probation. Twenty-five years ago, this number was one in 79. What has changed so much is not human nature, but the offenses for which we incarcerate and the imposition of mandatory sentences.

In these times when budget deficits are mushrooming, it is time to take a fresh look at the sentencing structure of the state's criminal code. For this reason, House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, has appointed an Interim Committee on Sentencing Reform to evaluate the effectiveness of our current criminal code.

All of us agree that the public must be protected from dangerous and repetitive offenders. But it is time to acknowledge that with new technologies and evidence-based sentencing, the state may be able to have a more effective criminal justice system at lower cost. And everyone agrees that there are plenty of other places in the state budget where the savings can be used.

The House Interim Committee on Sentencing Reform will hold its first meeting at 9 a.m. Tuesday. Public comment is invited by testimony, mail or e-mail. The committee will consider who needs to be incarcerated as a matter of public safety, and what evidence-based sentencing alternatives can reduce recidivism and rehabilitate, rather than simply warehouse offenders.

Mail may be sent to the Committee on Sentencing Reform, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007. E-mail should be directed to the committee members: Reps. Cecil Ash (chairman), Kyrsten Sinema, Bill Konopnicki, Doris Goodale, Laurin Hendrix, and Anna Tovar.

With input from the public, the judiciary, and criminal justice agencies, this bipartisan effort will yield savings to Arizona, as well as in some cases redirecting inmates' misspent years into more productive use.

Rep. Cecil Ash is a Republican who represents District 18, which covers western Mesa.

Privatization heads up. AZ Legs 12/15 and 16.

from the Random Musings blog on politics:

---------- 


- On Tuesday, the House Study Committee on Sentencing will meet at 9 a.m. in HHR5.

- Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Capital Review will meet in SHR109 at 1 p.m. and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) will meet at 2 p.m in the same room. Both agendas contain an executive session component on private prisons. The item language on the respective agendas differs slightly so they may or may not pertain to the same matter. Either way, they address sending public money to private corporations that exist to profit from incarceration.
No sign of a special session. There were rumors that one more would develop before the end of the month, but that doesn't seem likely at this point. Things could change Monday morning, but... :)