THIS BLOG is NOW RETIRED

I began this blog in May 2009 following the death of Marcia Powell at Perryville State Prison in Goodyear, Arizona. It is not intended to prescribe the path that leads to freedom from the prison industrial complex.

Rather, these are just my observations in arguably the most racist, fascist, militaristic state in the nation at a critical time in history for a number of intersecting liberation movements. From Indigenous resistance to genocidal practices, to the fight over laws like SB1070 and the ban on Ethnic Studies, Arizona is at the center of many battles for human rights, and thus the struggle for prison abolition as well - for none are free until all are. I retired the blog in APRIL 2013.

Visit me now at Arizona Prison Watch or Survivors of Prison Violence-AZ
BLOG POSTS
Showing posts with label Abramsky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abramsky. Show all posts

Monday, November 23, 2009

Abramsky on Arizona Prison Lease-back scheme

New Article from Sasha Abramsky, who has done some excellent research and publishing on issues related to crime and punishment in America.
----------

No escape from debt by selling jails

Arizona's plan to sell prisons to the highest bidder is a leap back in time for correctional thinking, and a recipe for fiscal disaster.
Here's an idea: sell off our prisons to the highest bidders, reap a pile of short-term cash to inflate near-empty state coffers, then lease back the prisons for 20 years at a cost to the state that far exceeds the original purchase price paid by the companies. While we're at it, let's completely privatise medical and mental health services – and mandate that bidders come in with lower per prisoner cost estimates than those currently paid out by the state. And, to cap it off, privatise the day-to-day operations of all the prisons, including supermaxes and death row sites, and, in an incentive to cut corners, split the savings 50-50 between the state and the private companies doing the administering.

Conservative fantasy? Alas, no. This is the set of kooky proposals recently embraced by legislatures in a near-insolvent Arizona, looking to trim dollars from their state budget.

A boondoggle to the private sector? Sure. A recipe for disaster as poorly paid, under-trained private prison guards assume control over supermax prisons – an environment in which private guards have had little-to-no prior experience (historically, private prison companies looking for easy criminal justice pickings have shied clear of hard-to-manage high security facilities)? Almost certainly. An invitation for prisoners to sue as medical and mental health services are farmed out to low-ball bidders? Yes, again.

"I'm telling you, it takes the cake," says Caroline Isaacs, programme director of the prison-reform group the Arizona Friends Service Committee. "I've lived here for 15 years, and I'm completely blown away by this. This has never been done anywhere."

A couple of weeks ago, the Pew Research Centre found that 10 states were facing particularly devastating budget implosions. Not surprisingly, many of these – including California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida – were states hit particularly hard by the bursting of the housing bubble. Much has been written about California's crisis. But in many ways smaller states like Arizona are in even bigger trouble; and as they teeter on the brink, so increasingly bizarre policy proposals are gaining traction. Arizona's even contemplating selling off its capitol building, for Pete's sake.

A few years ago, in my book American Furies, I compared the reactionary practices of the Maricopa county jails – centered in Phoenix and run by the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio – to the progressive reforms being implemented in Arizona's state prisons by then-corrections commissioner Dora Schriro.

Schriro had made a name for herself in correctional circles through modernising prisons in the state of Missouri, developing a reform theory she labeled the "parallel universe". Her results had been impressive: lower recidivism rates, lower in-prison rates of violence, educational successes with inmates, drug-treatment programs that actually worked. In Arizona, too, she brought outside-the-box thinking to a large, and violent, system. For a few years, Arizona became something of a poster-child for prison reform.

But Schriro moved to DC to work for the Obama administration, researching and writing on conditions of confinement for illegal immigrants awaiting deportation, and then recently moved on to run the jail system in New York City.

She left behind a new, and relatively ineffectual, corrections administration in Arizona, one unable to defend its reforms from a conservative, and increasingly fiscally desperate, legislature and governor (Janet Napolitano, the previous, Democratic governor, also went to DC to work in the new administration, and her successor, Jan Brewer, is a Republican).

Now, the vacuum might soon be filled, as Arizona stands poised to go where no American state has gone before: sending out a request for proposals that could soon see an almost entirely privatised state prison system. That's a leap back not just a few decades but a few hundred years in correctional thinking.
Private prison companies in America have a dismal track record: a slew of escape scandals and prisoner abuse allegations brought major companies to their knees about a decade ago; workers at the facilities are paid abysmally low wages; and medical services, along with access to education, drug treatment, and vocational training frequently are on-paper fictions rather than genuine realities.

Privatisation might generate a few tens of millions of dollars for Arizona in the short-term; but the long-run costs – both financial and moral – of farming this basic state function out to for-profit private companies will likely be immense.

Friday, August 14, 2009

California ordered to Decarcerate by 40,000 Prisoners

California Court Says Enough is Enough: Our Prison Population is Out of Control
By Sasha Abramsky
Posted on Alternet
August 8, 2009


Abramsky not only reports on the court ruling, but offers useful suggestions on how to implement it, which the rest of us can learn from. He is the author of Conned: How Millions Went to Prison, Lost the Vote, and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House (The New Press, 2006), and American Furies: Crime, Punishment and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Incarceration (Beacon Press, 2007). I highly recommend his books and any articles of his you may encounter. - Peg.

On Tuesday, a panel of federal judges ruled that California must reduce its prisoner population by about 40,000 inmates over the next two years.

The ruling wasn't a surprise. After all, earlier this year the same panel issued a preliminary ruling that California's prison-overcrowding crisis was now so acute that it inevitably resulted in unconstitutionally poor levels of medical and mental healthcare for inmates. The preliminary ruling had mandated that the state reduce its prisoner population, but while the state made further arguments and tried to demonstrate that it was making a good-faith effort to improve conditions, the ruling hadn't been enforced.

On Tuesday, the judges, in a scathing ruling, declared California's efforts had utterly failed to improve conditions. So now, absent a successful appeal by the state directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Golden State will have to implement one of the largest prisoner-reduction programs in American history – and at great speed.

For over a decade, I have written about California's ballooning prisoner population – from under 30,000 in the late 1970s to somewhere in the region of 170,000 today – and its skyrocketing imprisonment rate (the number per 100,000 of the general population that is incarcerated at any given moment).

These numbers grew not because more crimes were being committed – for most of the last 15 years, the crime rate has gone down. Yet unlike New York, where the prison population fell following crime declines, in California the relentless march toward mass incarceration continued. It did so because of ham-handed laws like Three Strikes and You're Out, mandatory minimum sentences for categories of drug offenders and a broken parole system that returns a higher percentage of parolees to prison than does any other state.

The results: more and more state dollars have been spent each year on corrections, reaching over $10bn this past fiscal year and leading to huge reductions in the dollars available for other public expenditures, such as on the once-vaunted state university system. Year by year, California remade itself as a state that prioritized high incarceration over virtually every other social investment.

And yet, no matter how much the state spent on building and staffing new prisons -- the numbers of prisons tripled in California in the past quarter century -- it couldn't keep up with the numbers being incarcerated. And so, each year the state's prisons got more and more overcrowded, resulting in hundreds of grown men in many facilities being triple-bunked in gyms and prison dorms. This has had tangible and unpleasant consequences, from epidemics of mental illness and self-mutilation in many prisons to the spread of communicable diseases such as TB, HIV, Hepatitis C and California's own "Valley Fever".

Now the courts have finally said: enough.

Many people will read the judges' ruling and immediately fear the wholesale release of dangerous inmates and a stark decline in public safety. Done badly a prison population-reduction program could indeed have these consequences. Done well, however, it presents more of an opportunity than a threat.

After all, the current system embodies a revolving door ethos: lock 'em up, release 'em onto parole, wait for 'em to screw up and then lock 'em up again. It has become a system that measures its own success by incarceration numbers rather than by the ability to intervene in people's lives to stop them committing new crimes.

Prisoner populations can be reduced in many ways other than simply opening cell doors behind which reside random inmates, in ways that have tangible crime reduction and addition reduction benefits rather than costs. They can be reduced by releasing certain categories of inmates -- non-violent inmates and low-level drug offenders being the obvious ones -- a few months early and placing those individuals into structured, perhaps residential, community program for the first months of their freedom.

They can be reduced by diverting these categories of inmates at the front end, placing them in treatment programs, community service work, even vocational training programs, rather than sending them to prison. They can be reduced by limiting the catch-all nature of California's parole system -- a system that places almost all released prisoners onto three years of parole and then returns huge numbers to prison not for the committing of new crimes but for "technical violations" of the terms of their parole.

These reforms have been advocated by criminal justice experts for years now. Joan Petersilia, a University of California at Irvine criminologist and probably America's leading expert on parole, has called for changes in parole for at least a decade. Jeanne Woodford, one-time head of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has long considered the current revolving-door system a recipe for disaster. The Rand Institute has advocated diverting more drug offenders into treatment instead of prison. And so on.

The templates for successful reform are out there. The challenge for California, over the coming months, will be to listen to these voices rather than simply stampede into a wholesale release frenzy.

Simply releasing random prisoners without thought as to where they ought to go or how they ought to be monitored and treated might seem cheaper -- and tempting given the broader collapse that California's state government is undergoing -- but such a move would be entirely self-defeating. It would likely result in the very spikes in crime and decreases in public safety that critics of the court ruling are already so loudly predicting.
-----------------------------------------

© 2009 Comment Is Free All rights reserved.