6/27/08: If there's a chance of bias, let's root it out

Prison reform is a tough nut to crack, and frankly, I’m surprised I even brought it up.

I wouldn’t have, in fact, if it hadn’t been for one of my GED students in Washington, D.C.

He came into my office every evening after class to make a phone call. I got to know him as a polite, unassuming gentleman, soft-spoken and genuine.

I was mildly surprised, then, when I found he had spent time in prison. I was surprised because he was such an upstanding student and parent; my surprise was mild because he was undereducated, male and black. Statistically speaking, he was a member of the key inmate demographic.

In the early 1990s, black men between 25 and 29 were more likely to be in prison than in college.

Those convicted of violent felonies in 2000 served an average of 63 months in jail. Those convicted of drug felonies served an average of 75, a year longer.

Again, African-Americans are far more likely to serve time in prison for drug-related convictions than white Americans.

It’s an old refrain, the claim that our system is systemically racist, but it’s been getting more press time in Connecticut lately.

Superior Court Judge Stanley T. Fuger Jr. ruled in March that a challenge brought by seven Connecticut death-row inmates — a challenge claiming the state’s application of the death penalty is racially and geographically biased — should be allowed.

He ruled this even though the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that systemwide bias was not an acceptable defense against the death penalty.

In his comments on his decision, Fuger cited the "extraordinarily high" stakes for the prisoners who brought the challenge, saying the charge would "merit the closest of scrutiny." He pointed out "that the Connecticut Constitution affords defendants greater legal rights than the U.S. Constitution, and as a result, they have the right to present the kind of systemwide bias evidence that the 1987 ruling barred."

This is a good start. Whether or not you agree states should wield the power of life and death, scrutinizing our practices in terms of whom we’re willing to put to death can’t hurt. If there’s even a chance of bias, we need to root it out.

Let’s go a step further and do the same thing with life-in-prison sentencing, I say.

In all other cases, where we expect those we convict to re-enter society after serving their sentences, we need to focus on reform.

Those who claim prison time is not playtime — that prisoners should be denied access to self-improvement programs such as GED classes, library access or even health care — should consider the effect on society of the "you’re in timeout" mentality.

If we truly expect former inmates to return from prison reformed and ready to make positive contributions in their neighborhoods, we need to equip them to succeed.

Many prisoners are just looking for a chance, and we owe it to ourselves to give it to them.

I was frustrated watching my student, a hard worker with on-the-job experience, get turned down for jobs — probably because of his felony conviction — for which he was eminently qualified.

Thanks to his dedication to family, community and values, and to some help from staff at our school — the sort of minor personal attention that would benefit all former inmates if it could be applied federally — he found a job.

And three weeks ago, after years of steady work toward his goal, he graduated.

I’m proud to be his compatriot.

You should be, too.

Comment from David A., and response

Dear Alicia,

I want to commend you on the article you wrote "When it comes to justice, it's personal." I also don't believe in the three strikes becoming a law.

I am a convicted felon, and my crimes were due to my addiction to pain medication. The crimes were possession of narcotics and larceny(a bad check). Already having a felony for possession when I issued a bad check, I was willing to pay restitution and any court costs. When I went to court the sentence was one year suspended sentence and pay back restitution, one year probation and not to enter the grocery store where the check was used. I would have gone to jail for life because it was my third offence.

I had a good work history, twenty years service with the state of Connecticut and seven years at a food processing plant. Now I can't find employment because of my past record.

I wish that Connecticut was like a few other states,where you don't have to put down in your application that you have a felony. There are a lot of people like myself that have been in recovery and have changed our lives around and have corrected the destruction due to our active addiction. The laws of this state act as a stumbling block for those of us that have made a bad choice, and corrected that choice and have become productive members of society. We do need another chance to prove ourselves.

David A.

*****

David,

I'm so glad you commented here. I've been watching the three-strikes law strike out for the past few months here in Connecticut and groaning every time it comes around again.

Maybe if I were a baseball fan, I would "get" what people are talking about when they say they're for this law -- but I doubt it.

You're not the only one who would have been bizarrely convicted under the three-strikes felony law: according to attorney Michael Fryar at Lawisfun.com,

"[The three-strikes law] has had some odd results in California – Gary Ewing shoplifted golf clubs (Strike 1. Burglary, Strike 2. Robbery with a Knife), Leandro Andrade stole video tapes (Strike 1. Home Burglary, Strike 2. Home Burglary), Jerry Williams stole a slice of pepperoni pizza from some children (four previous non-violent felonies)."

So men have been sentenced under the three-strikes law in California for stealing videos and pizza. That doesn't sound like a strong recommendation to me.*

I wrote this column, and the one that will appear this Friday (6/27) in part because it seemed obvious to me that three-strikes laws are arbitrary (why three? Why not two or four or seven or ten?) and lazy (since it allows us to sentence each other to life in prison by the numbers, without using our heads) and against what we should focus on as a society that's supposed to be free.

But it was a letter to the editor published in one of the Herald-Press papers (I think The Herald, but I'll have to check on that) on April 18, written by a state representative and saying that after a certain point, enough is enough -- that some people are "simply evil" -- that made me actually sit down and write about three strikes.

I'm thinking about the adult students I taught in D.C., many of whom have multiple felonies on their records, and all of whom were trying to get their lives back on track -- to get an education, provide for their families and set good examples for their children. Some of them had been addicted to drugs, and some were raised in neighborhoods that encouraged criminal activity. None of them were "simply evil."

(And again, even if there were people who could be labeled as "simply evil" and cast off, there's no reason to believe that they suddenly reached the point of no return when they committed that third felony.)

I would like to see legislation dealing with the sorts of difficulties that you're describing in finding a job, post-conviction, though I'm not sure what form that would take. Most of my experience has been with people who had limited skills or education before their convictions, so most of their efforts were focused on getting the diploma or apprenticeship or certification that would help them break into a trade. For people like you, who already have skills and a strong work history, I'm not sure what the next step could be.

Ultimately, though, I'm not sure that legislation will help us. You can't write laws that force people to care. It seems to me that the best you can do is pass laws that don't discourage caring. And elect leaders who do care.

If you haven't already, David -- and anyone else who might be interested one way or another in the three-strikes laws, and the recently passed laws that step up sentencing for violent offenders (as an alternative to a traditional three-strikes law) -- I encourage you to write to your state representative or to Governor Rell about your experience, too.

I'm hoping that next time they propose three-strikes laws, or anything similar, they'll remember your letter and think again.

Thanks for sharing your experience here; please comment anytime. (And I wish you luck, and a job that suits you, soon.)

Alicia.

*Anyone looking for more information on how California's three-strikes laws have gone awry may want to start here. If a 35-page essay doesn't seem like a particularly accessible starting point, read the abstract on page 2. (You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to see this .pdf file.)

6/20/08: When it comes to justice, it's personal

Three-strikes laws are out, as far as I’m concerned.

Forget that a three-strikes law would not have prevented the heinous home invasions perpetrated in central Connecticut over the past year. Forget that they would not have prevented reportedly depressed, 76-year-old Leon Malicki’s alleged attack on his wife.

Consider instead the unreasonableness of basing social policy — especially criminal law, which immediately and permanently affects the lives of perpetrators, victims and their families — on the arbitrary rules of baseball.

Legally speaking, there’s no reason for three to be the magic number, according to attorney Michael Fryar, owner of Lawisfun.com.

So why should the commission of three crimes not warranting life in prison add up to more than the sum of their parts?

I tend to agree that repeat offenders continue to offend thanks to some innate impulse to do so, whether personally or socially instigated. But assigning a number to the times they may offend before being written off as "simply evil" is dismissive of mitigating factors and ultimately demeans us and our justice system.

Our justice system is a personal one.

We are not an authoritarian society, allowing elite judges to decide whether one of our members is innocent or guilty when he or she appears to have erred; we convene juries and decide among ourselves.

We give the benefit of the doubt. Our fellow citizens are considered innocent until they’re proven guilty.

As a people, we are interested and invested in seeing justice done, and done properly — only look at the proliferation of "Law and Order"-type television shows as proof.

Why, then, are we driven to add legislation to make sure our system is working properly, rather than driven to a renewed insistence on our responsibilities as a population?

And why is the sort of law we want to add the increasingly impersonal sort, the kind that reduces people — offenders, perhaps, but also citizens — to being judged by formula rather than by a jury of their peers?

Judgment by the numbers is lazy. It allows us to abdicate the responsibility that is ours as American citizens. It allows us to forget, in our understandable frustration at criminal activity, that we are passing judgment on other Americans — other human beings — and that we are obligated to respect them and ourselves by applying ourselves diligently to the question of this particular (alleged) crime at this particular time.

But for those who like the clean, clear-cut efficiency of numbers, here are a few:

America is the only developed nation to incarcerate one in every hundred citizens.

As of June 2006, black men were 6.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than white men.

Of the convicted citizens in state prisons in 2006, almost 20 percent were there on drug charges.
Many of these are not dealers, but addicts.

Black Americans, again, are much more likely to be imprisoned (33 percent of convicted white drug defendants were sentenced to prison versus 51 percent of convicted black defendants), though a federal Household Survey indicates that most illicit drug users are white.

Felons lose the right to vote. They often have difficulty finding jobs when they return from prison thanks to little or incomplete education and applications requiring reporting of felony convictions.

These are the people who would be most affected by three-strikes laws.

Perhaps instead of mindlessly assigning them lifelong prison sentences, we should consider the kind of systemic reform we really need.

More about that next week.

My response

I am delighted to have been referenced in Alderman Salvio’s letter to the editor, posted below, and to have a chance to respond.

Alderman Salvio and I have exchanged emails on a past column of mine; I found the exchange engaging, and Alderman Salvio himself to be friendly and pleasant, in person. In addition, I’ve watched Alderman Salvio in action at the council meetings I’ve been to, and read several of his letters to the editor over the past several months.

Here's my reply to this one.

I readily admit, as I admitted in my column, that I am a resident of Plainville and not New Britain – thus, I'm not a New Britain voter or taxpayer and have no claim on a particular alderman’s attentions. This makes it all the more fascinating to me that New Britain aldermen and women have been willing to address each of my questions promptly and thoroughly. (I mention this near the end of my column, making no distinction between parties, and I make no distinction here.)

The implied question of my fitness-to-judge – buried in the statement that I go to “the occasional council meeting,” which is true – is a relevant one, or would have been if I had been making a point particular to the meetings of May 30 or June 5, neither of which I attended. (I did attend the full council meeting of May 28, following which I wrote last week's column.)

As it is, I think Alderman Salvio’s letter to the editor coincides rather well with my characterization of the Republican aldermen as firebrand minority voices. His oppositional tone, not out of place in politics or in a politically motivated letter to the editor, fits my experience of the three or four council meetings I’ve been to, confirming that my experience was no fluke.

Alderman Salvio’s response also makes clear the depth of the divisions between the two Republican aldermen and mayor, and the Democratic aldermen (and alderwomen). His letter agrees tacitly with my suggestion that the Republican aldermen are a put-upon minority voice, rising above the fray to speak truth to power.

He does not, however, complicate his argument by citing the fact that I wrote this in my column.

This makes sense to me, as Alderman Salvio’s main point does not appear to have been to respond to me or my column, but to inform voters – in an entertaining, albeit incendiary way – of how several particular meetings and votes went over the course of the last two months. Including my complete message would have distorted his purpose.

But here is a reiteration of my complete message, anyway, clarified in response to Alderman Salvio’s letter.

I actually have a rather multifaceted view of New Britain’s Common Council. I never claimed perfection for one side or the other. (I wouldn't claim perfection for superheroes: Even Superman is not without a certain dark side -- imagine his x-ray vision or super strength used for evil purposes!)

I did not claim that Democrats do not disparage their Republican colleagues; I claimed that when they did so, it was in polite, politic ways. “Polite” and “politic,” of course, are relative and open to interpretation, and a person – especially, perhaps, a politician – can say impolite things in a civil tone. It has been my experience of New Britain Common Council’s Democrats in general, even in the case of Majority Leader Michael Trueworthy’s accusations of mismanagement in the full council meeting I attended a few weeks ago, that they tend to speak civilly to one another and to Republicans. On the other extreme, although I did not attend the meeting in question, there were references in the full council meeting to Alderman Salvio having told Alderman Sherwood, a Democrat, to “rot in hell” the previous week – a rude thing to say by any standard.

But this is what makes the meetings entertaining. The extremity of the views and how obviously council members care about their positions make this not only good politics, but also captivating to watch.

As captivating, I would say (and have said), as an action movie.

Superheroes are, of course, caricatures. My characterizations of both the Democrats on the council and the Republicans were also exaggerated. I do not believe that Democrats should come to council meetings dressed in Spandex and capes, or use their laser vision to cow their foes – or even that they’re always right in their positions or evaluations, or preternaturally polite. Similarly, I don’t believe that Republicans are the God-chosen Davids designated to fell Goliath-like Democrats. I took pains in my column to positively portray both sides of the aisle because my point was not to make a political endorsement.

My point, of course, was that more people should go to more Common Council meetings.

Too many people see local politics as irrelevant, when local politics are the most relevant. As a friend recently pointed out to me, “that’s where your vote counts most.” Decisions affecting our cities and our lives get made at these meetings. That has to concern us.

I'm sure Alderman Salvio would agree with me there.

Reader Response: Letter to the Editor

To The Editor:

For the evening of May 30 at 8 p.m. (after the parade) New Britain Common Council Democrats called for a special meeting of council subcommittees to discuss the mayor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2008/2009.

The council had 60 days from April 11 to discuss changes in the mayor’s budget. In that 60-day period, the council had made no suggestions for changes in the budget nor were any suggested on May 30.

Two Democrats and the two council Republicans (Lou Salvio and Mark Bernacki) did not attend the hastily arranged meeting. The meeting was recorded electronically.

The next week, both Republicans listened to the recording of the meeting. Anyone can request to listen to a recording of the May 30 meeting. No budget changes were discussed.

Instead, council Democrats used the meeting to hurl accusations of mismanagement or lack of management at the mayor and his entire administration. They even decided to insult the CPOA taxpayer watchdog organization.

Despite these facts, on Friday, Herald columnist Alicia Watkins of Plainville, who attends an occasional council meeting, refers to council Democrats as "… action-movie heroes." She also reports about the Dems, that at council meetings, "They speak in turn and use polite, political turns of phrase, … showing respect for even their political foes." If that wasn’t such a sad statement, it might be laughable.

As required by charter, a special meeting of the council was called for June 5 for the council to take final action on the budget. After the subcommittee reports and to correct an unexpected shortfall in revenue, Republican Aldermen Salvio and Bernacki recommended amendments to the budget that would have brought it into balance. Democrats voted unanimously against the amendments. The two Republicans voted in favor. Since the amendment failed, the two Republicans had no choice other than to vote no on the final vote. Voting yes would be tantamount to the two Rs voting for an unbalanced budget.

Result? After 60 days of inaction the Common Council — with the two Republican exceptions — succeeded in abdicating its responsibilities to the taxpayers. The "polite and heroic" council Democrats succeeded only in insulting the city’s entire work force and the residents and taxpayers of New Britain.

Lou Salvio, Alderman

New Britain

Note on reader responses

I created this blog as a format for responding to readers of the central Connecticut newspapers -- printed and online editions -- who read my columns.

Here are my policies for responding to responses, subject to your feedback:

Published/written reader responses (i.e., "letter to the editor"):
These will be posted in full on my blog, and I will respond publicly.
Responses to my responses can also be posted -- discussions are welcome!

Blogged reader responses:
Let me know if you've written a blog post in response to any of my columns. I'll link to it and respond here.

Comments:
I will respond here to comments for which a response would be appropriate.

Emails:
If you'd like to respond at length, or privately, my email address is provided at the top of the blog (and here -- aliciad.watkins@yahoo.com).
Let me know if you'd rather your emails remain private, and I will not post them or respond to them in public.
Let me know if you'd like your email to be public, and I will post it in full, here.
If you have no preference, I'll use my discretion -- posting emails I think may generate interesting conversation, especially.

6/13/08: Better than action flick and available at city hall

This summer’s blockbusters are just around the corner. Maybe, like me, you just saw "Iron Man," and are waiting for "The Dark Knight" to come out. You may be reading this waiting in line for "Indiana Jones" tickets.

I’m not the biggest fan of action movies, but I have seen "Gone in 60 Seconds" and a few of the "Fast and the Furious" movies. I’ve made it through "Braveheart" and more than a few movies based on comic book series.

I’m telling you this as proof of my credentials — so you’ll believe me when I say local politics are like an action movie, but better.

Take, for example, a meeting of the New Britain Common Council. I’ve attended a few of them. In addition to learning a lot and feeling the gratifying glow of knowing I’ve done my civic duty (though I live in Plainville, and so this is a false glow), I’ve found them incredibly entertaining.

I say "incredibly" because I’m anticipating some disbelief. I don’t blame you if you’re rolling your eyes or muttering "Yeah, right" as you read.

Budget meetings? Commissions? Complaints about potholes or blighted properties?

More exciting than an action movie?

But it’s true.

On New Britain’s council, there are 13 Democratic aldermen and two Republican aldermen. A Republican mayor leads the meetings. Party lines clearly divide the council as they discuss and render many of their decisions, making type-casting them into action hero and villain roles pretty easy.

The Democrats would be the traditional action-movie heroes. They’re diverse in age and ethnicity, yet they work together for a common goal. They speak in turn and use polite, political turns of phrase to get their points across, showing respect for even their political foes. The majority leader’s last name is — there’s no making this up — Trueworthy.

It’s easy to see the Democrats as the band of heroic friends, like the X-men or Robin Hood and his Merry Men — and women. Add a car chase and a few explosions, and it would be classic summer blockbuster material.

If you’re rooting for the other guys, the two Republican aldermen and the mayor could be a put-upon minority voice rising above a tyrannical common consensus to save the day.

Outcries against Democratic plots would become filibuster scenes in which the Republicans shame Dems into conceding their points. It’s more a "Stand and Deliver" type drama than a traditional action movie, but rousing all the same.

And it’s ours.

We don’t need to sit in cold, dark and sticky movie theaters to see this. We don’t need to buy whatever overpriced, fatty foods they decide to offer us. We don’t need to sit quietly, staring straight ahead.

Local politics are interactive.

We voted for (or against) the people sitting on our councils. We are affected by their decisions. And we can speak to them as a group at a public meeting, or we can call them individually at their offices.

My experience with contacting the aldermen on New Britain’s council — Democrat and Republican — has been unreservedly positive, and their concern for the voters of their districts, impressive.

Half the fun of this action-movielike plot is that we get to be a part of it. If we don’t like the way things are turning out, we can change them.

You can’t get that from "Gladiator" or "The Incredible Hulk."

6/6/08: The ethics of recruiting the poor to be soldiers

Last week, I left you hanging. I brought up the No Child Left Behind education laws, mentioned the clause requiring federally funded schools to hand over student information to military recruiters and told you we have a responsibility to be concerned by the clause.

Now I’ll explain why.

In general terms, NCLB, passed in President Bush’s first term, determines which school districts are eligible for federal funding, including Title 1 funds, which are earmarked for schools with a high percentage of students of color and students from low-income families.

Specifically, the recruitment clause, section 9528 of the act, says "each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide [to military recruiters] access to secondary school students’ names, addresses and telephone listings."

In other words, any school receiving funding through NCLB has to give local recruiters this information, presumably to make recruitment easier.

It seems easy enough to say "No, thanks" when a recruiter comes calling, as I did, though it took a few rejections before they struck my name from the list. But consider that only schools getting federal funding — which means urban schools serving lower-income residents — are required to report student information.

This means high school students in New Britain, Bristol and Hartford can expect phone calls from local military recruiters, probably before they graduate, but students from Avon, Simsbury and other high schools not requiring federal funding will not have their information passed on and may avoid recruitment calls. All this adds up to recruiters being encouraged to focus on signing teens from lower-income neighborhoods.

It may be true that kids from a low-income background have fewer career choices after graduation and view the military as a decent option. Some students may prefer a more active vocation to college. Some may want the assumed job security of a military career. It’s possible that in a free-market economy, a preponderance of lower-income people would naturally end up in the military.

This still wouldn’t answer the ethical question raised by encouraging low-income people to join the military. Even if "the market" had been the determining factor in how recruiters select their candidates, targeting low-income citizens is suspect. We’d likely prefer not to think of ourselves as hiring mercenaries, though that’s what low-income student recruitment boils down to.

But whatever your opinion of recruitment in the context of free-market economics, No Child Left Behind is not the result of a free market. It’s federal legislation.

Take what you will from the conflict of interest inherent in a federal government offering public education money contingent on students’ availability for military recruitment.

The bottom line is that such a conflict does exist, and it’s our job as citizens to think through what it means and work out how to respond.

We need to do it now.

The likelihood a simple "No, thanks" will suffice becomes questionable when we consider contractual "stop loss" policy — which allows the military to extend soldiers’ enlistment indefinitely in time of war — recruitment quotas and the added pressure to enlist new recruits brought on by the war in Iraq.

For now, there is an opt-out clause attached to NCLB’s Section 9528. School administrators are required to tell parents of the recruitment clause and of their option to have their child’s information kept private. A written request asking that information not be given out without parental consent must be honored.

For opt-out information, contact your local school district.