A Second Chance for Ex-Offenders: New York Times Editorial

A Second Chance for Ex-Offenders

Published: November 7, 2007

If past patterns hold true, more than half of the 650,000 prisoners released this year will be back behind bars by 2010. With the prison population exploding and the price of incarceration now topping $60 billion a year, states are rightly focusing on ways to reduce recidivism. Congress can give these efforts a boost by passing the Second Chance Act, which would provide crucial help to people who have paid their debts to society.

Newly released inmates are often driven right back to prison by difficulty in obtaining jobs, education and housing, as well as by the social stigma that comes from having been in prison. In addition, many of these people suffer from mental illnesses but have no access to treatment. Some states have begun offering assistance in these areas, but much more needs to be done.
The Second Chance Act would add to what the country knows about the re-entry process by establishing a federal re-entry task force, along with a national resource center to collect and disseminate information about proven programs.

The bill would broaden access to high-quality drug treatment, which is in scarce supply almost everywhere. It would also encourage states to work harder at reuniting families, which are often torn apart when a parent goes to prison.

The country worsened the recidivism crisis when it killed off many of the in-prison education programs that have a strong track record of helping released inmates live crime-free lives. The bill would begin to reverse that destructive trend by providing grants to improve academic and vocational education behind bars.

The programs necessary to help former prisoners find a place in society do not exist in most communities. The Second Chance Act would help to create those programs by providing money, training, technical assistance — and a Congressional stamp of approval.

New Jersey Anti-crime Policy More of the Same?

Governor Corzine unveiled his anti-crime strategy this week with a three part plan. Corzine is optimistic about implementing his plans to improve how police go after gang members, prevent children from falling into the gang life in the first place and help convicts avoid falling into their old routines after leaving prison.

Corzine unveiled a pilot program to provide 1,300 ex-convicts with job coaches, life skills and housing so they won't be drawn back into a life of crime. The intensive help for inmates returning to society is the cornerstone of the governor's strategy to reduce the number of those who end up back in prison. He also wants to change laws to make it easier for ex-convicts to get jobs -- such as allowing certain drug offenses to be expunged from their records -- and to expand substance abuse programs.

While Corzine's strategy is bold and thought out it lacks the prevention that is needed. Indeed Debra Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Jersey, agreed, saying the initiative "lacks critical components and support" and that it would be "difficult to move forward without meaningful input from community advocates and legislative leadership."

We need to think about why people actually end up in prison in the first place. Is it only gangs who are causing crime? Surely, this is a problem, but do we know why kids are joining gangs? Are police the right avenue to prevent kids from joining these gangs? Every time someone rolls out a new anti-crime policy it is more police, when really the police are part of the problem.

Kids need opportunity to succeed which starts with a good education. That is the entry policy we should be targeting. You don't start when kids are fifteen and have already been exposed to untold horrific acts in their homes, in the streets or in their schools and then say - OK, now stop. It is preposterous and anyone of us who grew up like many do in this state would shrink and shrivel at what some have to grow up in. Gangs are sometimes the only place for love and connection and it is a natural choice rather than a "thug" choice.

The social safety net has been eroded since Reagan and no new anti-crime policy that does not include health care for all, poverty reduction incentives and yes - monies for poor families, an opportunity for education that many in the upper classes here take for granted and a strategy to allow those in the less advantaged classes attend college without the unyielding debt that so many have to take on just to succeed will fail.

Lastly, Corzine's reentry policy has some interesting parts including the policy which seeks to overturn some enacted laws that bar some people who enter jail from certain professions. This needs to be bolder, however because these laws affect only one type of person and that is people of color. Blacks in the state make up 63% of the jails, while Latinos weigh in at 18% leaving us whiteys with only 10% of the prisons. Now, the 10% of the white folks who do end up in prison deserve the same amount of protections coming out of prison because many times they suffer the same discrimination upon reentry.

We need to think about first, however why so many of us end up in jail in the first place. Why does America imprison so many of its citizens (2.2 million at latest count and rising). The answer is as New Jersey can attest - drugs (New Jersey is the dubious #1 in this department). We are placing people in jail for drug related crimes for possession mostly. Why? Why is this necessary to put so many in jail because of a drug problem? Corzine mentions this in his anti-crime policy, but it is an issue that must be addressed fully. We have gotten only so far for various reasons, not the least of which is prisons are a profit magnum for many - including phone companies, health care organizations and others that have a captive audience to charge whatever they want, when they want.

This is not a political issue; it is a human issue for all of us. To address the common good we must invest in our people or 3 million inhabitants of our prisons is not far off.

New Jersey Supreme Court Opens Up Drug Court to more New Jerseyans

"It is inconceivable that the Legislature granted a trial court power to impose a probationary sentence, but not the power to attach the one condition necessary to address the offender's desperate needs — a drug-rehabilitation program." - Justice Albin-

The New Jersey Supreme Court on September 19, 2007 said judges can allow criminals to enter "drug courts," which combine punishment and rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders, even if they have more than one previous conviction for non-violent offenses.

An earlier appeals court ruling had limited participation in the drug courts to those who were eligible for "special probation," a type of sentence available only to drug or alcohol-dependent suspects with no more than one prior conviction.

In a unanimous decision by the Court Justice Albin writing for the court said: "Drug Courts have achieved notable success," He reasoned that when a drug addict is likely to receive a probationary sentence, "it is preferable that defendant be monitored within a specialized court with personnel who have the particularized skills and training to maximize the prospect of the offender's rehabilitation."

The court case was sparked when Warren County Superior Court Judge John Pursel last year allowed Jason G. Meyer, a 25-year-old county resident, to enter the drug court program after he pleaded guilty to distribution of imitation illegal drugs, shoplifting, and resisting arrest in 2006 .

The Warren County Prosecutor's Office maintained he did not qualify for "special probation," because of four prior convictions for third-degree offenses including car theft and receiving stolen property.

Yesterday's ruling said the appeals court was wrong to so strictly limit entry into drug court. "It is inconceivable that the Legislature granted a trial court power to impose a probationary sentence, but not the power to attach the one condition necessary to address the offender's desperate needs -- a drug rehabilitation program," Albin wrote.

This only makes sense for those who are dragged down by addiction. Placing people in jail because of an addiction is draconian. Though, these courts are not perfect and can sometimes work against a defendant into serving more time, treating rather than incarcerating makes good policy sense.

In an editorial on September 25th, the Newark Star Ledger praised the decision. They said in the eleven years since the drug court inception in New Jersey it has proven to be an arousing success. For example, it costs the state $34,218 a year to house an in mate in a state prison. If the same person is sentenced to take part in rehabilitative services of drug court, including the more expensive six-month residential drug treatment, the cost is $17,266. That figure is cut in half if the person gets outpatient drug treatment.

What I find the most remarkable is 93 percent of those who go through drug court leave with a job. The Editorial goes on: And recidivism rates are significantly lower for drug court graduates than other drug offenders. Three years after completing the rehabilitation programs required in drug courts only 14 percent of offenders commit new crimes. Only 7 percent end up back in prison. For those who aren't sent to drug court, the rates tops 50 percent. Actually, the rate in New Jersey is over 60 percent according to the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

Maybe it is time New Jersey looked into therapeutic interventions for more than just drug offenders and drug addicts. The evidence speaks for itself and if we can surround those in drug courts with these types of services, then why not do it for more serving time in New Jersey jails. After all some 97% of New Jersey prisoners will go home to their communities; would it not make policy sense they go home with a job, a place to live and a way to take care of themselves?

A Voice in the New Jersey State Prison: A Common Sense Argument

THE FAILURE OF PRISONS IN AMERICA

This article came to me through an on-line source. It is from an inmate in a New Jersey State Prison.

There is a debate raging in America about prisons and prisoners. The government has declared a "war"on drugs. They have mandated "truth in sentencing" and promulgated various other means to eliminate parole. The No Early Release Act, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and other laws are designed to mandate 85% of more of a sentence to be served before release. With both major political parties afraid to appear soft on crime, with the national debt and state economies faltering, a very real question is: "What will be sacrificed to pay for prisoners?"

The four most commonly accepted reasons for prisons are: deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and correction. But as they exist today, prisons only address one of these: incapacitation. Without effective programs to help the prisoner, to address the reasons for their incarceration, and attempt to correct them, what happens when the person is released? More than two-thirds of prisoners re-offend within three years.

This country was built on common sense, hard work and innovation. Helping others when needed, as well as giving others a second chance; recognizing when problems exist and working to correct them have always been quintessential American values. As our country has progressed and evolved economically, the niches filled by the migrant worker, the harvest hand and the small operator have been eliminated by big business. Tolerance has been replaced by harsh conformity. Many crimes that were tolerated years ago as "harmless pranks" or "wild oats" by society are now being prosecuted and violators sent to prison. Prisons have been transformed into the newest big business, instead of Society's last resort.

Prisons have never, to a measurable degree, deterred people from crime.With few exceptions, from the conception of the modern prison, cerca1790, prison populations have steadily grown. Since the first American prison, it has been a professed goal to reform prisoners through labor. This sentiment was legally codified as early as 1808. Both the Auburn and Philadelphia prison models were based upon prison labor. Prisons were, and are, so expensive to operate that any financial offset prisoners could provide is necessary. Until 1929, the industrial workfarm more than paid for itself when Congress passed two laws: the Hawes-Cooper Act in 1929, and the Ashurst-Sumners Act in 1935, which, along with the Great Depression, killed the industrial prison.

With the demise of the work farm, education now came to the forefront of prison reform. Initial programs taught various blue collar skills such as carpentry, masonry, auto mechanics, landscaping and other skills needed to get a job upon release. As time progressed, more sophisticated classes were introduced, such as drafting, offset printing, high school classes, and college courses. In the 1970s and 80s, sociologists were able to conclusively demonstrate that education had a definite impact on lowering the prison population. However, many of the college programs depended upon grants.

The most popular was the federal Pell Grant, which was discontinued in the early 1990s becausethe need for college assistance grew in society and prisoners were seen to be expendable. While educating prisoners is expensive, educationhelps pay for itself by reducing recidivism and thus prison costs.While many may legitimately argue that society shouldn't pay forprisoners to be educated, here are a few statistics no one can deny:

National Institute on Literary: 70% of all prisoners function at the twolowest literacy levels.

Bureau of Justice: 47% of State Prisoners have never completed highschool or its equivalent. Less educated prisoners are more likely to be recidivists.

National Institute of Justice: 60% of former prisoners are not employed one year after release.

U.S. Dept. of Education: Participation in State correctional educationprograms lowers the likelihood of incarceration by 29%.

N.J. Institute for Social Justice: 95% to 97% of those currently incarcerated in N.J. will eventually be released.

In 2002, more than 2 million people were incarcerated in Federal orState prisons, or local jails. Nearly 650,000 people are released from incarceration to communities nationwide each year. In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush said: "We know from long experience that if former prisoners can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison...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."There are many committees and think tanks that examine the problems of incarceration and recidivism. Recently several such groups collectivelywrote and published "New Jersey Community & Corrections Working Summit:Impacting Communities of Color."

This collaboration addressed manydifferent issues and made the following recommendations: "The participants...believe that rehabilitation services provided to prisoners during their incarceration are not just cost effective; they also make good public policy sense...Residents of New Jersey have failed to recognize the significant costs they absorb, and in reality, the minimal benefits they receive in turn, when the criminal justice system does little other than function as a temporary human warehouse called punishment. It is imperative that the residents of New Jersey be educated as to the...benefits to instituting increased rehabilitation efforts in our State's prisons."

A second report, "Coming Home for Good: Meeting the Challenge of Prison Reentry in New Jersey," published by the New Jersey Institute for SocialJustice, made similar recommendations: "Even within existing budget constraints, periods of incarceration can be used far more effectively to maximize successful reentry."On the other side of the coin, the Corrections Transition Policy Group(CTPG) generated a Final Report dated January 10, 2006, for Governor Corzine. While including some of the same members, their report was markedly different. Their report made ten recommendations. Eight made by the CTPG involve more money, more staff positions and therefore more power for prison unions.

Consider this: in July of 1999, the prison population was 31,300. In January 2005 it was 26,911, a reduction of some 14%. In 1999, prisoners had access to legal libraries, reading libraries, and educational assistance seven days per week, three times per day, morning, afternoon and night (barring holidays). In 2006, prisoners have access five days per week, twice per day, morning and afternoon (no weekends or holidays) and nighttime access has been all but eliminated a reduction of 52% (21 time periods to 10 periods). Eachtime the reason given for the reduction was staffing shortages. Yet today there are more guards working for the D.O.C. than there were in1999.

A second recommendation made by the CTPG was "Focus in-prison programming on quality education, drug treatment, and work..." Since around January 2005, the school area has been closed for more than 7 of16 months for various reasons. The repair shop work detail has been completely eliminated (50 inmate jobs removed). The State Use (Depcor) program has lost 22 job positions. The Laundry detail lost more than 10 inmate job positions. Nearly 100 jobs lost in all, in direct contradiction of the experts' recommendations. As of January 2006, State Use industries revenues at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) were more than $250,000 less than a year previous. This shortfall can be directly attributed to the current management.

PrisonIndustries perform an invaluable role. In addition to supplying jobs, in Fiscal Years 2001/2002 State Use inmates paid more than $650,000toward court ordered obligations such as fines, child support, traffictickets, etc. It also saves the state thousands of dollars every year.During 2005, the NJSP was locked down three separate times. No one inmate who worked for State Use Industries received any institutional infraction during these periods. Not a single one. Yet jobs were cut 25%. You cannot run a successful business when the doorman controls the business.

Inmate literacy has been noted in other reports for more than six years, yet nothing has been done. These same people are still "talking". While not all the reports are beneficial to prisoners, they are all desperately needed because they show a gradual awakening in society that incarceration alone does not work, that educational opportunity and other programs for prisoners is not being soft on crime, but instead addresses the underlying causes of crime. Instead of more reports and recommendations, what is needed now is a voice-a voice to integrate what has been projected; and propose from these ideas a concrete manifestation.

One thing I have noted time and again: there is no input from current or former prisoners. I know many inmates are poorly educated or sufferingf rom various addictions. Others suffer from mental illness. None of us claim to be wizards, but we are more than baboons waving sticks. We dohave ideas, and who knows, some may actually prove to be good ones. Prisons in their current incarnation are dinosaurs waiting to die off. It's ironic that education has never been more available and widespread worldwide, and yet it is being slowly but surely eliminated from the prison environment.