Realignment in Alameda

Read this interesting interview with David Muhammad, the Chief Probational Officer for Alameda County. Seems like his heart is in the right place, and he's doing some serious thinking on how to make this work. This can be a big success if agencies follow Muhammad's example, rather than be pulled into the realignment plan kicking and screaming.

On October 1, California will move 848 prisoners from state prisons to Alameda County jails to finish their sentences. The county anticipates an additional 47 new inmates each month after that.
Also, any low-level parolee from Alameda County who violates their parole will go to county jail instead of back to the state prison where they served their sentence.
Once realignment is in full swing, the county expects 267 more people in jail on any given day than are serving time there today.


. . . 


Sergeant J.D. Nelson of the Alameda County Sherriff’s department said they have the space for the new prisoners in county jail. But they still need the additional state funds for new inmates. “You need to be provided with money,” he said, “to feed and clothe them.”
Eventually, Muhammad’s department expects to supervise and serve an estimated 1,900 new cases.
“I hope that it’s actually huge — that we are doing a much, much better job than the State had been doing,” said Muhammad.
The state, he added, has focused too much on incarceration instead of rehabilitation.
Muhammad wants to shift the focus towards rehabilitation by changing the county’s risk assessment system. When a person is first released to the probation department, officers there assess their likelihood to commit another crime. Probation officers then give the most attention to the people who are at the highest risk.
While this system is good in theory, Muhammad said, they are incorrectly assessing people. Under the current system, someone likely to commit 18 small thefts will score the same as someone likely to commit armed robbery – and will be supervised accordingly.
A study by The Pew Center for the States, however, concludes that low-risk people do better with less supervision.
For example, low-risk people are more likely to have a job, Muhammad said, but if they have to go to the probation office during working hours to meet with a probation officer once a week, they are more likely to lose that job.
Muhammad identified another crucial area where the Alameda County probation can improve – he wants to get the department to the point where each probation officer supervises 50 people.
“Right now,” he said, “the ratio is all over the place.”
Currently 15,000 people are on probation in Alameda County. Eleven thousand of them don’t have probation officers because of a lack of staffing and funding.
AB 109 will provide some of that funding.
“I actually see this as an opportunity where we can fix everything at once,” Muhammad said.

Did the Victim Participation Bill Increase Victim Participation?

Yesterday my students and I were talking about legislation initiatives. One of the insights of our discussion, prompted by the experiences of some of them in drafting bills, was bringing up the question whether legislation was always designed to achieve its stated goals, or to serve some other enforcement goal. Some examples we floated around were the San Francisco sit-lie ordinance, which aims not at criminalizing sitting on the sidewalk per se, but rather to provide the police with an easy enforcement tool against undesirable urban elements without having to spell out the problem. This gap between proclaimed legislative intent and actual intent to enforce is something Dan Portman and I refer to in this piece as "inequitable enforcement."

As has often been the case since the mid-1990, our example this morning comes from the world of pro-victim legislation. The 1990s, as Jonathan Simon convincingly argues in Governing Through Crime, were the decade of the victim, who became the symbolic citizen, occupying the role previously occupied by the yeoman farmer and the small business owner. In 2008, California citizens voted for Prop 9, also known as Marsy's Law. Ostensibly a victim rights proposal (pretty much granting the same rights victims already had before the law passed), the big changes made by the proposal included lengthening the period before a given inmate is entitled to a parole hearing. At the time, we floated around the question whether Prop 9 violated the single subject rule, and some aspects of it were challenged at the 9th Circuit.

But the real question, which we could not answer at the time, was of course whether a legislative initiative ostensibly designed to increase victim participation in the criminal process really does so. And we now have an empirical answer, from a study by Laura Richardson: No, but it sure impacted the process in other ways.

Here is what the black-letter law purported to do:

Marsy’s Law has made major changes to many aspects of parole. Section 3041.5 of the California Penal Code was the most significantly altered by the adoption of Marsy’s Law. Marsy’s Law changed the default time for the date of the next parole hearing from a single year to fifteen years. It changed the amount of time that could be set between parole hearings from 1-5 years to 3-15 years. It altered the standard for deciding when to set the next hearing, shifting the burden from the state on justifying why the inmate continued to be a threat to public safety necessitating a longer time before the next hearing, to the inmate in showing the non- existence of reasons why he or she continues to be a threat to public safety. It also gave the board less discretion in setting parole hearings only allowing parole hearings to be initially set at either 3, 7, 10 or 15 years.


Section 3043 of the California Penal Code was significantly changed by the adoption of Marsy’s Law as well; allowing for victims, victims’ families and up to two representatives to have greater input during the parole hearing. Victims’ [sic] are now entitled to have their “entire and uninterrupted statements” heard by the Parole Board. Additionally, the inmate does not have the right to cross-examine the victim at the parole hearing.


After coding and analyzing 211 randomly-selected parole hearings both before and after the implementation of Marsy's Law, Richardson's findings are twofold: First, the time between parole hearings has nearly doubled, and the law is a strong determining factor of parole setting. 

Controlling for the factors described in Part II, the coefficient for Marsy’s Law in the regression shows a positive increase in the amount of time set by the Parole Board until the next hearing by 2.06 years (+/-0.72) for full parole hearings . . .  No other variable showed an equal positive increase in the amount of time set between parole hearings by the Parole Board. Marsy’s Law had a more significant impact on the time set until the next parole hearing by the Parole Board than any of the factors that the board must utilize in making their parole decisions or the inmate’s activity. 

And, the analysis fails to find any increase in victim participation in the process:



Using least squares regression to test the validity of my model I was unable to find any impact of Marsy’s Law on victim participation at the parole hearing. The only variable that was significant was whether the hearing was an initial or subsequent hearing. When the hearing was a subsequent hearing victim participation decreased by 1.219 (+/1 .46). 

Wait - Decreased?

This raises an open-ended question: In light of these findings, is Marsy's law a failure or a success?


-----
Props to our friends at the Prison Law Blog and at Crim Prof Blog for the link.

Beautiful Op-Ed on BART Police Shooting

Yesterday morning at the Oakland Local: The physician who treated the latest BART police shooting victim wrote an evocative letter. Read it here in its entirety.

Last month, I learned that one of my former patients - Charles Hill - was shot and killed by BART police. Per the police, he was armed with a bottle and a knife and had menacing behavior. Per eye witnesses, he was altered and appeared to be intoxicated, but did not represent a lethal danger.


I remember Charles vividly, having taken care of him several times in the revolving door, which is the health care system for the people who do not fit neatly into society. Charles was a member of the invisible class of people in SF - mentally ill, homeless and not reliably connected to the help he needed. While I had seen him agitated before and while I can't speak to all of his behavior, I never would have described him as threatening in such a way as to warrant the use of deadly force.


...


I would like to lend my voice to the growing protest of the BART police's excessive use of violent force and know that weekly protests are being organized on Mondays until demands are met for BART to fully investigate the shooting of Charles Hill, disarm its police force and train them properly, as well as bringing the officer who shot him to justice.


The media is portraying the annoyance of the protests to commuters more than the unbelievable horror that an innocent man was shot dead by the force that is meant to protect us. I don't want to upset commuters or be a nuisance. I would like to be part of educating and not letting this slip under the proverbial rug, in honor of Charles Hill and in order to help prevent something like this from ever happening again.

Legislative Effort Against the Death Penalty Revived!

The Sac Bee reports:

Opponents of the state's death penalty announced a new effort Monday aimed at getting an initiative before voters next year that would abolish the death penalty and replace it with life without parole.


The effort uses the enormous costs of California's death penalty as a sales point with voters, and organizers said this morning that roughly $4 billion has been spent since 1978 to execute only 13 inmates.

Usually, one would predict that such an initiative had better odds at the legislature than among the public, who has consistently supported the death penalty, and given its failure earlier this week, odds would look rather grim. But with the budget crisis what it is, the public is less likely to be held hostage by victim groups. We will be following this up closely.

SB9 Defeated in Assembly

Short by five votes, the measure to allow juveniles serving life without parole to have their sentences reviewed by a judge after fifteen years failed in the Assembly. The Huffington Post reports (complete with links):

[T]the United States is the only country that sends people under 18 to prison for life with no parole. "No other country sentences kids to die in prison," said Yee's chief of staff, Adam Keigwin. In California, juvenile offenders are ineligible for a death penalty sentence, but they can be sentenced to life with no parole, guaranteeing that they will die in prison. SB9 aimed to change that by offering a chance to appeal if a defendant served a minimum of 25 years and showed remorse and serious change.

The arguments against the bill were victim-centered. For various reasons we explained in an earlier post, this is political rhetoric more than realistic concern. What a disappointment, albeit not as great as the disappointment over the demise of the death penalty abolition bill. Overall, a disappointing week for Californian criminal justice.

WM3: A Personal Perspective

Even on weekend mornings, in which I could stay in bed and sleep, I wake up a bit after 5am. It's still cold and dark, and the pool is not open yet, so there is no hurry. This evening we have dinner guests and are planning to watch Paradise Lost, a documentary about the recently released West Memphis Three. Next week I'll be showing the same movie to my seminar students. It's not an easy movie to watch, and for the most part what I remember from the last time I saw it are the horrifying crime scene photos, shown at the very beginning with a Metallica soundtrack. This is why I don't buy the radical criminology paradigm wholesale, but find myself more in Jock Young's camp of radical realism. Crime is real and victimization is real. It's not all socially constructed. Someone did murder those kids and abuse them in horrifying ways, leaving them in the woods, their little bodies in deplorable condition. But I believe, as do many others, that that someone was not Damien Echols, nor was it Jason Baldwin or Jesse Misskelley.

I don't remember whether I knew about the case when I was in law school in Israel. It was in the early 1990s, and Damien Echols and his supposed accomplices were arrested when I was in my second year. Echols and I are the same age. Since 1993, I graduated law school, worked criminal defense for five years, changed countries several times, finished two advanced degrees, handled health and family changes, made many new friends, and have been very blessed in a life of research, pedagogy, political action, endurance sports, and music of all kinds. Throughout this time, Damien Echols lived on Death Row in Arkansas, his skin turning translucent white from the lack of sun. He seemed almost extraterrestrial last week, giving interviews, pale as death itself and wearing dark sunglasses to protect himself--from what? The sun, the people, the abundant stimuli of which he was deprived for eighteen years?--sitting by his wife and co-defendants and quietly proclaiming his innocence, as he had done throughout his arrest, trial, and lengthy incarceration.

The documentary is rather long and includes extensive in-court footage. Seeing it years before the Alford plea that released the three defendants was like witnessing a dreadful train wreck in progress. Richard Ofshe, an expert on false confessions and memory fallacies, testifying about the many problems with Jesse Misskelley's confession; the Arkansas prosecutor sneering at him, saying, "we're not in Berkeley." The "cult expert", on the witness stand with his mail-order degree, blaming the defendants for a murder showing supposed Satanic features, as they were the only kids in town who wore black and listened to heavy metal. The complete lack of physical evidence.

Several commentators said this week that the DNA evidence "excluded" the defendants' involvement in the crime .That's not true, but it's as good as true. DNA was found at the crime scene, and it does not belong to any of the defendants. It is, of course, possible that the defendants were at the scene of the crime and did not leave DNA there, but it is highly unlikely. It was a messy set for extensive, cruel carnage, and high school boys would probably not have the sophistication and know-how to avoid leaving any marks. So, the convictions rested on the confession of Misskelley, a frightened boy with low IQ, pushed and manipulated by the police, who planted details of the crime within his confession.

The big mystery, of course, is the Alford plea. It doesn't exactly mean the defendants have pled guilty. Alford pleas allow defendants to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that there is factual basis for their convictions. Why the state offered the deal is a no-brainer. The plea explicitly rules out the possibility of a 1983 lawsuit, which would entitle the three defendants to a hefty sum in damages. Moreover, it allows the state actors to escape accountability for what appears to have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. The defendants' decision to accept the plea makes sense when considering the alternative, but raises some serious questions. Their new hearing, complete with DNA evidence, was to be held in a few months (and might still be held.) I can only imagine the horrors of repeated miscarriages of justice would drive one to admit anything, as long as it entails a certain release from prison, and particularly death row, rather than take one's chances on one more hearing. Nonetheless, odds seemed better than ever that the miscarriages would finally be examined and fixed. One can only imagine the set of cost-benefit considerations that went into deciding whether to agree to this plea.

So, this week my friends, my students and I will revisit a particularly dark chapter in the book of American criminal justice, and will have an opportunity to ponder upon the inevitability of human cruelty, alienation, and hatred, and the destruction it brings to lives and communities.

"This planet upon which I live is ostracized from God." --Jacob Wassermann, Das Gold von Caxamalca

Death Penalty Bill Will Not Go Forward

SB490, the proposition to abolish the death penalty in CA, will not move forward. The Chronicle reports:

A bill that would have let California voters decide whether to repeal the death penalty will not move forward because of a lack of support in the Legislature, the measure's author announced Thursday.


SB490 by Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, was introduced in June following the release of a study that found the state is paying $184 million more a year to keep people on death row than it would if inmates were simply left in prison for life.

But look at the statement from Hancock:

"The votes were not there to support reforming California's expensive and dysfunctional death penalty system," Hancock said in a written statement Thursday. "I had hoped we would take the opportunity to save hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used to support our schools and universities, keep police on our streets and fund essential public institutions like the courts. Study after study has demonstrated that the cost of maintaining the death penalty when so many basic needs are going unmet has become an expense we can no longer afford."

If this is not humonetarianism, I don't know what is.

----

Props to David Takacs for alerting me to this.