Risk Management: Psychological Evaluation of Parolees

The public concern with risk and dangerousness in the context of release always sparks lively debates, much of which focus on the management and containment of sex offenders. It is therefore curious that two recent new items, relating to release practices, have retained relatively low profiles.

The first one is related to psychological evaluation of parolees. Part and parcel of the release of any California inmate is a psychological risk assessment. However, no such risk assessments were required for federal or out-of-state parolees who then served their parole in California. Jaycee Lee Dugard's kidnapping by Philip Garrido, who served time in Nevada before being a California parolee, was the inspiration for this bill, whose full text is here.

This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assess every person on parole transferred from any other state or by the federal government to this state who has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, would require the person to register as a sex offender, as specified. The bill would specify that this assessment shall occur no later than 60 days after a determination by the Department of Justice that the person is required to register as a sex offender, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of “eligible person” for the purpose in the paragraph above to include all persons required to register as sex offenders pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

I wonder if this legislation (which, in itself, is fairly sensible, depending on the reliability of the risk assessment tool) would have really prevented Dugard's kidnapping. The answer to that lies not only in conditions for release, but also with the indicia of dangerousness and rehabilitation that parole agents later look for. Would a man with a steady job, a house, and a seemingly functional family drawn any attention? Would his deep pathologies have revealed themselves through the risk assessment tool? These are very hard questions to answer.

In other (not unrelated) news, Cathleen Gagliani, a Democrat assemblywoman from Stockton, has approached Gov. Schwarzenegger to help prevent the release of Loren Herzog, convicted for multiple murders. More on why this is somewhat of an outlier case from the Sac Bee:

In a letter to Schwarzenegger this week, Galgiani asks the Republican governor to "intervene and request a clinical review and risk assessment of Loren Herzog's mental status" in an attempt to keep him incarcerated as a sexually violent predator.

Under state law, a judge can order a sexually violent predator incarcerated for an additional two-year period, with review once that stint ends, if the person is found by two psychiatrists or psychologists to have a mental disorder that makes reoffending likely.

Galgiani wants Schwarzenegger to target Herzog for such a mental evaluation before his release, saying in her letter that "I believe that Loren Herzog will be found to likely reoffend."

One potential obstacle for Galgiani is that the law permitting continued incarceration of sexually violent predators, beyond their parole date, targets those who have been convicted of sex offenses against two or more victims.

Though Herzog pleaded to voluntary manslaughter, Galgiani said in her letter that he was "believed to have been a participant in two rapes" and that "two women testified against Shermantine and Herzog for alleged rapes they never pressed charges for."

This raises another big issue, namely, that of the extent to which we rely on convictions as a record of the "truth". As many of our readers probably know, the vast majority of criminal cases end in plea bargains, in which defendants plead to more lenient charges than those originally pressed in return for a predictable sentence. It is problematic to rely on these records as a genuine expression of what the defendant is believed to have done, but it is also very problematic to assume the opposite, given the prosecutorial incentives to overcharge for the purpose of bargaining. So, when assessing Herzog's dangerousness, do we take into account only the offenses he was convicted of, or also those for which there was evidence but not charges?

Folsom State Riot: 5 Inmates Shot

The Chron reports:

Prison guards shot into a crowd to stop 200 rioting inmates at California's Folsom State Prison, wounding five, authorities said Saturday. Another two inmates were injured by other prisoners during Friday's riot, which began at about 7 p.m. in the main exercise yard and ended after 30 minutes. Prison spokesman Lt. Anthony Gentile said officers fired after other efforts to break up the riot failed.

"We tried to control the situation with chemical agents dispersed over the crowd," Gentile said Saturday. "We fired several rounds of rubber bullets and that didn't stop them from fighting."

None of the inmates suffered life-threatening injuries, and none of the 45 to 50 officers who responded were hurt.

The piece provides no background for the riot; the Sac Bee reports that the cause is still under investigation.

Johnny Cash's Folsom Street Blues is mentioned in the article; here's a video of this song, inspired by the movie Inside the Walls of Folsom Prison, performed live in San Quentin.

Daedalus Issue on Mass Incarceration

Our readers might be interested in the special issue of Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, devoted to mass incarceration. The coverage is quite extensive and includes pieces by the best known names in the field. This might make an excellent read for people interested in more background on the big picture, comparative trends, seeing the incarceration crisis in light of the broader neoliberal picture, etc. We'll post reviews of selected articles in the volume.

LWOP Reconsideration Bill Rejected

A few days ago we reported on Leland Yee's Senate bill aimed at allowing juveniles sentenced to life without parole to ask the court to reconsider their sentences. Yesterday, the bill was rejected by the Assembly. A motion was made by Assemblymember Fuentes to reconsider, so this may resurface again. The rejection is regrettable, given the fact that this would not be a sweeping change and would enable relief in cases of severe injustice.

-------------
props to Janet Gray for alerting me to this.

Reentry: Felons Cannot be Categorically Excluded as Caregivers

The Chron reports:

An Alameda County judge blocked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday from excluding convicted felons and shoplifters from providing in-home care in a program that serves 430,000 low-income elderly and disabled Californians.

Superior Court Judge David Hunter had ruled in February that Schwarzenegger's action was illegal because state law bars workers from the program for 10 years only if they have been convicted of child abuse, elder abuse or defrauding Medi-Cal or any patient.

In-home patients, who have access to their caregivers' criminal records, can otherwise employ anyone they want, the judge said.

Schwarzenegger, acting by executive order, is seeking to bar from the program anyone ever convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors, which include shoplifting. After appealing Hunter's ruling in May, the governor had planned to implement his restrictions later this week.
The state's appeal automatically suspended Hunter's decision but allowed the judge to reinstate it if he concluded that the new limits on caregivers would cause irreparable harm. Hunter made that finding Tuesday, saying both caregivers and their patients would suffer if the governor's rules took effect during his appeal.

I find this report fascinating, because it is a reminder of the mistakes we make when we engage in the "othering" of crime. To people in need of caregiving, convicted felons are not necessarily the "other". They are their parents, siblings and close friends. Attention to these relationships--which surely are not uncommon given the large percentage of Californians who have been convicted and spent time behind bars--is important.

Chelsea's Law Approved by Senate, Almost on Governor's Desk

AB 1844, also known as the Chelsea King Child Predator Prevention Act of 2010, has been approved by the Senate and, after some changes at the Assembly, will be submitted for the governor's signature.

As was the case with previous sex offender legislation, AB 1844 was prompted by the tragic rape and murder of Chelsea King by John Gardner, a convicted sex offender. The new law:

• Increases the sentence for assault with intent to commit a sexual act from 2/4/6 years to 5/7/9 years if victim is a minor.
• Imposes a $100,000 fine on human trafficking when victim is a minor, in addition to the existing 4/6/8 prison sentence.
• Increases the sentence for rape from 3/6/8 years to 9/11/13 years (for victims younger than 14) or to 7/9/11 years (for victims 14 or older). Sentences are even higher for offenses committed by multiple assailants (10/12/14 and 7/9/11 respectively)
• Is applicable in addition to the existing charge of aggravated sexual assault.
• Increases the sentence for lewd or lascivious act upon minors under 14, as well as upon dependent persons, from 3/6/8 to 5/8/10.
• Expands upon Prop 83's mandate to commit offenders to years to life for certain sex offenses against minors to allow life without parole in such circumstances, and adds infliction of bodily harm to the list of circumstances entailing LWOP. It also creates combinations of circumstances yielding LWOP.
• Increases the sentence for offenses committed with great bodily injury from 15-to-life to 25-to-life for victims under 14.
• Adds to Jessica's Law's requirements the prohibition from entering "any park where children regularly gather" withour parole officer's permission.
• Extends the parole period for sex offenders released after a life sentence to 10 years, and creates lifetime parole for habitual sex offenders, persons convicted of kidnapping a child under 14 with the intent to commit a specified sexual offense, and persons convicted of other specified sex crimes, including, among others,aggravated sexual assault of a child. For some offenses, a 20-year parole period is mandated.
• Relaxes the minimal prison requirement for people convicted of petty theft and other offenses (2 priors) -- except for sex offenders (1 prior).
• Requires the use of STATIC-99 as the state's risk assessment tool for adult male sex offenders as a static tool, and requires supplementing it with a dynamic tool.
• Replaces the current requirement to place sex offense convicts in local treatment plan with a requirement of specific conditions, such as participation in an approved sex offender management program.
• Requires an independent assessment of mental health needs in addition to that of the Department of Mental Health.
• Is effective immediately.

The new law's language makes it difficult for me to find the "few cases" in which, according to the Chronicle, "the number of restrictions placed on parolees" would be reduced. Overall, this is one more step in the direction pursued before in Megan's Law and Jessica's Law.

Most Prisoners Come from Few Neighborhoods

GREAT ARTICLE! Check out http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62317/title/Most_prisoners_come_from_few_neighborhoods for a write-up, subtitled, "'Incarceration Hot Spots' Inculcate a Vicious Brand of Hopelessness," of this new Harvard sociology paper.

My favorite quotes:

“Mass incarceration in the United States has a deep local concentration in relatively few disadvantaged communities,” Sampson asserted.

Chicago crime data for 1990 to 1995 show that a large majority of prison and jail populations came from two poor, black sections of the city, Sampson and Loeffler found. During that time, overall rates of crime and violence declined in Chicago while incarceration rates rose in those two areas.