Watch on YouTube here.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Monday, December 15, 2014
Thursday, December 12, 2013
The Disturbing Reason 97% Of Federal Drug Defendants Plead Guilty
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has a disturbing report alleging the U.S. government essentially forces drug defendants to either plead guilty or rot in prison for an insane amount of time.
In the report, called "An Offer You Can't Refuse," HRW looks into the unsettling reasons why a whopping 97% of federal drug defendants plead guilty and never go to trial.
Here's how prosecutors generally get those guilty pleas, according to the report. Prosecutors often charge drug defendants with crimes that carry high mandatory minimum sentences — meaning judges will have to mete out harsh sentences if they're found guilty.
(Attorney General Eric Holder recently ordered prosecutors to stop charging defendants in a way that triggers mandatory minimums, but his directive doesn't apply to all drug defendants. Holder's policy may also go away with a new administration.)
Once prosecutors hit people with these charges, they offer them one surefire way to avoid harsh sentences — a plea agreement. Drug defendants often agree to plead guilty — and often testify against others — in exchange for a significantly reduced sentence.
In some cases, prosecutors actually threaten to file additional charges against a defendant if they refuse to plead guilty. One anonymous former federal prosecutor told HRW that they "penalize a defendant for the audacity of going to trial."
Given that nine out of 10 defendants who go to trial are found guilty, according to HRW, the "choice" is clear. From the report:
There is nothing inherently wrong with resolving cases through guilty pleas—it reduces the many burdens of trial preparation and the trial itself on prosecutors, defendants, judges, and witnesses. But in the US plea bargaining system, many federal prosecutors strong-arm defendants by offering them shorter prison terms if they plead guilty, and threatening them if they go to trial with sentences that, in the words of Judge John Gleeson of the Southern District of New York, can be “so excessively severe, they take your breath away.”
HRW profiled some folks who took their chances with a trial, and the results weren't pretty.
One of those defendants, Darlene Eckles, never touched drugs but let her drug-dealing brother crash at her house for six months and counted his money. She refused a deal for a 10-year prison sentence. Eckles, a nursing assistant with a young son, went to trial and got 20 years. Her brother, who led the conspiracy, pleaded guilty and testified against his sister. He got 11 years and eight months.
It's not unheard of for the leaders of drug rings to take advantage of plea deals and get less time than their underlings — in part because they have information they can trade in exchange for a deal. We've previously written about Mandy Martinson, an Iowa woman with a clean record who got a 15-year prison sentence for allegedly helping her boyfriend become a more "organized" drug dealer. That boyfriend got 12 years in prison.
As former U.S. attorney Scott Lassar said, according to HRW, "It’s a bounty system. [The defendant] gets credit for bringing in other people’s heads. If they don’t need you, you’re out of luck. If ringleader cooperates, he may get a better deal than people of lower culpability."
In the report, called "An Offer You Can't Refuse," HRW looks into the unsettling reasons why a whopping 97% of federal drug defendants plead guilty and never go to trial.
Here's how prosecutors generally get those guilty pleas, according to the report. Prosecutors often charge drug defendants with crimes that carry high mandatory minimum sentences — meaning judges will have to mete out harsh sentences if they're found guilty.
(Attorney General Eric Holder recently ordered prosecutors to stop charging defendants in a way that triggers mandatory minimums, but his directive doesn't apply to all drug defendants. Holder's policy may also go away with a new administration.)
Once prosecutors hit people with these charges, they offer them one surefire way to avoid harsh sentences — a plea agreement. Drug defendants often agree to plead guilty — and often testify against others — in exchange for a significantly reduced sentence.
Given that nine out of 10 defendants who go to trial are found guilty, according to HRW, the "choice" is clear. From the report:
There is nothing inherently wrong with resolving cases through guilty pleas—it reduces the many burdens of trial preparation and the trial itself on prosecutors, defendants, judges, and witnesses. But in the US plea bargaining system, many federal prosecutors strong-arm defendants by offering them shorter prison terms if they plead guilty, and threatening them if they go to trial with sentences that, in the words of Judge John Gleeson of the Southern District of New York, can be “so excessively severe, they take your breath away.”
HRW profiled some folks who took their chances with a trial, and the results weren't pretty.
One of those defendants, Darlene Eckles, never touched drugs but let her drug-dealing brother crash at her house for six months and counted his money. She refused a deal for a 10-year prison sentence. Eckles, a nursing assistant with a young son, went to trial and got 20 years. Her brother, who led the conspiracy, pleaded guilty and testified against his sister. He got 11 years and eight months.
It's not unheard of for the leaders of drug rings to take advantage of plea deals and get less time than their underlings — in part because they have information they can trade in exchange for a deal. We've previously written about Mandy Martinson, an Iowa woman with a clean record who got a 15-year prison sentence for allegedly helping her boyfriend become a more "organized" drug dealer. That boyfriend got 12 years in prison.
As former U.S. attorney Scott Lassar said, according to HRW, "It’s a bounty system. [The defendant] gets credit for bringing in other people’s heads. If they don’t need you, you’re out of luck. If ringleader cooperates, he may get a better deal than people of lower culpability."
Friday, September 6, 2013
A Psychologist’s Deceptions about Prison Abuse in California
“Brutal killers should not be glorified. This hunger strike is dangerous, disruptive and needs to end.”
That’s how Jeffrey Beard, head of California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), concluded his disturbingly deceptive August 6th op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He was condemning a hunger strike that had begun a month earlier, when 30,000 inmates refused meals in solidarity with striking prisoners subjected to long-term and indefinite solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and the state’s three other “supermax” prisons. Now nearly two months in, over 100 inmates reportedly still remain on strike. But rather than negotiating with these prisoners, Secretary Beard’s office has instead sought and obtained a court order authorizing medically unethical force-feeding.
What is it that the striking prisoners want? They have five core demands: (1) compliance with recommendations from the 2006 report of the U.S. Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, including an end to long-term solitary confinement; (2) modification of the criteria used to determine gang status (which include tattoos and certain artwork or literature) and abolishment of the “debriefing” policy whereby release from isolation often requires informing on other prisoners; (3) an end to group punishment and administrative abuse; (4) the provision of adequate and nutritious food; and (5) the expansion of constructive programming and privileges (such as a weekly phone call and a yearly photo) for inmates held indefinitely in “Security Housing Units” (SHUs). Currently over 10,000 prisoners are held in isolation in California SHUs, with more than 500 of them having been in solitary confinement for over a decade.
When Secretary Beard was appointed to lead the CDCR last December, this could have been viewed as an encouraging sign. As Gov. Jerry Brown said then, “Jeff Beard has arrived at the right time to take the next steps in returning California’s parole and correctional institutions to their former luster.” Previously, he had also received high praise from the governor of Pennsylvania when he held a similar position in that state: “Jeffrey Beard is setting a positive example not just in Pennsylvania, but nationally. …His exemplary leadership has ensured the improved management of Pennsylvania's state prison system, and a safe place for inmates to rehabilitate.”
Even more, there was seemingly reason for optimism in the fact that Secretary Beard is a psychologist, having received his doctoral degree in counseling psychology over thirty years ago. That training should matter because among the core principles of psychologists’ professional code of ethics are all of the following: “respect the dignity and worth of all people,” “strive to benefit those with whom they work,” “take care to do no harm,” “safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons,” and “guard against personal, financial, social, organizational or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence.”
But eight months later, Dr. Beard’s background as a psychologist only adds to the outrageousness of his recent op-ed in which he repeatedly misrepresented the seriousness and legitimacy of the striking prisoners’ concerns, including here:
Exactly why Dr. Beard has decided to ignore, discount, or distort these unconscionable realities is ultimately beside the point. But the public should not be confused by his misleading rhetoric. The key demands of the hunger strikers are little different from prison reforms that have been strongly recommended by mental health experts and human rights advocates alike.
In an essay published shortly after the CDCR Secretary’s op-ed appeared, Berkeley law professor Jonathan Simon argued that Dr. Beard’s public dishonesty and demonization of the hunger strikers demonstrate that he is the wrong leader to bring urgent reform to the “grotesque structure of inhumanity” that defines California’s prison system today. Simon called for “a protest movement and direct action campaign to force real change starting with Secretary Beard’s resignation.” Given their ethical commitment to the promotion of human welfare, psychologists should be among those at the forefront of these efforts.
Note: This essay first appeared on Counterpunch. The "Solitary Confinement" drawing is by Stan Moody.
That’s how Jeffrey Beard, head of California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), concluded his disturbingly deceptive August 6th op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He was condemning a hunger strike that had begun a month earlier, when 30,000 inmates refused meals in solidarity with striking prisoners subjected to long-term and indefinite solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and the state’s three other “supermax” prisons. Now nearly two months in, over 100 inmates reportedly still remain on strike. But rather than negotiating with these prisoners, Secretary Beard’s office has instead sought and obtained a court order authorizing medically unethical force-feeding.
When Secretary Beard was appointed to lead the CDCR last December, this could have been viewed as an encouraging sign. As Gov. Jerry Brown said then, “Jeff Beard has arrived at the right time to take the next steps in returning California’s parole and correctional institutions to their former luster.” Previously, he had also received high praise from the governor of Pennsylvania when he held a similar position in that state: “Jeffrey Beard is setting a positive example not just in Pennsylvania, but nationally. …His exemplary leadership has ensured the improved management of Pennsylvania's state prison system, and a safe place for inmates to rehabilitate.”
Even more, there was seemingly reason for optimism in the fact that Secretary Beard is a psychologist, having received his doctoral degree in counseling psychology over thirty years ago. That training should matter because among the core principles of psychologists’ professional code of ethics are all of the following: “respect the dignity and worth of all people,” “strive to benefit those with whom they work,” “take care to do no harm,” “safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons,” and “guard against personal, financial, social, organizational or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence.”
But eight months later, Dr. Beard’s background as a psychologist only adds to the outrageousness of his recent op-ed in which he repeatedly misrepresented the seriousness and legitimacy of the striking prisoners’ concerns, including here:
Some prisoners claim this strike is about living conditions in the Security Housing Units, commonly called SHUs, which house some of the most dangerous inmates in California. Don't be fooled. Many of those participating in the hunger strike are under extreme pressure to do so from violent prison gangs, which called the strike in an attempt to restore their ability to terrorize fellow prisoners, prison staff and communities throughout California.Dr. Beard’s office has offered neither evidence nor access for independent verification of these claims, and its misguided public relations campaign runs counter to compelling evidence of widespread abuse in the prison system. Last year Amnesty International issued a scathing report – titled “USA: The Edge of Endurance” – about California’s SHUs, based on a visit to Pelican Bay and other prisons in the state. The report concluded that conditions there “breach international standards on humane treatment” and amount to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” In describing prisoners who are confined to their cells for at least 22 and a half hours a day and have no access to work, group activities, or programs focused on rehabilitation, the report stated:
Most prisoners are confined alone in cells which have no windows to the outside or direct access to natural light. SHU prisoners are isolated both within prison and from meaningful contact with the outside world: contact with correctional staff is kept to a minimum, and consultations with medical, mental health and other staff routinely take place behind barriers; all visits, including family and legal visits, are also non-contact, with prisoners separated from their visitors behind a glass screen.In addition to the critical assessments from human rights organizations and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, Dr. Beard is certainly familiar with the research of fellow psychologists and psychiatrists documenting the extreme adverse effects of extended involuntary solitary confinement (sometimes referred to as the “SHU syndrome”), which can persist long after isolation has ended. Among the negative psychological effects identified by California psychologist Craig Haney, psychiatrist Terry Kupers, and other scholars in comprehensive reviews are lethargy, depression, hopelessness, and suicidal thoughts and behavior; anxiety, panic, and insomnia; irritability, hypersensitivity, aggression, and rage; and cognitive dysfunction,paranoia, and hallucinations. Haney has also noted that ten days in solitary confinement is enough to produce harmful health outcomes. Many of the prisoners at Pelican Bay have been held in isolation for years.
Exactly why Dr. Beard has decided to ignore, discount, or distort these unconscionable realities is ultimately beside the point. But the public should not be confused by his misleading rhetoric. The key demands of the hunger strikers are little different from prison reforms that have been strongly recommended by mental health experts and human rights advocates alike.
In an essay published shortly after the CDCR Secretary’s op-ed appeared, Berkeley law professor Jonathan Simon argued that Dr. Beard’s public dishonesty and demonization of the hunger strikers demonstrate that he is the wrong leader to bring urgent reform to the “grotesque structure of inhumanity” that defines California’s prison system today. Simon called for “a protest movement and direct action campaign to force real change starting with Secretary Beard’s resignation.” Given their ethical commitment to the promotion of human welfare, psychologists should be among those at the forefront of these efforts.
Note: This essay first appeared on Counterpunch. The "Solitary Confinement" drawing is by Stan Moody.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Support the Strike!
Unless the Governor and the Department of Corrections take decisive action, prisoners throughout California will resume a hunger strike and work stoppage ONE WEEK FROM TODAY to protest the torturous conditions in solitary confinement--and other parts of the prison system.
Stand in Solidarity with the Hunger Strike and other Job Actions Being Called for July 8th!
Communities across the state, country, and world plan on taking action to help the strikers win their demands.
Sign up for updates at prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com.
Wherever you are, please take some form of action on July 8th. Big or small, every voice counts!
Click here for more: http://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com/take-action-2/add-your-event/
And, please support the statewide mobilization to Corcoran State Prison on July, 13! Details below.
Mobilization to Support the Prisoner Hunger Strikes
Corcoran State Prison
Saturday July 13, 2013
Rides available by bus and carpool. Contact rachel-at-criticalresistance.org or 510-444-0484
Caravans will leave from MacArthur BART in Oakland at 9:00 AM and Chuco’s Justice Center in Inglewood at 9:00AM. We will gather at Cesar Chavez Park in Corcoran (1500 Oregon) at 2PM and then march to Corcoran State Prison where our demands will be heard!
In 2011, over 12,000 California state prisoners engaged in a hunger strike to end long term solitary confinement and to demand changes to the way that prisoners are assigned to torturous cells, known as the SHU (security housing units). Although the Department of Corrections acknowledged that their demands were reasonable and would be addressed - very little has changed for California prisoners since 2011. California is still spending millions of dollars a year to keep people in solitary confinement for decades!
Statewide Hunger Strikes Resume
On July 8, 2013 California Prisoners will begin an indefinite hunger strike and work strike until meaningful changes are made within the Department of Corrections.
On July 13, 2013 we will rally at Corcoran State Prison to show our support for the prisoners and pressure Jerry Brown to meet their demands! Like Pelican Bay, Corcoran isolates nearly 2,000 people in solitary confinement.
________________________________________
How You Can Support
We need your support now more than ever! Please consider making a donation to our coalition so that we can continue to fight for the human rights of people in extreme isolation in California prisons. Funds collected will be used for the July 13th mobilization in addition to other coalition expenses such as monthly mailings to prisoners, legal visits to Pelican Bay and Corcoran and other printing expenses.
Donations can be made online at www.prisons.org; be sure to click the “Special Instructions” link and write “PHSS” to direct your donation to us. Or you can write a check to California Prison Focus/PHSS and mail it to PHSS 1904 Franklin Street #507, Oakland, CA 94612. We could also use donations of such as food and water for the July 13 mobilization, as well as vans or buses for the caravan to Corcoran. Please contact Rachel Herzing, rachel-at-criticalresistance.org or call 510-444-0484 if you would like to offer assistance in these areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)