Families of Prisoners Support Group
This community is dedicated to families that have been disrupted by prison. Having a loved one incarcerated or having been incarcerated comes with its own unique challenges that require support and understanding. Join the group to find others who know what you're going through, and to seek advice or share your experience.
The three-strikes and you're out legislation has proven to be ineffective at reducing crime and needs to be abolished.
Prison overcrowding in this country, both on the federal level and the state level is a major issue . The large prison population as a result of tougher and tougher legislation has placed a tremendous economic burden on the United States---the taxpayers---not to mention the social burden it imposes in that it hinders any kind of rehabilitative efforts concerning the inmate.
When I first went to prison, I was sent to a medium, as in Oklahoma at that time the facility security level for an inmate was determined solely by the length of his sentence. Any inmate---violent or nonviolent---with a sentence over 15 years would be placed at a medium security prison. My sentence was 20 years, so I was assigned to a medium level security prison.
The cells there were about 7' x 12, as they included a stool and a basin so the inmates could be locked in the cell if needed.
When I transferred to a minimum, the first thing I did after I stepped off the bus is go to the cell house to look around. I peeped into one room and it was so small I thought it was a broom closet, but then I noticed a pair of bunk beds. I was shocked at the tiny cells. They were smaller than those found at a medium security level since they had no stool or basin.
Imagine yourself walking into a room about the size of a normal bathroom and being forced to live there with another person you have never met and probably would never like.
The three-strikes law was not the only factor which caused our prisons to bulge at the seams. A couple of other laws were enacted in the 1990's that hastened the process toward this nation's industrial prison complex----- Mandatory Minimums and "Truth-in-Sentencing."
The Mandatory Minimums caused the prison population to increase as inmates were coming in to the system, but very few were being released.
The Truth-In-Sentencing laws mandated an inmate serve 85% of his sentence before he received any good time credits or was eligible for parole consideration. Prisons at the federal level have used the 85% criteria for a couple of decades now, but the idea at the state level did not come until the late 1990's.
These three laws---three strikes laws, Mandatory Minimums, and the 85% laws---have had unintended consequences. Most of the laws passed by our legislature in a knee-jerk effort to be "tough on crime" have had unintended consequences, which have led to ridiculous sentences.
Because of the three-strikes law, you have situations in which a person with two strikes commits a minor crime---like stealing a piece of pizza---and is sent to prison for life.
Because of the Mandatory Minimums, you have situations in which a young man or women would receive a 60 year sentence for only the possession of a small amount of cocaine or a young man caught with a few underage pictures on his hard drive is sent to federal prison for 40 years.
The 85% rule has also been abused. In my state, the 85% rule began in the late 1990's and only a few crimes were eligible for an 85% sentence. But like all things, the politicians had to push the envelope, and to appease the frightened public and appear "tough on crime" the politicians kept adding more and more crimes to the 85% list, which has done nothing but fill up our prisons.
Sentences and punishment needs to be left to the judges and kept out of the politicians hands. The judges need to be able to mitigate a charge if there are extraordinary circumstances. They are more familiar with the law and the criminal justice system, not the politicians.
These three sentencing schemes and their disastrous effects are what happens when we politicize something in this country, especially our criminal justice system and prisons.
Just a total mess.
rewdiazepam
Prison overcrowding in this country, both on the federal level and the state level is a major issue . The large prison population as a result of tougher and tougher legislation has placed a tremendous economic burden on the United States---the taxpayers---not to mention the social burden it imposes in that it hinders any kind of rehabilitative efforts concerning the inmate.
When I first went to prison, I was sent to a medium, as in Oklahoma at that time the facility security level for an inmate was determined solely by the length of his sentence. Any inmate---violent or nonviolent---with a sentence over 15 years would be placed at a medium security prison. My sentence was 20 years, so I was assigned to a medium level security prison.
The cells there were about 7' x 12, as they included a stool and a basin so the inmates could be locked in the cell if needed.
When I transferred to a minimum, the first thing I did after I stepped off the bus is go to the cell house to look around. I peeped into one room and it was so small I thought it was a broom closet, but then I noticed a pair of bunk beds. I was shocked at the tiny cells. They were smaller than those found at a medium security level since they had no stool or basin.
Imagine yourself walking into a room about the size of a normal bathroom and being forced to live there with another person you have never met and probably would never like.
The three-strikes law was not the only factor which caused our prisons to bulge at the seams. A couple of other laws were enacted in the 1990's that hastened the process toward this nation's industrial prison complex----- Mandatory Minimums and "Truth-in-Sentencing."
The Mandatory Minimums caused the prison population to increase as inmates were coming in to the system, but very few were being released.
The Truth-In-Sentencing laws mandated an inmate serve 85% of his sentence before he received any good time credits or was eligible for parole consideration. Prisons at the federal level have used the 85% criteria for a couple of decades now, but the idea at the state level did not come until the late 1990's.
These three laws---three strikes laws, Mandatory Minimums, and the 85% laws---have had unintended consequences. Most of the laws passed by our legislature in a knee-jerk effort to be "tough on crime" have had unintended consequences, which have led to ridiculous sentences.
Because of the three-strikes law, you have situations in which a person with two strikes commits a minor crime---like stealing a piece of pizza---and is sent to prison for life.
Because of the Mandatory Minimums, you have situations in which a young man or women would receive a 60 year sentence for only the possession of a small amount of cocaine or a young man caught with a few underage pictures on his hard drive is sent to federal prison for 40 years.
The 85% rule has also been abused. In my state, the 85% rule began in the late 1990's and only a few crimes were eligible for an 85% sentence. But like all things, the politicians had to push the envelope, and to appease the frightened public and appear "tough on crime" the politicians kept adding more and more crimes to the 85% list, which has done nothing but fill up our prisons.
Sentences and punishment needs to be left to the judges and kept out of the politicians hands. The judges need to be able to mitigate a charge if there are extraordinary circumstances. They are more familiar with the law and the criminal justice system, not the politicians.
These three sentencing schemes and their disastrous effects are what happens when we politicize something in this country, especially our criminal justice system and prisons.
Just a total mess.
rewdiazepam
Thank you for your post. I agree with what you're saying, but I have to add something- the judge in our case was not in any way a fair-minded person. He has a reputation for handing down harsh sentences, even to non-violent, youthful and first offenders. I have no faith in the objectivity or fairness of judges. They can be bought just like any other crooked person.
The judge in our case was very biases so I have no faith in them as well.
I know what you mean by the judge not being fair, but our flawed criminal justice system is not about what is fair or just; or who is guilty or innocent; it is not even about justice, whatever that is.
The American criminal justice system is just an adversarial system which pits two opposing sides----the government and the defendant---against each other. Whoever can tell the best story or present their facts in the most articulate manner wins the game. Many times whoever has the most money and the most power will prevail. The fact that the defendant is guilty or innocent never plays into it; it should, but it doesn't.
I was innocent, went to trial and lost. Personally the DA did not care if I was innocent or guilty, nor did my defense attorney; ditto for the judge. I was just a number and they all wanted to win.
The innocence or guilty aspect really has nothing to do with it and, to those in the system, it does not matter. It is just a game like chess.
As human beings we like to think that if we do good things, we will be rewarded and if our loved one is innocent the system will see that and he will be acquitted.
We like to belief in what is right, but "right" or "wrong" in the criminal justice system are just words that have no real meaning.
rewdiazepam
This is just an example. The judge was then told all the stupid things such as a piece of gum or an erase brought in could get a person prison time too.
When he seemed stunned, I asked him, because he asked if I had anything to add. I asked him, Don't you now what happens in prisons? Don't you have anything to do with what happens to the people sent there? He nicely and surprisingly to ma answered, no I hate to admit, we do not know what goes on in the prison system, that is a whole other thing then. The DOC takes over and we are out of it. I again got the guts to ask him, " do you think that is right? Shouldn't that have some bearing on your decision on how to sentence them, to where, and for how long?" He looked a bit embarassed and baffled and Said, You have a point there. I don't know how it could ever be changed, but it should be.
Awhile ago, when in prison before. My fiance asked me to look up a name on the WIsconsin site to see if he was listed in his prison and what his charges were. I did not find anything. Completely nothing, but he was definitely in the prison. Then he had me look up the guy's name. Just googled it. Turns out the man was a " retired" district attorney from a huge area in WI. Seems for some reason, he wasn't really calling it a retirement, just wanted to explore other things.
Then we figured out he was actually in the prison, seeing for himself what went on in there, or trying to get answers on a case.. who knows. Very odd that this DA would be in a prison, exploring other things, as he put it.. but not listed on the inmate search. THEN when I sent information about it to him, printed off everything I could, knowing they read their letters. The man miraculously just vanished from the prison. I maybe blew his cover. Maybe I shouldn't of. BUT we didn't know what his motives were. They may not have been to find out things to improve prisons. I do not trust anyone in the justice system, except that one judge I had. He was very cool. He pretty much gave me a slap on the wrist. BUT then he was the college friend of my attorney, a former DA of that county.
I said all this because you said that sentences need to be handled by the judges doing the sentencing, not politicians. Yes politicians should be taken out of it. BUT judges need to be educated about prisons, and they must not let the DOC have more power than the courts. In most cases once a person is in the DOC hands, the courts and judges have nothing more to do with it, and that judge proved that.
If the DA I mentioned was in there checking things out to help things, then that is great, but he did one very stupid thing. He used his real name. How ridiculous.
I don't think we have the three strike rule in our state, or mine would be out of luck by now.
When you first get sentenced to prison in WI. You go to a Assessment and Evaluation prison. Everyone from minimum type offenses to murders go to this place. It is awful. Mine was in an 8 x 6 cell with two other men, he hated. No wonder he was cranky. They were in it up to 23.5 hours a day. Sometimes they got out to eat, other times, fed through the hole in the door for the plates. Shower maybe 3 times a week, usually one call a week, depending on the guard.
For a long time now the ACLU has been trying to fight solitary confinement. Yes that is horrible. But in WI just going to the Assessment and Evaluation phase first, is solitary confinement and you did nothing extra to deserve that as when you are in prison.
There are people lobbying left and right about the wrongfulness of solitary confinement. It has been proved to contribute to mental illness, and if a person already has one, he can pretty much be driven completely insane in a short period of time.
No tv, no visits, no communication with the outside world at all except MAYBE a call or so a week, at the assessment place he was at.
It has been proven that solitary confinement pretty much ensures a bigger possibility of recidivism. Yet they do it.
Do not believe for a minute they are complaining the prisons are overcrowded. THEY are making them overcrowded on purpose.
Right in my Criminal Justice classes book it said Prisons are a money making industry. Why would they want to cut down the amount of prisoners. That would cut down on prison staff, it could trickle down to other areas, as in the economy of the town where the prisons are, maybe even down further to the police departments, etc etc. These people will never let the prisons be less crowded. They would lose more money than we can even figure out.
Prison sentences are going to keep being the way they are. Politicians know that the general public feeds on the tough on crime bull crap. That is how they win an election, feeding the frenzy of the hatred of " criminals". Not considering that many people arrested are innocent. Or not considering that maybe the crime is not severe enough to demand a prison sentence. That would not be conducive to their cause of winning an election.
I may get criticized for this, but I quit voting. WHY BOTHER??? The people don't truly vote in a president. The electoral college does.
Politicians say anything to get elected. Do anything to get elected. Now the word SEX OFFENDER sets off alarms everywhere, so politicians use that to get votes too. They promise the moon and accomplish nothing. IF a democrat has a good idea and a Republican agrees, they can't vote for it, or vice versa. So if a one of them came up with a better alternative to prison sentences, the opposite side would have to vote against it or be chastised by his fellow people of that party and his constituents. So what is the point of even having political parties? Surely not to do what is right for our country?
To me, the government does way more criminal things than at least half of the prisoners in the US.
I hate politicians. Even ones that start out with good intentions become severely tainted. And there is not one that can help us, or would care too.
MN had Paul Wellstone. I did like him. I met him years ago. He was one of the " little men", who came out of nowhere, and wanted to try to work FOR the people, do what they wanted and needed. He did get farther than I expected him to. But he was never able to conquer the demons that run how the government works now.
Our government has gotten so out of control it is scary. I do not trust our government for many reasons.
I just read the other day that now they have cameras that cops can use outside to detect you and things in your house. While many do gooders said if you aren't doing anything wrong, why would you be against it? WHY? Because where is our right to privacy as stated in the Condtitution? Where is it safe just to think you are alone, you can feel comfortable doing whatever you want, IF they can now sit in a cop car across the street from your house and aim that camera and see things.
They can already tap into our phones, get phone records, get our emails and texts.. is there much left they can't do to us? LAND OF THE FREE??? What a joke they have made of that.
You have the right to decide what you plead but those PD's will talk you into pleading to anything just to finish up the case because they have too many cases. They don't study up on the individual cases. They don't have time. My fiance never saw his this time. A few calls on the phone. A few letters, but nothing.Once he stood up in court, when the judge read the so called plea bargain he had supposedly agreed to, the judge said MR H.... do you understand these charges and what you are pleading to? Usually you would say Yes your honor. My fiance stood there and said NO your honor.. I have not had two minutes with my lawyer. He has not come to see me in jail, he has not answered my letters or calls. I need time to discuss this. The damn judge gave him TWO minutes right there in the court room to discuss his fate.
We had the opportunity to get a lawyer that was pretty shady, but pretty darn reputable in regards to winning high profile BAD cases.
But he did actually take a few cases from us little people out here without money, if you were a friend of a friend of his.
He told us for the standard fee, he would do his best. BUT for 10 grand, he could hand pick the DA and the Judge. And that also DA's and attorney's take turns winning and losing when they are in court together alot.
We paid the standard fee... and LOST.
My situation of getting in trouble bringing in a beading needle ( stupidly) for him to make jewelry, shows how they can be bought.
I didn't truly buy this one.. but I picked the right attorney, who had been the DA of that county. He hand picked his buddy and former school mate, a judge in another county to oversee my hearing. He was friends with the now DA, and so they all worked out deals behind closed doors without me, before I went to the final hearing.
It was not even done in a court room. Just a conference room. The judge came in with his judge robe unzipped up, shorts and a t shirt under it. Was about to go golfing with my lawyer afterwards.
I got off very easy. And because my lawyer had been someone of importance at that courthouse, and was well known now as a great attorney, and had friends in high places. This time I profited from that warped way our justice system works. My fiance has never been that lucky.;