UNHEARDVOICES O.T.C.J.
Prison Relief Senate Bill 2019 Legislation by Unheard Voices O.T.C.J.
POSTED ON APRIL 9, 2018
BY UNHEARDVOICESOTCJ
This bill is the recommended model Prison Relief Bill to be placed before the 2018 Senate. For the past few years the only bills to be placed before the Senate in an alleged attempt to address and relieve the overcrowding of Alabama’s prisons, to build prisons.
As of today, this issue has been ongoing for many years, and Alabama’s State Representatives have failed to pass a bill that would work in relieving the overcrowding of the prisons in Alabama. It’s time to actually place on the table and pass a Senate Bill that will not only be effective in dropping the number of men and women in our prisons, but to do so in a manner that will be at minimum cost to the taxpayer, allowing the taxpayers’ money to be properly directed in lowering the recidivism rate. Sadly, the reasoning for the crisis in Alabama at this time is due to an ideology that not only was poorly planned, thought of but executed. Now, due to such poorly constructed laws and statutes being passed by our State Senate and Legislature we have to pay the price to correct it to avoid what will eventually become more toxic, and detrimental in the future to our state and its citizens; both in paying and confined.
First, to address issues such as this, we have to dissect the cause and effect of what we face. The issue here is overcrowding of our prisons. Now we have to ask ourselves, what has “caused” our prisons to be overcrowded? The answer to this is not complex at all.
Cause for Overcrowding of our Prisons:
Over the past two or three decades, our state has adopted the ideology, “Let’s get tough on crime.” In doing so, we adopted laws such as the 446 Law known as the “Habitual Offender Law.” The mistake that our lawmakers made was in revising this law from the Texas model. Alabama lawmakers decided to implement and enact that any three felonies constituted an offender being tried and sentenced under the 446 Act/Law, allowing enhancements of crimes and length of sentences. In doing so, this has backed the prison facilities up to long-term sentences. Hence you now have your effect for said cause;
Effect of the above cause is for over 30 years since the adoption of the 446 Act/Law you have more and more men and women serving sentences ranging from 20 years to Life without parole. These men and women remain in our prisons ranging from 15 to 40 plus years due to these sentences, and the fact the parole board is very reluctant to release inmates in the past. How compiling men and women of multiple generations (meaning veteran convicts, and new or first time generation offenders”). In essence, our prisons have no room for new offenders because men and women have to serve longer sentences than before the 446 Act/Law was adopted and enacted, and IGT (Incentive Good Time) was all but removed. The cost of one inmate that has served 25 years is approximately half a million dollars.
Sentencing guidelines and discretion given to our State Circuit Judges. For many decades our Circuit Judges have had the discretion on how much time one should be sentenced. This has proven to be toxic, and a huge injustice due to the fact it allows room for abuse. Under our current Sentencing guidelines, it is still a problem.
When the 446 Act/Law was enacted, the sentencing guidelines allowed a Judge to “choose” an offenders’ sentence. For example, A man/woman charged with armed robbery under SS 13-A-8-41 will face a sentence ranging from 20 to 99 years. A Judge, due to this “allowed” discretion, has 79 years to play with. It’s a known fact that Judges have openly stated their goals as Judges are to give out a million years while they occupy the bench. This ideology and concept leave the state operating recklessly.
Judges are allowed discretion to give the maximum sentence to an offender pending on their mood, feelings, possible prejudice, influence, or personal agendas. This ideology had proven to be a reality when many men/women within our prisons had near identical circumstances and convicted of the same crime- one with 20 years, the other 99 years.
Effect of the above cause is an injustice, and mockery of our Judicial System as well as our Constitutional law guaranteeing equal protection of the law made applicable by the 14th amendment. It has allowed thousands upon thousands of offenders to clog the system for years because Judges decided they felt like giving out the maximum sentence that day. This concept in itself is also wasting taxpayer money at an average today of $18,000 per inmate a year. Not counting the increase in the cost of housing an inmate as the years go by, and staying at the current $18,000 a year it takes to house an inmate today, the cost difference in sentencing one man/woman to 20 years and another to 99 years would amount to $1,422,000. This money, in essence, will be spent because a Judge is allowed discretion.
IGT (Incentive Good Time) for inmates allowing non-violent offenders with a maximum sentence of 15 years to earn IGT for good behavior. Alabama lawmakers upon enacting the 446 Act/Law also revised which offenders were eligible to earn what is called IGT for good behavior. In doing so, they only allow offenders of non-violent offenses and with no more than a 15-year sentence to fall under this umbrella. An inmate that falls under this status and is serving a 15-year sentence, and also maintains good behavior will end his or her sentence (EOS) after serving four years and some months. This concept has had a huge impact on clogging the prisons with inmates serving a longer sentence than before and also influencing Judges to give lengthier sentences just to keep offenders from earning their IGT for good behavior that allows them to have what is a “short date” to EOS (End of Sentence).
The effect here has multiple layers on the taxpayer and prison system. Not only are you footing a needless long-term inmate housing bill of $18,000 a year per inmate due to the extended stay, but you have now taken any incentive away for any other inmate not earning IGT, to maintain good behavior while inside Alabama’s prisons. Hence he/she has only a long date in which they EOS (End of Sentence), and have nothing to lose. An inmate with nothing to lose and no incentive to have or maintain good behavior becomes a dangerous thing to self, other inmates, and correctional officers. This lack of incentive is neither a theory nor opinion but supported by facts and statistics. The rise in inmate on inmate, inmate on an officer, and an officer on inmate violence has increased since IGT was revised and enacted under this structure dramatically. This result has also caused an increase in medical care and litigation cost due to the injuries caused and the violent conditions.
Alabama’s Parole Board has contributed to the overcrowding of Alabama’s prisons. Parole Board members are forced to use or allowed to use discretion in considering, granting, or denying parole to an inmate. This concept mirrors the issues that were pointed out about our Circuit Judges in having discretion over sentencing an offender. Although parole in Alabama is neither guaranteed nor a right granted the right to a convicted felon, up until the past couple of years it’s a fact that offenders have not been granted parole in most cases that were eligible. It is also a fact of those granted parole in the history of Alabama’s Parole Board, an unusual and surprising number returned to Alabama’s prison due to parole violations or new offenses. Meaning the Parole Board members that determined who or who not to grant parole were ill-equipped in their determination, or intentionally elected to release those they felt would return to prison over those they felt would not.
The effect of this is compiling inmates with offenders clogging our prisons, and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a parole system that is not functioning to relieve our prisons of low-risk offenders in returning.
The absence of effective rehabilitation has played a huge part in the overcrowding of our prisons. Alabama currently has no law that requires the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) to rehabilitate an offender. Thus inmates are housed, fed, and most become more of a criminal than when they first entered ADOC.
The effect is that it has clogged the prisons with habitual offenders, and allowed the recidivism rate of Alabama to be one of the highest in the nation. Alabama’s recidivism rate is well over 66% of offenders returning within three (3) years after their release. Over the past couple of years, it is said this statistic is on the rise and projected to be close to 75% within the next 5 to 10 years. The fact that the inmates incarcerated in Alabama are not being rehabilitated and rehabilitation is not a requirement by law, and that the offenders are not closely screened only ensures the offender returns to prison after release. This method institutionalizes the offender, therefore making him or her dependent on their current distorted thinking pattern that led them to prison.
Proposals for Enactment
Repeal and Revise the current 446 Law (Habitual Offender) and enact it to be made retroactive for all offenders sentenced under the current 446 Act/Law.
Revise the current enacted 446 Act/Law to read and state that to be sentenced as a habitual offender the offender must be duly convicted of three (3) felonies of the same crime. The language of this revision should and must be read as well as upheld as follows in the example to be effective:
Example: If a citizen is charged and duly convicted of three (3) Class D Felonies he or she will fall under the Habitual Offender Statute allowing the state to enhance said crime and sentence; if a citizen is charged and duly convicted of three (3) Class C Felonies he or she will fall under the Habitual Offender Statute allowing the state to enhance said crime and sentence; if a citizen is charged and duly convicted of three (3) Class B Felonies he or she will fall under the Habitual Offender Statute allowing the state to enhance said crime and sentence; if a citizen is charged and duly convicted of three (3) Class A Felonies he or she will fall under the Habitual Offender Statute allowing the state to enhance said crime and sentence. Specifically noted, these offenses must be three (3) of the same crimes such as three Class D thefts, three Class C thefts, three Class B thefts, or three Class A thefts; not a mixture of classes or offenses.
In enacting this plan, this will cut down on the number of men and women that enter the prisons with enhanced crimes and sentences resulting in long-term sentences and expenses. Making this plan retroactive for the ones who were duly convicted of three felonies under the current 446 Act/Law will not only relieve the prison system of offenders currently in the system but will rectify the mistake we made by enacting the current Habitual Offender law under such language. Once this plan is enacted, require each Circuit Court in Alabama to review the caseloads of all inmates currently serving a sentence in ADOC including those already on parole. Those that are currently incarcerated and that received an enhanced crime or sentence due to the current 446 Act/Law should be resentenced under the proposed revised version.
The secondary proposal that can be considered here and would also relieve the overcrowding issue at hand and prevent overcrowding in our future is to repeal the 446 Act/Law altogether and require all Circuit Judges to sentence under a revised sentencing guideline of the truth and sentencing point system. Also making this plan retroactive requiring the Circuit Judges to resentence those incarcerated and serving time under the 446 Act/Law, and make retroactive to those currently serving a conviction under the current law.
One must remember, regardless of which method or plan proposed above that can be agreed upon and enacted, our focus here is twofold- 1) Immediate relief of our overcrowding system and getting capacity down to a constitutionally humane, safe, and effective environment; 2) Keeping the system at that Constitutional humane, safe, and effective environment, as well as saving taxpayer money and allowing more money to be used in actual rehabilitation lowering the recidivism rate.
Sadly we have reached a point with the overcrowding issue that no matter what or how we go about immediate relief we will witness a rapid incline in recidivism due to the absence of true and actual rehabilitation. This overcrowding issue that has gone unaddressed is an issue that will be unavoidable due to the fact of how long this has gone unsuccessfully addressed. However, over time with the proper enacted plans it can be corrected.
Proposal on Sentencing Guidelines: Enact truth and sentencing for every offender repealing the 446 Act/Law. Currently, Judges are allowed the discretion to choose either the 446 Act/Law or the Truth and Sentencing Point System
However, abuse of discretion is a huge problem in our overcrowded system, and how it got to this point. The current Truth and Sentencing guidelines revised, stripping Circuit Judges of discretion. Meaning the point system enacted is allowing Circuit Judges a chance to abuse their discretion and authority in harshness or being lenient. The point system is a good plan for correcting our current overcrowding issue if enacted, removing Judge’s discretion. In other words, all offenders should be sentenced under this plan. If an offender scores an X amount of points, he or she receives an X amount of time, no room for a Judge to give him or her more than is designated under the system. This restraint places a Judge’s duties back to being the referee protecting or ensuring the U.S. and State Constitutions are being upheld, allowing justice to be served. Judges will no longer be able to play God.
Also, this proposal enacts that in capital cases judges cannot override the recommended sentence of life without parole and give the death penalty.
Proposal to enact IGT (Incentive Good Time) for all offenses except those serving life without parole (LWOP), and the death penalty. Enact IGT by setting up good time status for all inmates who will not be barred from parole due to either the LWOP or death penalty. In doing so, you create a guideline of a good time from the point of entering the ADOC. This can be done any number of ways. A suggested guideline is to allow an inmate to earn a minimum of 75 days good time for every 30 days, done without disciplinary action resulting in loss of earned good time. However, enact in this plan certain requirements to earn a maximum amount of good time credit, and maintain the earning status of IGT. Also, once an inmate loses a certain amount of earned good time for drug or violent disciplinary action with merit, they cannot retain the lost good time at a later date, as can be done now under the current IGT guidelines. This plan will need to require an ADOC classification specialist eventually, and psychologist to screen each inmate upon arrival in ADOC and establish required and mandated rehabilitation programs for each inmate to graduate/ complete. Failure of the inmate’s success in doing so should result in a specified amount of loss of good time unless he or she can show they failed to take and complete said mandated rehabilitative programs by no fault of their own.
This plan to enact IGT is to establish a platform to relieve Alabama’s prison system of clogging. It will also establish an incentive for the offender to maintain good behavior while incarcerated and providing ADOC with an effective way to discipline inmates. Today the only discipline that can be used to attempt to discourage bad behavior in the prisons for inmates that do not earn IGT is a loss of privileges such as phone, store, and visits, as well as a short stay in segregation. Alas, the fact remains that this has been ineffective for multiple reasons. Most inmates in ADOC do not receive money from family on a regular basis to get items from the store, nor do they have an institutional job that gives an income to them. Most don’t receive visits from family or friends or a regular basis, or in a lot of cases, at all. The need to call home is of little importance when the law prevents ADOC from stopping inmates from writing letters home. At this point we are at today with overcrowding, most inmates that receive a punishment of disciplinary segregation rarely go to segregation due to the fact lock-up cells are needed and occupied with inmates who have closed custody due to the most violent incidents. However, even if an inmate does go to segregation due to disciplinary action, this punishment has very little effect of deterring bad behavior simply because segregation to an inmate is just another part of the prison and the date he or she is going home has not changed. Time is still ticking for him or her.
But IGT for inmates across the board allows for the inmate to have hope in returning home sooner than the projected “long date,” and in essence becomes a matter within his or her control, giving him or her something to think about before acting out bad behavior. The taking of earned good time and not being able to get it back later for drug and violent infractions becomes more of a severe action and will aid in lowering the violence and drug use that infects our prisons today.
Proposal to enact new regulations in relations in determining parole for inmates. Parole board members today have the power to grant or deny parole to inmates by way of discretion, and alleged educated opinions on who is considered a “good candidate” for parole. However, it is a fact that the Governor of Alabama appoints parole board members and fall under our Governor’s political agenda and influence. Some governors’ agenda may focus on the “tough on crime” motto whereas some may have other opinions. But in Alabama’s past few decades, dating back to Gov. George C. Wallace, Alabama has steadily been reluctant in paroling inmates, especially inmates who have committed violent crimes. Many inmates across Alabama with violent crimes have been incarcerated for over 30 years and have maintained many years’ “clear record” (disciplinary free), but are repeatedly denied parole. For example, after researching many cases, inmate Andre Wallace, currently of Elmore Correctional Facility serving a life sentence for a violent crime, and has served over 40 plus years on said sentence; has a 30-year clear record and obtained many degrees and rehabilitative certificates. However, Wallace has come up for parole numerous times over the years and been repeatedly denied, although he has been a role model inmate.
It’s time we enact a system in granting parole to inmates that take away discretion from the Parole Board, also eliminating political and/or any corrupt influence. To do so we must adopt a point system that determines parole being granted or denied. Also placing a limit on allowing protestors to affect an inmate from receiving parole once he or she scores the correct or eligible points to be paroled.
Also in this plan, no inmate will be paroled or denied parole from ADOC without speaking directly to the Parole Board members- face to face via camera with audio or in person. The Parole Board will be given no less than 15 minutes to interview a said inmate, and the inmate will receive at least 15 minutes to make his or her case for parole. This taking place at his hearing and for all attending to witness. Protestors and family of the inmate are usually at said hearings, but without face to face communication, the process is flawed. For years now Alabama has maintained the much needed personal relationship with victims, which is to be expected and demanded but has shown no interest in actually seeing for themselves what changes have come from the offender’s stay while he or she has been incarcerated. Hence showing no trust that the system can do what it was allegedly designed to do, that being rehabilitating offenders.
The secondary proposal is to abolish parole in Alabama altogether, saving Alabama taxpayers millions of dollars. In truth, enacting IGT will help alleviate the need for parole. As of today, the right to parole is nonexistent; parole is an alleged privilege that very few are granted yearly until recently after the pressure from the Dept. of Justice. However, the granting of multiple paroles over the past years has shown to be reckless and ineffective due to the high recidivism rate of these inmates. Thus proving the current method of releasing inmates on parole a failure.
Plan on the proposal in lowering the recidivism rate by requiring ADOC to rehabilitate offenders. Pass a law requiring ADOC to rehabilitate offenders. Once the said law is passed, implement long-term programs that are intensive treatment programs with high recognition across the board with experts, courts, and the public.
This plan will be the only excessive cost where taxpayer money will be required in excess. Nevertheless, this area is crucial in maintaining a low recidivism rate here in Alabama and overcrowding our system. If the intensive rehabilitation programs are enacted and ran correctly by private entities without the influence of the ADOC to push inmates through like an assembly line, we can lower our recidivism rate effectively from the current 66% and the projected 75% in the near future down to 20% or less in a 20 year period.
We can accomplish this by bringing more programs like the original T.C. (Therapeutic Community), more educational courses, and private industries that will work inmates at minimum wage. It is imperative that we revise the laws surrounding inmates who are eligible to go to Community-based work release as well. Our state has to understand the rehabilitative importance of slowly introducing an inmate back into society and giving the inmate an opportunity to learn money management skills to save money to make it once he or she is released. This in itself prevents inmates from being forced back to their previous lifestyle in the streets.
Today, once released from prison, an inmate receives a bus ticket back to the county he or she was convicted of, along with a debit card for $10. We send grown, uneducated, and impoverished men and women back to society with nothing and no hope after serving many years incarcerated.
We have to understand that 90% of those incarcerated will eventually return to society, regardless of their crime. Some of those men and women have been charged with crimes that restrict them from work release programs, such as but not limited to certain murder charges, drug trafficking, and sexual offenses. Withholding these inmates from these particular rehabilitation programs is toxic and counterproductive, ensuring their return to prison. We must allow these inmates an opportunity to participate in such programs. This program also allows these offenders to be monitored and tested before release.
https://unheardvoicesotcj.wordpress.com ... s-o-t-c-j/
