Florida Sheriffs Misinform Public about Prison Reforms



Found an editorial over at the Daytona Beach News Journal Online (Overtime served, Reforming Florida's violent incarceration mentality, 12/29/2009) that calls out a couple of Florida sheriffs regarding the passing of misinformation to the public that both tout as gospel regarding the possible legislative reforms of the state's prison system.

Gospel that proved fairly effective when the plate was passed during far different state budgetary times.

(...)

Like other law enforcement officials in the state, Volusia County Sheriff Ben Johnson is sowing undue fear and misinformation about legislative proposals that would reform the state's overly harsh and unsustainably costly prison system. Johnson is following the lead of Brevard County Sheriff Jack Parker, who claims -- wrongly -- that "Florida is funding prisons less and less" while preparing to release offenders early.

(...)

Writing on the Sheriff's Office's Web site, Johnson wants residents to oppose "a particularly bad proposal that would grant early release to certain inmates 50-years-old or older as long as they have already served at least 25 years of their sentence." He is also building opposition to another proposal that "would reduce the sentence of dangerous youthful offenders under certain circumstances" -- offenders 15 or younger who were convicted as adults.

Johnson makes it sound as if violent offenders are never released (or should never be released) from prison. He should have a look at Department of Corrections reports. Better yet, he should encourage his readers to do so. Last August alone, 3,073 offenders were released from Florida prisons. Of those, 814, or 26.5 percent, were violent offenders. On average, those violent offenders served 53 months. Johnson says, "This is not the type of person we want roaming our streets again." But every prison system in the nation eventually releases a portion of its violent offenders for the obvious reason that life terms are rare. Johnson also makes it sound as if the proposals, if enacted, would result in immediate releases. Not so. Prisoners would have to petition for their release and have their cases reviewed one by one. It's a restoration of parole by other means.

Criminals aren't getting more violent or committing more crimes. The state's incarceration laws have been made harsher since the mid-1980s (when Florida abolished parole) and the 1990s (when Florida harshed up mandatory sentences on adults and youthful offenders and ended the release of any state prison inmate before he or she serves at least 85 percent of a sentence). Yet, criminologists cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of harsher sentences, which contradict the principle of rehabilitation. It's called a department of corrections, not a department of punishment.

(...)

Since 2001, when it was at $1.62 billion, the Department of Corrections' budget has increased by 50 percent. It's at $2.43 billion today, a 5.7 percent increase over last year's $2.3 billion. The department's budget devours almost 10 percent of the state's general revenue to maintain a total payroll of 30,500 that keeps 100,000 inmates in prison -- a 3-to-1 per-inmate ratio. That's about eight times better than the state's teacher-pupil ratio. Despite a crime rate that has fallen steadily through the decade, the inmate population has risen 46 percent since 2001.


More Fun Facts:

(...)

Figures released by the Justice Department reflect 1.6 million persons remain incarcerated in this country's prisons, although "...the rate of growth is slowing as state authorities look for cheaper ways to mete out justice." (Throw in those sitting behind bars in jail and the number rises to a cool 2.3 million).

That's one out of every 133 U.S. residents in jail or prison over the last year.

The states with the largest increases in prison population were Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona, whose one-year increases were all greater than the federal prison system, which grew by 1,662 inmates. (Miami Herald, 12/8/09)



“They simply cost too much. It’s not ideological, it’s pragmatic. This is the first time that we have alliances on the right and left on this issue, and it’s the money that has forced the issue.”

Professor Ram Cnaan, School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania

Feeling (or Not) the Political Love



You love her

But she loves him

And he loves somebody else

You just can't win

And so it goes....



Charlie Crist: I want to feel the love.

(...)

He also has to hope that Jeb Bush, whose work as Governor he professes to admire, doesn't decide to throw his still heavy political weight behind Rubio. (TIME, 12/29/09, Can Crist Survive a Right-Wing Uprising in Florida?)



Miami New Times: Show us the love.

(...)

All of Florida is wondering when Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio will come out and make it official. They are totally in political love, but why won't Jeb put a ring on it by endorsing Rubio over Gov. Charlie Crist in the Senate primary? (Miami New Times,11/09/2009, Why do Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio Continue to Hide Their Love?)



Levi Johnston: Love stinks. Yeah yeah.

(...)

New court documents reveal a heated custody battle between Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, who has petitioned for sole custody over their son Tripp -- the grandson of former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. (Us Magazine, 12/29/2009, Bristol Palin Seeks Sole Custody of Son)

(Read more about "...protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce..." over at Fathers & Families).





It's the Holiday Season!



He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
and his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.
A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,
and he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.
His eyes--how they twinkled! His dimples, how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
and the beard on his chin was as white as the snow.
The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
and the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
that shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly.

CLEMENT CLARKE MOORE, Twas the Night Before Christmas



Happy Holidays!

Sunny
Smashed Frog


The Progressive Ménage à trois



Michael Lind over at Salon discusses how best Democrats earn a MBA in Management of the Progressive Ménage à trois ...

... from the Right.
(...)

If we distinguish neoliberals, New Dealers and Greens from one another, then the center-left coalition, at the level of first principles, is not a marriage of two partners but a ménage à trois. It resembles the ménage à trois on the right that unites libertarians, Christian conservatives and neoconservatives. Recognizing that there are indeed distinct and fundamentally incompatible public philosophies to the left of center does not prevent cooperation among the schools for common purposes. The three factions can work together to maintain a Democratic majority, just as the neocons, libertarians and social conservatives disagree on first principles but unite in elections to support Republicans against Democrats.

Democrats should learn from Republicans how to manage a ménage à trois.

Needless to say, choice commentary underlines Lind's post. Read 'em here.

Holistic vs Idealistic Health Care Reform



The Space Coast Progressives devote a web page to the definition of a progressive.

Progressives put "We, the People" first, before profits and special interests, and believe the common good is necessary for individual well-being. Progressives meet life's challenges cooperatively, democratically, holistically and nonviolently with solutions that maximize liberty, imagination, leadership, justice, sustainability and respect for all.

The single word that leaps out from this definition is holistically.

Meaning, "Relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts."

I haven't witnessed much holistic behavior demonstrated among my fellow progressives these past several days. Rather, I've noted more emotionally-driven idealistic behavior , my way or the highway sort of thinking, the political dissection of the Senate health care bill into all or nothing by those same persons who gather together under the umbrella of progressivism.

These past few years, I've grabbed on to the word holistically like a life preserver. In my opinion--and for the cause I advocate--holistic change will be accomplished only via working within the present unusually severe system to effect change as a whole.

As noted by Paul Krugman (Pass the Bill, NYT, 12/17/2009) , these changes stand to be accomplished by the Senate bill (as it reads today).


At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

That's a holistic systems change, progressive in nature, working toward individual well-being.

C.S. Lewis once said, "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Which road are you on, progressives?

***

(...)

"But let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail."

--Paul Krugman

Democrats Prove Their Own Worst Enemy



Democrats are a lot like public school educators.

Both are their own worst enemies.

Take teachers, especially those working here in Florida. The very passion held for the education of children is the Achilles heel of the profession. As an example, most in the Sunshine State haven't seen a pay raise in a couple of years. As a right to work state, strikes are out so the next best option suggested by unions is passive resistance.

Do your job, do it well and leave at quitting time. Meaning, walk out the door when the whistle blows.

How many teachers do you think leave at the stroke of Time to Head Home? School boards know the answer as do state legislatures. As long as teachers continue to shoot themselves in their collective bargaining foot, those in charge of the money train will continue to stomp all over them.

The Democrats are way similar. More than a few years back--long before Obama addressed the 2004 Democratic convention--I was over at the Kos blogging education regarding whatever Draconian law was being shoved down RSO throats at the time, sex offender registries, public notification, take your pick.

A comment caught my eye, something to the effect that these types of special interest issues were exactly what served to divide the Democratic party, what the GOP exploited and if we were to win back the White House, solidarity and a single focus is what would get us there.

Although I felt dissed at the time, the message certainly worked. Dems got their collective act together, won back the White House and the majority in Congress.

The sun set on eight years of this country stuck in reverse and promise of a better life for Americans broke over the horizon.

Health care reform was more than a possibility.

One year later, we as a Party are shooting ourselves in the foot over what the anonymous Kos commenter would claim as special interests inhibiting the passage of what is likely a once in lifetime possibility.

What lesson have we not learned?

Besides not to aim at the big toe?


Lieberman Pulls a Newman



As Joe Lieberman makes noises of support for the Senate health care bill, I can't help but imagine the face-to-face behind closed doors with All the President's Men went a little something like this.....

Screaming Good News


Tossing a bit of belated sunshine your way.....

Back on November 10, 2009:

The Miami Herald:

A sex offender living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway has been cleared of accusations that he went to a park when children were present, violating state and Miami-Dade County restrictions.

Bryan Exile -- one of two plaintiffs named in the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida's lawsuit against Miami-Dade's requirement that sex offenders keep at least 2,500 feet away from places where children congregate -- was released from jail last week. He had been arrested Sept. 4 on misdemeanor charges of violating probation and trespassing.

Exile was accused of trespassing in a housing project, then walking to the park. The charges were dropped Nov. 6 after prosecutors learned Exile was never in the park, the ACLU said.

The ACLU lawsuit, which is before the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami, is an attempt to nullify the county's 2,500-foot law. It alleges local law should not supersede the state law, which calls for sex offenders to stay 1,000 feet away from parks, schools and other places where children gather.


Not one comment beneath the news item.

Which makes me wonder just how far in the fish wrap the story was buried.......

Yet another November positive wisp-o-will....

By a 59-39 vote, the U.S. Senate confirmed David Hamilton to sit on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. President Obama nominated him in March, but Hamilton's extreme views delayed the confirmation.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., expressed his concerns on the floor of the Senate.

"Mr. Hamilton was a board member and vice president of the ACLU chapter of Indiana," he said.

Sessions was also troubled over Hamilton's ruling that the Indiana Legislature could not open its sessions with prayer.

"Many of the prayers expressed mentioned 'Jesus Christ,'" Sessions said. "Yet in a post-judgment motion, Judge Hamilton permitted the use of 'Allah.'"

Hamilton also struck down a sex-offender registry, saying it violated the offenders' right to privacy.

Tom Fitten, president of Judicial Watch, said this could lead the administration to bring more extreme nominees.

"If they think they can push judges like this through with little or no debate," he said, "they're going to have the incentive to push hard on this.

David Hamilton sounds like an extreme thinker to me. And that 59-30 vote?

Good news.

Going Harvard on Nancy Grace



Nancy Grace continues to get hers.

Three years past the death of Melinda Duckett finds CNN and talk show host Grace continuing to squirm on the hot seat of a defamation suit filed by the young mother's parents. Duckett--just 21 years old at her passing--committed suicide after the airing of an interview with Grace in the disappearance of her 2 year old son, Trenton.. (Nancy Grace Goes to Court, 11/21/2006).

Well, all that's coming back around.

Dr. Harold J. Bursztajn, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard--hired by CNN-wrote in a recent court filing that Nancy Grace "...contributed to her (Duckett's) suicide" and "...that Grace "struck a highly accusatory tone " while conducting the interview.

The Los Angeles Times (12/5/2009):

The professor saw "a distraught young woman who is subject to repeated and increasingly sharp questioning by a hostile interviewer who displays increasing suspicion and anger towards Ms. Duckett."

The next day, the 21-year-old Duckett shot herself in the head.

"Her apparently unanticipated public humiliation on the nationally televised program in question was a substantial contributing cause of her suicide," Bursztajn wrote.

The family claims Grace's questioning, along with the network's decision to air the pre-taped interview the day Duckett committed suicide, inflicted severe emotional distress.

Grace and the network have denied any involvement in the suicide, and a CNN spokeswoman declined comment on the filing.

The Orlando Sentinel, (12/4/2009):

(...)

Bursztajn noted in his opinion that the interview about the missing child "substantially diminished her [Duckett's] capacity to protect herself from suicidal ideation and thus was a substantial contributing cause of her suicide the following day."

He also noted that as additional information becomes available as the case heads to trial "this preliminary opinion will be supplemented and the degree of certainty to which I hold it may be revised."


Although I'm no huge fan of Lou Dobbs, I find it simply incredulous that the "advocacy anchor" and CNN have parted ways, yet somehow Nancy Grace remains on-air.

Trenton Duckett has yet to be found.

Georgians for Reform



Passing along an opportunity to get involved.

Georgians for Reform.

Georgians For Reform works to make communities safer and protect our children through education, awareness, and treatment.

We recognize that registration and residency schemes do not and can not work. We encourage effective legislation, based on empirical evidence focused towards an informed society able to recognize and implement strategies that work.

We seek a justice system based in fact and dealing justice based on the actual elements of the case. We seek a justice system that is fair to both the society it serves and the accused it judges.


The Myth

  • Most people on the registry Molested or Raped a Child.

  • Recidivism for Sex Offenders is very high.

  • The Registry and Residency Restriction are effective tools to make communities safer and protect children.

  • Children are at greatest risk of being the victim of a sex crime from a person on the Registry.

  • The most effective way to protect against being the victim of a sex offense is to avoid strangers.

  • A person is in the most danger of being the victim of a sex offense from a person on the Registry.


The Fact

  • The Majority of those on the Registry did not commit forcible rape of an adult or a child.

  • Recidivism for sex offenders is the lowest for all categories of crime with the possible exception of murder.

  • The Registry has had no impact in reducing the incidence of sex offense or in reducing the already low recidivism. rate.

  • A child is at least 18 times more likely to be the victim of molestation, sexual assault, or abuse in their own home than being the victim of a person previously convicted of a sex offense.

  • An adult or child is 19 times more likely to be the victim of a first time offender, a person who is not and would not be on the registry, than a person previously convicted of a sex offense.



More information here.

Check it out.



Increasing Legal Awareness of Collateral Consequences



As job creation surfaces to the top of the Obama Must-Do list, my thoughts turn to those whose search for gainful employment proves difficult.

Those with a felony conviction.

Some "with a past" have managed to become gainfully employed; others feel the rush of the wind past their face once the door slams shuts....repeatedly.

And those whose conviction is underlined by inclusion in the sex offender registries, the search for a job becomes way too similar to the search for Amelia Earhart.

A friend recently forwarded me an accounting regarding the collateral consequences of accepting a conviction. (I've since misplaced the link, so please feel free to post and I'll insert here afterwards or once I finally locate it among my oh-so-not organized files). A similar discussion can be read here: Increasing Awareness of Collateral Consequences Among Participants of the Criminal Justice System: Is Education Enough? by Florian Miedel, Esq.

The gist of the legal conversation rings clearly home. As stated in the above link, "...“collateral” consequences of convictions can have devastating effects on the lives of those convicted and their loved ones." And just how educated are defense attorneys regarding those collateral consequences as how best to advise their clients when considering any sort of plea?

For the last several years, legal malpractice has never been too far from thoughts. If many were privy to what is now known about the collateral consequences of the registry, I'm certain most would've chosen a fight over a lifetime of secondary consequence. My family was certainly not advised.

Many employers will consider hire of person with a felony. Place that same person on the registry and the consideration flies out the window. Even as the details are discussed, employers find themselves unwilling to take a chance. In this job market--with so many out of work--the Collateral Consequence of Unemployment which shadows those designated as a sex offender finds many a resume tossed in the circular file.

As shouted by Georgians for Reform, "the Majority of those on the Registry did not commit forcible rape of an adult or a child."

I'll confirm that. Many have been convicted for a sex offense, with no physical involvement with anyone--child or otherwise--period.

My thoughts turn to what many have demanded. Revisiting the registry as a whole.

It's need, it's purpose, it's usefulness, it's role in our society as well as the registry's impact on families.

In the interim, many qualified, educated citizens jostle for a job, any job, with a double legal monkey on their back.

Mike Haridopolos Blackberries Disinterest in Family Rights to Privacy





The Blackberry is the new doodling.



Instead of drawing box after box after box on a legal pad, apparently working (playing?) on one's phone is the newest form of expressing disinterest.



Reportedly, state Senator Mike Haridopolos is a not so closeted Blackberry peruser, as demonstrated in yesterday's pre-session legislative meeting.



The Florida legislator doodled away as a citizen spoke before the Brevard delegation.



The subject?
Collateral damages of Florida laws shouldered by family members of those persons designated as sex offenders by the state of Florida.



The citizen?
A child who grew up way too quickly.



Haridopolos tore his attention away from his diversion just long enough to deny declining (refusing?) past requests to meet with the families of RSO's to discuss the laws plaguing private citizens for years.



Sure about that, Mike?



The presentation as written and delivered.



***





Brevard County Legislative Hearing

November 30, 2009

Viera
, Florida
32940



I come here today to represent the voiceless minority, soon to be voting constituents. I am their voice, since they have none and I am their strength, because their self esteem has been crushed, their powerlessness palpable and their fears unending. There are 1000's of us in Florida and 100's of us in Brevard County. Some of our lives have seen torment; some of our lives were irreparably harmed and a few of us are no longer living.



We are the children of registered sex offenders; children of men and women whose faces, names and addresses, regardless of the degree of risk, are listed on a public online registry. Did you, the legislators, surreptitiously empowered with influencing lives, know that your deliberate action of placing all of our parents online would create new victims? Us!



Did you possibly think that these offenders may have children; children who live at the same address that is listed on the “sex offender registry?



I think, I hope you know by now, that the shear volume of offenders online without distinction of risk is worthless as a tool to save or protect children and has not prevented ONE crime. Yet, for those innocent children whose addresses are also listed online, it is nothing other than child abuse.



We are children who want and deserve to have our parents involved in our lives without fear of repercussions, ridicule, ostracization and torment. We deserve to have lives without the shadow of having our parent on line listed as a monster. We love our parents and yet, YOU force us to choose between a relationship with that parent and having friends. Have you forgotten that we too deserve “freedom and privacy” and in fact, need that to grow to be normal, happy, healthy and productive members of society?



Sadly, two years ago, 11 children whose parents are on the sex offender registry, asked to speak with one of the legislators on your panel. We wanted to- needed, to voice our concerns and perhaps consider an alternative to stemming child abuse, without using the tool of one that is not only valueless, but created more victims.



That legislator, Senator Haridopoulous, despite repeated requests for a meeting, declined. Why is that Senator Haridopoulous? Please explain that to my brother, standing next to me, who has no friends and has endured horrendous abuse from people that view the registry to “protect” their own children, why?



I beg to the rest of you, consider my words and help to create laws that actually prevent child abuse, and protect the privacy of the families and especially children of former sex offenders.



Thank you for your time and attention

Jane Doe son #1