Thursday, January 31, 2008
ADOPTING "NO PAROLE" REQUIRES PAYING FOR ITS CONSEQUENCES
The following editorial appeared in The Post and Courier. It makes sense to us as far as it goes.
_______________________________________________________________
Adopting 'no parole' requires paying for its consequences
BY JON OZMINT
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Our state is tough on crime. We incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than 43 other states, yet we rank at the bottom in funding corrections.
A new proposal would get even tougher, eliminating parole and requiring virtually all inmates to serve 85 percent of their sentences. It's called Truth in Sentencing/no parole (TIS/no parole). The proposal is well meaning and intended to make our state safer. But, this 1980s idea has been tried here and elsewhere and it brings foreseeable consequences.
In 1984, Congress passed TIS/no parole, creating the fastest growing prison system in the world. From 1984 through 1990, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) doubled in size from 24,000 to 58,000 inmates. It doubled again in the 1990s, with 136,000 inmates in 1999. With 199,800 inmates, it is likely to double again in this decade. Since 1984, the BOP has been on a massive building spree. Unable to build fast enough, in 2000, BOP announced that it would build six prisons a year. The price tag: $1 billion annually. Still unable to keep up, BOP has 24,000 inmates in private prisons. The system is 30 percent over capacity and there is no end in sight.
Since passing limited TIS/no parole in 1994, North Carolina has also been on a building spree. In the past five years alone, it has built six prisons at a cost of $500 million.
Since Virginia passed TIS/no parole in 1995, it has opened 14 prisons, costing over $500 million. Expanding existing dorms cost an additional $99 million. Virginia added a private prison and a super-max prison to deal with the predictable increase in violence and problems created by TIS/no parole inmates. And Virginia's prison population is expected to expand from 38,000 inmates to 45,000 inmates in the next five years, so that seven more prisons will be needed.
Compare those jurisdictions to South Carolina. Lawmakers in Congress, and in Virginia and North Carolina recognize that TIS/no parole inmates are more dangerous, with little incentive to behave or rehabilitate. So in addition to funding construction, they fund prison operations at almost double our state's funding level. For example, this year Virginia will spend $1 billion on 38,000 inmates and 13,000 employees. By comparison, we will spend $350 million on 24,000 inmates and 5,700 employees. We have not built a prison since 1992 and we already have thousands of inmates triple-bunked.
Instead of simply copying TIS/no parole, we could improve on the idea. We could learn from experience and take a smarter and more comprehensive approach.
We could consider mandatory alternatives for the 45 percent of our inmates who have never committed a violent offense. Treatment, supervision and immediate consequences should be part of those sanctions. The attorney general's proposal for a "middle court" is a great idea that recognizes these needs.
We could eliminate the wasteful use of prison beds. We are the only state corrections department required to house inmates serving 91 days or more. Annually, we process 3,600 inmates serving less than one year and they occupy 950 prison beds, daily. Over 1,400 of those are sentenced for drug use or driving offenses.
We could change current statutes that classify crimes involving no violence, including many drug offenses, as violent crimes and TIS/no parole crimes.
Finally, we could improve existing TIS/no parole laws. Minimum service of 65 percent would satisfy the need for certainty in sentencing while also controlling growth, creating safer prisons, eliminating wasteful medical spending, restoring hope and increasing rehabilitation.
In the 1990s, states arbitrarily chose 85 percent as the minimum service for TIS/no parole. Congress encouraged this by offering prison construction funds to states that passed 85 percent TIS/no parole laws. Now, those funds are history, but state taxpayers are left with growing inmate populations and other costly and dangerous consequences.
TIS/no parole inmates are more dangerous and costly in prison and after release. Forty percent of our 24,000 inmates are serving TIS/no parole sentences. They cause a disproportionate share of problems, including escapes, gang activity, and violent assaults on staff and inmates. They have little incentive to behave or to rehabilitate because they cannot earn parole, good time or work/education credits. They require more staff and more special management cells. And they increase mental health and medical costs as inmates reach older ages in prison.
TIS/no parole has been tried. It is not a panacea. It explodes prison populations, and it does not stop crime. Twelve years after passing TIS/no parole, crime rates in Virginia are rising.
Before adopting TIS/no parole, we should be prepared to pay for all of the consequences of that policy. Alternatively, we could improve those ideas to eliminate some of the unintended consequences. At the very least, we should not explode our prison population until our current system is adequately funded and staffed.
Jon Ozmint is director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections.
The following editorial appeared in The Post and Courier. It makes sense to us as far as it goes.
_______________________________________________________________
Adopting 'no parole' requires paying for its consequences
BY JON OZMINT
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Our state is tough on crime. We incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than 43 other states, yet we rank at the bottom in funding corrections.
A new proposal would get even tougher, eliminating parole and requiring virtually all inmates to serve 85 percent of their sentences. It's called Truth in Sentencing/no parole (TIS/no parole). The proposal is well meaning and intended to make our state safer. But, this 1980s idea has been tried here and elsewhere and it brings foreseeable consequences.
In 1984, Congress passed TIS/no parole, creating the fastest growing prison system in the world. From 1984 through 1990, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) doubled in size from 24,000 to 58,000 inmates. It doubled again in the 1990s, with 136,000 inmates in 1999. With 199,800 inmates, it is likely to double again in this decade. Since 1984, the BOP has been on a massive building spree. Unable to build fast enough, in 2000, BOP announced that it would build six prisons a year. The price tag: $1 billion annually. Still unable to keep up, BOP has 24,000 inmates in private prisons. The system is 30 percent over capacity and there is no end in sight.
Since passing limited TIS/no parole in 1994, North Carolina has also been on a building spree. In the past five years alone, it has built six prisons at a cost of $500 million.
Since Virginia passed TIS/no parole in 1995, it has opened 14 prisons, costing over $500 million. Expanding existing dorms cost an additional $99 million. Virginia added a private prison and a super-max prison to deal with the predictable increase in violence and problems created by TIS/no parole inmates. And Virginia's prison population is expected to expand from 38,000 inmates to 45,000 inmates in the next five years, so that seven more prisons will be needed.
Compare those jurisdictions to South Carolina. Lawmakers in Congress, and in Virginia and North Carolina recognize that TIS/no parole inmates are more dangerous, with little incentive to behave or rehabilitate. So in addition to funding construction, they fund prison operations at almost double our state's funding level. For example, this year Virginia will spend $1 billion on 38,000 inmates and 13,000 employees. By comparison, we will spend $350 million on 24,000 inmates and 5,700 employees. We have not built a prison since 1992 and we already have thousands of inmates triple-bunked.
Instead of simply copying TIS/no parole, we could improve on the idea. We could learn from experience and take a smarter and more comprehensive approach.
We could consider mandatory alternatives for the 45 percent of our inmates who have never committed a violent offense. Treatment, supervision and immediate consequences should be part of those sanctions. The attorney general's proposal for a "middle court" is a great idea that recognizes these needs.
We could eliminate the wasteful use of prison beds. We are the only state corrections department required to house inmates serving 91 days or more. Annually, we process 3,600 inmates serving less than one year and they occupy 950 prison beds, daily. Over 1,400 of those are sentenced for drug use or driving offenses.
We could change current statutes that classify crimes involving no violence, including many drug offenses, as violent crimes and TIS/no parole crimes.
Finally, we could improve existing TIS/no parole laws. Minimum service of 65 percent would satisfy the need for certainty in sentencing while also controlling growth, creating safer prisons, eliminating wasteful medical spending, restoring hope and increasing rehabilitation.
In the 1990s, states arbitrarily chose 85 percent as the minimum service for TIS/no parole. Congress encouraged this by offering prison construction funds to states that passed 85 percent TIS/no parole laws. Now, those funds are history, but state taxpayers are left with growing inmate populations and other costly and dangerous consequences.
TIS/no parole inmates are more dangerous and costly in prison and after release. Forty percent of our 24,000 inmates are serving TIS/no parole sentences. They cause a disproportionate share of problems, including escapes, gang activity, and violent assaults on staff and inmates. They have little incentive to behave or to rehabilitate because they cannot earn parole, good time or work/education credits. They require more staff and more special management cells. And they increase mental health and medical costs as inmates reach older ages in prison.
TIS/no parole has been tried. It is not a panacea. It explodes prison populations, and it does not stop crime. Twelve years after passing TIS/no parole, crime rates in Virginia are rising.
Before adopting TIS/no parole, we should be prepared to pay for all of the consequences of that policy. Alternatively, we could improve those ideas to eliminate some of the unintended consequences. At the very least, we should not explode our prison population until our current system is adequately funded and staffed.
Jon Ozmint is director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
SC GOV. ISSUES STATEMENT ON PASSAGE OF IMMIGRATION REFORM
The following appeared in today's Post and Couirer:
The following appeared in today's Post and Couirer:
"Since Washington has failed to act on this issue, I think that as a state we have to be very clear about not creating incentives for illegal behavior," Gov. Sanford said. "I want to thank the House - in particular Speaker Harrell, Chairman Harrison, and over on the Senate side Senator Ritchie - for acting quickly to address this issue. It's important because with other states in the Southeast contemplating or having passed similar legislation, if we don't act we run the risk of becoming a sanctuary for illegal immigration. Legal immigration has been and continues to be part of what makes this country great, but at the same time we have to send a clear message that South Carolina won't sanction illegal behavior with a wink and a nod. As we've long said, the ultimate fix for this problem will have to come from Washington, but this bill is a step forward and I'd urge both the House and Senate to get it to my desk as soon as possible."
The bills would require all South Carolina employers doing business with the state to be able to verify the citizenship of their workers, and would deny business expense deductions to employers of illegal workers. In addition, the bills would create a state felony for harboring or transporting illegal aliens, would create more penalties for ID fraud in connection with illegal immigration, and would direct SLED to execute a memorandum of understanding with the federal government to serve as an auxiliary immigration enforcement agency.
South Carolina Law already requires all employers to provide the State with the names, addressess, Social Security Numbers, and dates of births of new hires. These existing legal duties on the part of the employer make many of the provisions of the proposed "anti-immigration" bills unnecessary. As we have said before, "we should try enforcing old laws before enacting new laws that may both be unconstitutional and have unintended consequences."
Monday, January 28, 2008
"LOOKING ANEW AT CAMPAIGN CASH AND ELECTED JUDGES"
The New York Times reports on an upcoming article to be published in The Tulane Law Review that examines the correlation between the rulings of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices and whether one of the litigants or their lawyers had contributed to their campaigns. According to the Times reporter, "the conclusions...are not pretty:"
Justice John L. Weimer, for instance, was slightly pro-defendant in cases where neither side had given him contributions, voting for plaintiffs 47 percent of the time. But in cases where he received money from the defense side (or more money from the defense when both sides gave money), he voted for the plaintiffs only 25 percent of the time. In cases where the money from the plaintiffs’side dominated, on the other hand, he voted for the plaintiffs 90 percent of the time. That is quite a swing.“It is the donation, not the underlying philosophical orientation, that appears to account for the voting outcome,” Professor Palmer [article co-author] said.
Larger contributions had larger effects, the study found. Justice Catherine D. Kimball was 30 percent more likely to vote for a defendant with each additional $1,000 donation. The effect was even more pronounced for Justice Weimer, who was 300 percent more likely to do so.“The greater the size of the contribution,” Professor Palmer said, “the greater the odds of favorable outcomes.”
Before we change our method of selecting judges in South Carolina, maybe we should consider the negative aspects of the alternative.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
ELECTORAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
The Honorable Thomas R. Phillips, Chief Justice of the, Supreme Court of Texas, addressed the issue of judicial elections in the OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 64: 137 (2003)]. The article can be accessed at Keynote Address: Electoral Accountability and Judicial Independence.
The Honorable Thomas R. Phillips, Chief Justice of the, Supreme Court of Texas, addressed the issue of judicial elections in the OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 64: 137 (2003)]. The article can be accessed at Keynote Address: Electoral Accountability and Judicial Independence.
Friday, January 25, 2008
SC LAWYERS SEEK HELP WITH DEFENSE WORK
The following article can be accessed at S.C. lawyers seek help with defense work:
Overload of indigent cases has attorneys stretched thin.Members of the S.C. Bar's House of Delegates say the indigent defense requirement is creating a significant strain on the system, even with the one-time $2.5 million infusion that came from the Legislature last year.
As it currently operates, the requirement is essentially an unfunded government mandate, some say. "We've reached the tipping point," Brad Waring of Charleston, past Bar president, told delegates at Charleston Place.
As a part of their lawyer licenses, attorneys in South Carolina can be assigned up to 10 indigent cases a year, often in the realm of civil guardian work for children or the mentally disabled, Waring said. Last year, there were more than 6,500 such cases statewide. In addition, there were nearly 3,800 criminal case appointments.
The requirement is especially burdensome in smaller, rural counties where there are fewer lawyers to go around.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR EXPUNGING CRIMINAL RECORDS IN SC
Last year, the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee passed a Bill that sets a uniform procedure for expunging criminal records in the State of South Carolina. However, the House has not passed the Bill.
Under the proposed legislation, when cases are either dropped, not adjudicated, or result in an acquittal, the Solicitors would be required to take the steps necessary to remove those charges from the Defendant's record. In certain other cases, a person convicted of minor crimes would be allowed to have his or her records expunged. We believe this Legislation should be adopted. Moreover, we also believe that there should be a uniform method for expunging Civil Contempt Arrest Records as well. Moreover, we think the South Carolina Legislature should at least consider some other Family Court reforms.
Labels: Expungment
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
FEDERAL JUDGES SELF-POLICE IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Let's make sure that we understand this correctly. Federal Judges are appointed for life. Therefore, they can essentially do whatever they want to do outside of taking bribes or committing espionage. So when it came time to decide whether to reappoint a well-connected Federal Magistrate to a cushy job, what did the Federal Judges do? Why, The Post & Courier reports, they did what they were supposed to do. They handled the matter internally and after having considered the matter carefully, they decided to deny Magistrate Kosko a new term based on the evidence before them. As The State reported "a magistrate judge accused of making disparaging sexist and ethnic remarks was not reappointed Friday by the state’s U.S. District judges, according to sources familiar with the matter."
Saturday, January 19, 2008
NO SCREENING OR TRANSPARENCY FOR MUNICIPAL JUDGES IN SC
The Post and Courier recently reported Ex-judge sues city over job. The article notes in part:
A former part-time municipal judge is suing North Charleston in federal court for job discrimination after City Council rejected her reappointment in 2005.
Tiffany Spann-Wilder filed suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Charleston, claiming the city failed to keep her in the job she held for four years because she had repeatedly asked for a raise and was rebuffed.At the time Doughty was appointed, Bowers was making $30,704a year. Associate Judge Mel Coleman, who has worked part time since 1991, made $32,000 a year. Chief Judge Victor Revelise made $78,000 a year and Judge George Epps, who has since retired, earned $73,690 a year. They were the city's two full-time judges.Today, according to North Charleston Personnel Director Bob Connella, Bowers makes between $42,000 and $46,000 a year. Doughty earns between $34,000 and $38,000 a year. Revelise, who has worked for the city since 1986, is paid $87,924 a year and Coleman, who used to work part time as a contract employee, earns $70,944 a year. He has taken over Epps' duties, Connella said.
We have no idea whether the Plaintiff will prevail in this case, although, as a general rule, we do not bet against Terry Rickson. We do note, however, that municipal judges--who are paid pretty well--are not required to be members of the Bar, have Law Degrees, or to go through the same screening process that lawyers are required to undergo before being admitted to the Bar. It seems to us that judges should have to be at least as educated and knowledgeable about the subject as those who appear before them. More important, there should be some transparency regarding the criteria for appointments and retention.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A DEFEAT FOR JUDICIAL REFORM IN NEW YORK
The United States Supreme Court, in a sort of lukewarm endorsement of the lowest common denominator kind of mentality, upheld the legality of New York's judicial selection process. The New York Times noted in A Defeat for Judicial Reform:
Four justices, in concurring opinions, cast doubt on the wisdom of New York’s method of choosing judges. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer noted that if the rules “do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now.” Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter quoted Thurgood Marshall: “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”
Somehow, we do not think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Labels: Election of Judges, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
CROOKED CIVIL SERVANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
The existence of these types of Internet sites also make us wonder why anyone who could do something else would want to be a Family Court Judge and deal with these kinds of headaches.
Could Paul Garfinkel and Jocelyn Cate be the worst Family Court Judges in South Carolina? Apparently the folks at http://www.crookedcivilservants.com/ think so.
These kinds of websites are a good idea in theory. However, in practice they may not be such a good idea. Those accused of wrongdoing are often not in a position to defend themselves. And even if the accusations prove to be unfounded, those who maintain these types of websites may not be able to respond to a money Judgment for defamation.
The existence of these types of Internet sites also make us wonder why anyone who could do something else would want to be a Family Court Judge and deal with these kinds of headaches.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
GIULIANI BILLED OBSCURE AGENCIES FOR TRIPS
According to The Politico, "As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records."
We take no position with respect to whether the expenses themselves were legitimate. We note, however, that, in 2001, $400,000 was billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office. This so-called "obscure agency" is involved in programs that provide lawyers to poor defendants. Therefore, there is no way to justify billing this agency for any of the mayor's travel expenses, legitimate or otherwise.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
COURT COSTS OR JUDICIAL HOLDUP?
The body of a South Carolina Family Court Form titled "Designation of Costs" states:
The body of a South Carolina Family Court Form titled "Designation of Costs" states:
I acknowledge that South Carolina Code Section 20-7-1440 requires that I pay and the Family Court has ordered that I pay court costs in an amount equal to five percent of any support payment made through the Clerk of Court or the centralized wage withholding system. I owe and will pay these costs in addition to my support obligation.To meet my duty to pay court costs, I designate an amount equal to five percent of the support payment I make to be applied and distributed in payment of court costs, not support.I authorize the Clerk of Court or, if payments are withheld from my income, the centralized wage withholding system to deduct the fee from every payment made by me or on my behalf.I acknowledge that should I not pay the full amount due, that an arrearage will accrue and that the Clerk of Court may fake enforcement action against me for failure to pay ail amounts ordered by the Court.
If an amendment to the law changes the amount of court costs, this designation authorizes deduction of court costs in the amount established by law.Done, this__________ day of____________ __. 20____ , at (City)(State)
Signature of Obligor
Printed Name of Obligor
IV-D Case ID:
SCCA 429
(11/05)
We have commented on this issue before and our opinion remains basically unchanged. For those who were originally Court-ordered to pay less than five (5%) percent, this looks like unlawful retroactive legislation. And in any event, because the amount being charged is a percentage of the amount being paid, it is readily apparent that the "fee" is not a Court Cost because it has no bearing to the cost of processing the check. Simply stated, the cost of an envelope and a stamp for a check in a large amount is the same as a the cost of an envelope and a stamp for a check in a large amount.
Can everyone say "arbitrary and capricious?" "Can everyone say "equal protection?"
Without a doubt, those who pay through the Family Court should pay adminstrative costs. However, when the amounts accessed bear no relationship to the costs incurred, an adjustment is in order.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
SC JUDICIAL SELECTION PROCESS TO REMAIN THE SAME
According to The Post and Courier, "South Carolina and Virginia are the only states in which legislators elect judges." And "After investigating the way South Carolina elects its judges and comparing the process with other states', a Senate panel closed the book on reform Wednesday" because most "senators on the Judicial Merit Selection Study Committee called the current selection process ideal."
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
EXPUNGEMENT "TEXAS STYLE"
In New Investigation in Texas E-Mail Case The New York Times reports:
One of the office [e-mail] messages showed [District Attorney] Rosenthal trying to help his son, a lawyer, expunge old criminal offenses for a client. Others showed him gathering negative information against the Democrat planning to run against him, Clarence Bradford, a former Houston police chief, and against a Democratic state senator from Houston, John Whitmire, with whom he has clashed
The evidence of domestic spying on a political opponent by a District Attorney is disturbing. And we also do not support a system which allows for expungement of records only for those with connections. Instead, we support an expungment system that is transparent, streamlined, equitable, and uniform, and which provides for the expugement of both criminal and civil (domestic) arrest records.
Labels: Expungment
Sunday, January 06, 2008
MEDIA REQUEST FROM AMERICAN COALITION FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN
We have received a request from a major news outlet in the mid Atlantic (Pa, NJ, Del.) seeking to interview a father who is owed child support and is having trouble collecting. If you are in this situation and would like to be considered for inclusion in the program please send a 100 word summary of your case along with your contact information for forwarding to the producers. Obviously, ACFC has no control over the production and whose story may be used, we are however grateful this inequity in the system is being examined. Send your story to info@acfc.org indicating CS Issue in the subject line. Thanks.
The following was received from the AMERICAN COALITION FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN:
We have received a request from a major news outlet in the mid Atlantic (Pa, NJ, Del.) seeking to interview a father who is owed child support and is having trouble collecting. If you are in this situation and would like to be considered for inclusion in the program please send a 100 word summary of your case along with your contact information for forwarding to the producers. Obviously, ACFC has no control over the production and whose story may be used, we are however grateful this inequity in the system is being examined. Send your story to info@acfc.org indicating CS Issue in the subject line. Thanks.
