Targeting: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

Started by: Matt Kelley

Hank Skinner is scheduled to be executed in Texas on February 24 for three murders he maintains he didn’t commit. Several key pieces of biological evidence from the crime scene have not been tested. DNA testing could prove Skinner’s innocence or confirm his guilt, but prosecutors are opposing Skinner’s appeals and seeking to execute him.

Send a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles urging them to grant Skinner’s clemency petition so DNA testing can be conducted.

Take Action Here

http://www.blogsurfer.us/index.aspx

Targeting: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

Started by: Matt Kelley

Hank Skinner is scheduled to be executed in Texas on February 24 for three murders he maintains he didn’t commit. Several key pieces of biological evidence from the crime scene have not been tested. DNA testing could prove Skinner’s innocence or confirm his guilt, but

Monday, Feb. 08, 2010

By Chris Collins / The Fresno Bee

The number of inmates at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga who have been infected by Valley fever has increased in the last year, contrary to a recent Fresno County grand jury report.

In 2008, 159 cases were diagnosed, according to the Fresno County Public Health Department. Last year, the number of cases nearly doubled, rising to 311.

In its Jan. 25 report, the grand jury stated that the number of monthly cases had dropped by more than half. “Statistics show a definite drop in cases and the grand jury believes that the medical staff should be commended,” the report said. The report didn’t indicate the source of the statistics or the time frame in which the change had occurred. A spokeswoman for Fresno County Superior Court, which oversees the grand jury, said the grand jury’s policy is not to comment on reports.

The county’s statistics, which are based on data reported by the prison, show there were 520 cases of Valley fever in 2006 when an outbreak of the disease infected about one out of 10 inmates. The number of cases decreased the next two years before rising again last year.

There are several theories as to why the number of Valley fever cases rise and fall. Some researchers say that heavy rainfall can spark an outbreak. Others believe that nearby construction work turns up the soil and releases spores that cause the disease.

But Dr. Edward Moreno, director of the Public Health Department, said Monday that research has been inconclusive so far.

The prison’s warden, James Yates, said in an interview last month that he believed the grand jury’s report was accurate but didn’t have “first-hand knowledge” of any statistics.

Yates could not be reached Monday.

The state prison system’s health-care services have been under the control of a court-ordered federal receiver since February 2006.

Richard Hector, director of the Valley Fever Vaccine Project and a researcher at the University of California at San Francisco, said that even though he believes the receiver has improved health care at the prison, little can be done to prevent Valley fever. “That is strictly an environmental issue.”

Hector noted that Valley fever, which affects large swaths of California and Arizona, is especially prevalent in the west-side towns of Coalinga and Huron.

“There is no question the prison is sitting in a hot spot,” he said.

Luis Patino, a spokesman for the receiver, said inmates with poor immune systems are not sent to Pleasant Valley State Prison. He also said that the receiver is trying to make sure inmates and staff members are more aware of how to combat Valley fever.

Cheryl Miller

02-09-2010

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has slapped the state of California with sanctions after the attorney general filed a fifth meritless appeal in ongoing prison conditions litigation.

In a short, one-page decision (pdf) issued last month, Judges Barry Silverman, Richard Paez and Carlos Bea dismissed the state’s appeal of an August 2009 district court order requiring the two sides in Plata v. Schwarzenegger to meet and confer over how much the prevailing plaintiffs lawyers are owed in fees and costs.

The panel also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions “because this is the fifth time that the court has dismissed an appeal by these appellants related to this litigation for lack of jurisdiction.”

The Prison Law Office, which represents the Plata class of inmates challenging the adequacy of prison medical care, filed paperwork Friday seeking penalties of $13,500.

Prison Law Office attorney Alison Hardy said that, despite frustration with the state’s frequent appeals in this case, the plaintiffs attorneys have held off asking for penalties in the past because of the state’s poor fiscal condition.

This time, however, “they were so clearly wrong,” Hardy said. “They so clearly had no argument.”

Continue Reading…..

By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, February 6, 2010

A law that took effect last month that was intended to reduce inmate overcrowding by allowing early releases at state prisons and county jails is sowing confusion throughout California. Lawmakers of both parties have called for repealing and modifying parts of the law, a county deputies’ union has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to block it and a loophole was exposed after an inmate with a violent past was arrested for attempted rape just hours after his release.

Two Republican lawmakers who had opposed the law — Sen. Tom Harman of Huntington Beach and Assemblyman Curt Hagman of Chino Hills — issued statements this week calling for a halt in the early releases from county jails.

“That is the wrong way to solve our budget problems — by putting public safety at risk by releasing these prisoners,” Harman, who is running for attorney general, said in an interview.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill last fall as part of the legislative package to close the state’s budget deficit. Some 6,500 state inmates are due to be released early this year under the law, saving the state budget a projected $500 million.

The law expands early release credits for state prison inmates who complete educational and vocational programs, shaving months off their sentences. It also lets the state stop monitoring low-level offenders after they leave prison, making it unlikely they will be returned if they violate the terms of their probation.

At the county level, differing interpretations have led to a patchwork approach since the law took effect Jan. 25.

At least 18 of California’s 58 counties are applying the law retroactively, giving their county jail inmates additional credits for the time they already spent in jail before the law took effect. That led to a surge of releases over the last two weeks.

At least 16 counties decided the earlier releases apply only to credits earned for time served after the law took effect, according to the California State Sheriffs’ Association. Four other counties aren’t sure yet how they will implement the law, while 20 counties had not responded as of Friday.

“The counties are all over the map on this,” said Scott Thorpe, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association.

No state prison inmates have been released under the law yet because the language is more specific for state prisoners: They will get credit only for completing rehabilitation programs started after the law took effect.

Whether it applies to inmates in state prisons or county jails, the law was not intended to help those convicted of violent or sexual crimes get out early.

A release this week from the Sacramento County Jail exposed an apparent loophole in that provision when an inmate who was let out early under the new law was arrested just hours later on suspicion of attempting to rape a counselor. Although he had been in jail for a probation violation, the inmate’s underlying crime was a violent one — assault with a deadly weapon.

Had the law not been in effect, he would have had to wait an additional 16 days before he was eligible for release.

The alleged assault prompted several lawmakers to call for an immediate halt to the law’s implementation at the county level.

“We’re no longer speculating. An inmate was improperly released and almost raped a woman,” said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont. “It’s obvious we’re creating a very dangerous situation.”

Torrico, who is running for attorney general and helped write the law, said he will introduce a bill next week seeking to remove counties from the law’s early release provisions.

He joined a lawsuit filed Friday by the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, saying in a sworn declaration that the law was intended to apply only to inmates in state prisons, not county jails.

The association sued Sacramento County and the state corrections department, seeking an injunction preventing more early releases. The lawsuit argues that the law should not be applied retroactively to time inmates have already served and should not affect county jail inmates at all.

Two Democratic Assembly members, Ted Lieu of Torrance and Alyson Huber of Lodi, have introduced a bill requiring local law enforcement agencies to be notified before any state inmates are freed without parole supervision.

State corrections officials and law enforcement experts have said the law could improve public safety by easing overcrowding in state prisons, encouraging inmates to complete rehabilitation programs and reducing caseloads for parole officers so they can concentrate on violent offenders.

Thorpe, of the district attorneys association, said the early release program simply accelerates what is happening already.

“These guys get dumped on the streets every single day,” Thorpe said.

Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, Stanislaus and Tulare counties each released at least 150 inmates within a matter of days after the law took effect. Officials there believed they should count inmates’ credits for time already served.

Other counties — including Los Angeles, the state’s most populous — decided the law should not be applied retroactively, thus avoiding a mass release.

The law is not clear on when the early release credits should be applied. The state attorney general, state corrections officials and associations representing sheriffs and prosecutors say they cannot provide an answer. That left each sheriff to decide individually, after consulting with local prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and lawyers.

“It’s just a big gray area. My understanding is about half the sheriffs did it one way and half the sheriffs did it the other,” said San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. “It cries out for state interpretation — a little leadership up there.”

Gore said one reason his county opted to grant the credits retroactively was to avoid potential challenges by inmates.

Source: SF Gate

Bad Policies Are Really What’s Driving California’s Huge Prison Costs

By Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, AlterNet Posted on February 8, 2010, Printed on February 8, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/145580/ Governor Schwarzenegger’s flippant remark last month that California could reduce prison costs by shipping 20,000 inmates to Mexico is a dangerous sign that he may be giving up on serious corrections reform – even as the dual crises of overcrowding and overspending intensify. His office has now rejected that off-the-cuff scheme, but the governor stands behind another questionable proposal to cut costs through privatization, signaling that he may be taking his eye off of real solutions in favor of political posturing. To be fair, during his tenure, Governor Schwarzenegger has gone much further than his recent predecessors to propose much-needed reforms – moves supported by corrections experts, academics and advocates alike. Unfortunately, what he’s been unable to muster is the political strategy to achieve such a policy shift in Sacramento. The Legislature was able to pass some prison and parole reforms last year after a significant effort for which they deserve some credit. Unfortunately, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office doesn’t expect even those modest reforms to amount to much. The state budget assumed an inmate reduction of 18,500 in 2009-10 rising to 25,000 in 2010-11. The LAO now anticipates the inmate reduction to reach just 1,600 – or 1% of the prison population – in 2009-10 and 11,800 in 2010-11. There are two very distinct and crucial measures of the feasibility of any population reduction plan: Can it be done safely? And can it be done politically? The answer to the former is absolutely. It is simply not true that California needs to keep 170,000 people in state prisons on any given day and another 120,000+ Californians on parole. This isn’t my opinion; it’s the opinion reached by decades of research and expert analysis. It’s also the experience of other states. Several states – including New York – have seen their crime rates fall even faster than California’s while they have simultaneously reduced their prison populations. Even as California struggles with prison overcrowding, Colorado, Kansas, New York and Michigan, among others, are either closing prisons or struggling with what to do about so many empty cells. It’s worth noting that, even in California, per-capita incarceration rates have typically been much lower than they are now. The state prison population has grown by over 500% since 1980, rising from under 30,000 to about 170,000 at the end of 2009. In the same period, according to federal statistics, the state population grew by just 55%. One in 161 Californian adults is now in prison and one in 94 adults in the state is either in prison or on parole. Who are all these people? Too many of them were convicted of petty offenses, what in prior years were misdemeanors that landed someone in jail for six months to a year. Now even petty offenses – including stealing a car radio or being in possession of a tiny amount of drugs – can land you in state prison for years at a cost to the taxpayer of $49,000 per inmate per year. If an inmate is older or has a health problem, the cost rises significantly. Most other states handle this level of offense at the local level. By opting for a policy of sending low-level offenders to state prison, California is far out of step with other states – and out of time. Independent of any privatization plans or other attempts to lower correctional officers’ wages, cutting prison costs must include reforms to sentencing, probation and parole with respect to non-violent offenders, especially drug offenders, to bring California law into conformity with other states and Western democracies.  To talk about cost cutting without addressing one of the fundamental drivers of rising costs is misguided and short-sighted. The LAO recognized in its most recent report on the corrections budget, that “over the past two decades, prison costs have increased largely as a result of increases in the inmate and parolee populations, federal court orders to improve inmate health care, and negotiated increases in compensation for correctional employees.”[1] Reducing the number of prisoners – not just lowering the cost of imprisoning this massive population – must be the state’s priority. It’s a moral, public health, public safety and fiscal imperative. It’s also what the federal judges have demanded. As for the second measure of feasibility for any population reduction plan (Can it be done politically?), I’m not the only one hoping Sacramento will give us a new answer this year. Margaret Dooley-Sammuli is deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance in Southern California. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145580/

~ Michael Flinner (Author)

A Portion Of Thyself: Essential Reflections From Death Row

Experiences inside prison on Death Row, reflections of a prisoner of his past and present

Available through Amazon

A Prison Author

by Michael Flinner

For longer than any of us know, prisons have been a fertile setting for musicians, artists, and writers alike. Some works by prisoners have been counted among great classics in literature. Books which describe prison life inspire audiences far beyond prison walls.

Although some of the finest prison authors remain unknown, and in many cases unpublished, the country’s highest courts recognize the importance of these works.

The writings primarily focus on the prison experience itself, and generally provide a testimony to both the struggles of the human spirit and the magnitude of the system of justice.

The success of several prison authors came with a price, many were eventually executed, some innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

It wasn’t until 1968 that legislation formally took it upon themselves to abandon the concept of “first amendment death” and reinstated protection to manuscripts written by incarcerated men and women.

Different types of prison writings began to emerge, heralded as convicts found their voice, one that so many people in the outside world were willing to hear. It is the very voice of the prisoner alone, that bring their personal, intimate experiences to the world.

Destined to shape our society, the prison experience for many, is the past, the present, and the future of what their individual lives will hold.

United States, birthplace of all modern prisons some two centuries ago, has managed to transform prisons into central institiutions of society, both in influence and scale. From within this transformation, another provocative type of writing blooms, far more descriptive, disturbing, and desperate than the known prison literature of earlier periods. And unbelievably, these pieces rise to the occasion, much like their forerunners, revealing amazing creativity and perpetual strengths in humanity.

Prison journalism plays an important role for many people. Newspapers provide prisoners with information on programs like legal matters, events, health care, and articles on a vast array of issues. The overall tone of both magaine and newspaper articles, vary depending on the source, the publisher, editors, etc. These are outlets for those of us who tend to tell it like it is.

The unique thing about these outlets are the voices, much like mine, that are coming from beyond the walls of prisons throughout the United States.

We are not the voices of people who claim to be experts, or even those who once may have been in prison and now pretend as if they never were. No, we are those who often disagree amongst ourselves, the very voices of the men and women most involved and, directly feeling the effects of our incarcerations.

Our voices have been conveying some interesting messages. We have written about our desires to further our individual educations, wanting to get paid for our work, some have written about opportunities and various programs to help not only ourselves, but others, build new constructive lawful lives. Some simply want to write, much like me. My message is clear.

I’ve heard people say that prisoners are ignorant, don’t get the big picture, and if they had any smarts at all, wouldn’t be in prison.

Education and current information is undeniably the best method I know of to get people involved, to help those who are less fortunate, avoid dangerous situations.

What a cruel joke fate has bestowed upon many of us. “We’re doing this for your own good, doesn’t seem to work anymore.”

As a Death Row inmate, you may not believe how I could have ever endorsed the Death Penalty. I once believed in the Ultimate Punishment.

Aggravating circumstances outweighing mitigating ones was no reason for me to change my view simply because it was my life in question. Obviously, the people of this great state think the world will be a better place with my death. I didn’t say safer, I said better.

The thought of finally attaining a sense of tranquility after embracing death and losing the struggle, is very tempting.

Perhaps the prospect of accepting and inviting my greatest fear, death, into my life, I virtually eliminate everything that governs my fate, disconnecting me to my very existence, leaving no controls over my mind or emotions.

Such thoughts are terribly short-lived. Like many others, I’ve found a reason, perhaps only apparent to myself, why I must live.

Despite being well-educated about the numerous disparities in our criminal justice system, I’m constantly astonished at the depths of my plight, nearly immeasurable, the realization that I’m only here for one reason, to die.

Will I ever fully appreciate the sanctity of life as I remold myself from the wreckage that mine has become?

Clear to me after living amongst condemned men, is the myth behind the very notion that Capital Punishment serves as a deterrent to murder.

A sick sense of justice, and perhaps some emotional closure for victim’s families, may be the only useful purpose one could imagine for the necessary evil in these state-sanctioned killings.

Does the Death Penalty permit living victims to venture beyond the devastation in the loss of their loved ones? In the context of the criminal justice system, with its many decision makers, American Society remains profoundly afflicted by the combined potential impact of current social and criminal justice policies regarding the imposition of death as a punishment.

Recent and ongoing revelations of the persistent fallibility of the Death Penalty have had an extraordinary impact on the public’s view of Capital Punishment.

More than 600 men and women await execution here in California, the largest Death Row in the nation. California’s rate of serious errors in Death Penalty cases is far above the national average, where, two out of three convictions are overturned on appeal, primarily because of serious errors by defense attorneys or because of police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Even more disturbing is the Federal Habeas Corpus Reform Act, the law which expedites the Death Penalty process and, ironically as a result, reduces the very opportunity that courts have to look for these errors, thus exacerbating an already unfair set of guidelines and regulations.

Throughout the nation, politicans are scrambling for ways to restore faith in a broken system. Having successfully convinced the public for so long that the Death Penalty was an effective crime-fighting instrument, these same politicians are now trying to discern how to respond to the dramatic change in public attitude.

The ever lonely struggle against the Death Penalty appears to have turned a corner. As the public continues to lose faith in a flawed and unjust system, it becomes our responsibility to continue exposing its fallibility and to press toward alternatives.

Concerns regarding fairness and the huge risk of executing the innocent has led the way into discussions about imposition of a moratorium on executions in this state.

The Federal government and at least 11 other states are conducting thorough reviews of their own systems. Moratorium legislation of some type or another remains pending in some 18 states and, Federal legislation seeking a moratorium or other reforms have been proposed in the United States Congress.

It is the moral integrity which continues to be on the line in this nation as each and every execution under our current system tests our shared commitment to due process and equality under the law.

So many problems of unfairness and violations of said due process are inherent in the administration of the Death Penalty. Because of this, one must oppose Capital Punishment.

Even if you’re not categorically opposed, you may still share the concern about fundamental fairness.

Whether you like it or not, it is a proven fact that innocent people have been put to death, and each execution amid so many questions of simple fairness, creates a tremendous crisis that demands immediate attention.

I oppose the Death Penalty but, I want you to make up your own mind.

Even if I’m unable to convice you that the Death Penalty should be abolished, I hope that you will take the time to become informed and consider helping me address the severity of perpetual problems associated with Capital Punishment.

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

This is why I write. The voice. I’m a prison author.

Michael Flinner
CDC V-30064
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94964
USA

http://www.blogsurfer.us/index.aspx

This story is taken from Sacbee / Opinion

Published Friday, Feb. 05, 2010

Here’s a dirty little secret: Most inmates in California state prisons and county jails eventually get out and return to communities.

Here’s another dirty little secret: For years, overcrowded county jails have been releasing 9,100 pretrial inmates a month. They’ve also been releasing 9,300 sentenced inmates per month before they complete their sentences.

Something’s got to give.

Before a new law took effect on Jan. 25, California had a system of good-time credits that allowed inmates to shave time off their sentences for good behavior and for participating in certain work, education and drug or alcohol programs. The aim is to encourage good behavior and reward self-improvement efforts, as well as reduce overcrowding in prisons and jails.

Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that would expand good-time credits, a long-overdue reform. It took effect Jan. 25. Crime victims groups and others, however, already are stoking fears of a massive new crime wave.

Here’s a reality check.

No state prisoners have yet been released under the new law, not one. Credit enhancements for state prisoners only began to accrue on Jan. 25. And, for state prisoners, release will take place only after intense review of each prisoner. The state expects 6,500 prisoners will be released early in a trickle over time.

A hullabaloo ensued, however, when 21 counties, including Sacramento, interpreted the new law as allowing them to apply expanded good time retroactively to jail inmates. Given budget constraints and overcrowding, they jumped on this opportunity without preparing adequately for it.

The predictable result: One Sacramento jail inmate who was set free 16 days early made his way to a drop-in mental health program for homeless people, allegedly lunged at a worker and was arrested on a charge of attempted rape. Unfortunately, the usual groups that oppose the new law are using this incident to discredit it.

If this inmate had been released 16 days later, would it have made a difference? Not likely. What might have made a difference: The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department should have given a heads-up to city police and others. This didn’t happen. Sheriff John McGinness acknowledges the error.

Sacramento County released about 50 more people in a single day than it would have under the old law, a number that officials expect to flatten out over time.

As McGinness told us, “This is not a humongous difference. … The good people of the Golden State ought to get used to the idea of reduced rate of incarceration for lawlessness, because the cost is becoming prohibitive. “

Californians need to make better use of cost-effective alternatives to incarceration, such as work release, electronic monitoring, drug court intensive supervision and day reporting. It’s time to get smart on crime instead of resorting to alarmism.

Source: SacBee

Speaking to L.A. lawyers, the Supreme Court jurist blasts the prison guard union’s influence, calling it ’sick’ but sidesteps questions about the ruling he wrote last month on campaign spending.

“The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” Supreme Court Justice Kennedy said of the California measure mandating life sentences for third-time criminal offenders. (Charles Dharapak / Associated Press / September 29, 2009)

By Carol J. Williams

February 4, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy criticized California sentencing policies and crowded prisons Wednesday night, calling the influence that unionized prison guards had in passing the three-strikes law “sick.”

In an otherwise courtly and humorous address to the Los Angeles legal community, Kennedy expressed obvious dismay over the state of corrections and rehabilitation in the country. He said U.S. sentences are eight times longer than those issued by European courts.

“California now has 185,000 people in prison at $32,500 a year” each, he said. He then urged voters and officials to compare that expense to what taxpayers spend per pupil in elementary schools.

“The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” Kennedy said of the measure mandating life sentences for third-time criminal offenders.

Kennedy wrote the high court’s controversial Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling last month and was bombarded with written questions on the 5-4 vote that fundamentally changed campaign spending laws.

But he sidestepped the audience’s efforts to draw him out on that decision, which frees corporations — and presumably unions — to spend as they wish on campaigns and candidates that were once limited to accepting individual voter contributions.

Kennedy would say only that it was “important to have robust, principled debate after opinions,” and suggested that was best left to the legal community.

One questioner asked: “Does Justice Kennedy feel scolded?” It was an apparent reference to President Obama’s warning that the ruling opens the door to Big Business drowning out the voices of the electorate with lavish and targeted campaign spending.

“He doesn’t,” Kennedy said cryptically, spurring laughter throughout the packed auditorium at Pepperdine University’s School of Law.

Source: LA Times

By Chris Collins / The Fresno Bee

CHOWCHILLA — They’ve robbed. They’ve stolen. They’ve murdered.

But despite their past crimes, nearly 100 women gathered in a prison gym Wednesday to hear how they can help victims of serious crimes. Some wanted to know how they could help the very people they hurt.

The inmates are part of a club at Valley State Prison for Women that focuses on raising money for charitable groups and, as they describe it, repay their debt to society. One of the women in the club, called the Long Termers Organization, sent a three-page letter in August to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board — a state agency that distributes about $100 million a year in funds to crime victims in need of health care, therapy or other services as a result of the crimes committed against them. The inmate, Crystal Potter, wanted to know whether the board would be willing to let her club know how they could help.

“We may never gain the trust or the forgiveness of our victims, but to do now what we should have been doing from the very beginning in providing community services would teach us further the morals and values so necessary as a productive member of society,” Potter wrote.

Julie Nauman, the compensation board’s executive officer, said she felt compelled to accept Potter’s invitation. She said it was the first time that an inmate had asked the agency to make a presentation at a prison. Despite the fact that Nauman deals mostly with victims, she said she was eager to talk to the inmates. “They’re showing me that they care and are trying to make a difference, and that’s what we do every day.”

The 120-member Long Termers Organization has been around for about nine years, Potter said in an interview. She said the group has monthly meetings and has raised more than $150,000 over the years for charities such as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Hinds Hospice of Fresno. Potter said that she was recently looking through a book of nonprofit organizations when she realized the obvious: that her club should raise money for victims groups. So she sent off her letter.

On Wednesday, Nauman told inmates about how the compensation board works and fielded questions from her audience. Potter said she hopes the Long Termers Organization will start to raise money for the compensation board soon.

Potter, 55 and an Air Force veteran, said she is in the 18th year of a 5 years-to-life sentence for the second-degree murder of her husband in Riverside. She said that even though she feels good about raising money for charities, she knows it won’t make up for the crimes that she and other inmates have committed.

Source: Fresno Bee

Watch this YouTube Video and please share your thoughts & feelings….

Update:

Inmate Arrested for Rape Attempt Hours after  Early Release

By Sam Stanton and Robert Lewis
sstanton@sacbee.com

Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010

It was probably just a matter of time. But less than one day?

Kevin Peterson was part of the early release of county jail inmates.

Sacramento sheriff’s officials say that’s how long it took for an inmate who was set free Monday under an early-release plan to be arrested again, this time on a charge of attempted rape.

The incident prompted immediate outrage from groups opposed to the new state law aimed at reducing prison populations by gradually releasing nonviolent, low-level offenders who earn extra credits for participating in educational and other programs.

“Our greatest fear has occurred almost immediately after the early release of these inmates,” said Christine Ward of the Crime Victims Action Alliance.

But the arrest of Kevin Eugene Peterson less than a day after he was cut loose from the Sacramento County jail also sparked questions over whether counties releasing jail inmates since the law took effect Jan. 25 are interpreting the law correctly.

It all began Monday evening, when the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department began releasing hundreds of inmates early from the county’s jails.

The state says it has not released any inmates under the new law, which is designed to take effect gradually and only after intense review of each prisoner.

But Sacramento and other counties have decided the new law allows them to apply good-time credits to inmates retroactively, which led to the release of Peterson 16 days early Monday.

Peterson was rearrested at about 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, when police say he attempted to assault a woman in the 1300 block of North C Street.

He was booked into the Sacramento County jail at 3:21 p.m. Tuesday on charges of attempted rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment and violating the terms of his probation, records show.

The victim was an employee of Loaves & Fishes, Joan Burke, the organization’s director of advocacy, confirmed. The female victim had never met Peterson, who showed up for a drop-in mental health program for homeless people.

Peterson allegedly lunged at the victim. She managed to signal co-workers who subdued Peterson and held him until police arrived, Burke said.

Peterson’s criminal history includes a 2008 felony arrest for assault with a deadly weapon. Authorities say he attacked a relative with a broom handle but did not inflict great harm. He pleaded guilty to a felony and was sentenced to a year in county jail and five years probation, according to Sheriff’s Department spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran.

Peterson violated probation late last year and on Dec. 2 was sentenced to return to jail for four months, court records show.

Sheriff John McGinness said that even though Peterson pleaded guilty to a felony, the law considers him a misdemeanor offender because he served his time in jail rather than prison. That made him eligible for early release, McGinness said.

“In your terms and mine, he has a violent felony conviction, but under the law he is considered a nonviolent misdemeanant,” McGinness said.

If he had a violent felony conviction and spent time in prison, he would not have been released early, a prison spokesman said.

“This guy, had he been a state inmate, would not have been eligible for release,” state corrections spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said.

Hidalgo emphasized that the new law was not designed to result in immediate releases. Instead, he said, counties made their own decisions to apply good-time credits to jail inmates and begin releasing them, and he noted that the inmate involved in Tuesday’s incident was a county inmate, not from a state prison.

The credit enhancements for state inmates did not begin to accrue until Jan. 25, and no state inmates have been released under the new law yet, Hidalgo said, adding that the expectation was that more than 6,000 state inmates would be released over time in a trickle as they earn credits and their cases are assessed.

Sacramento County officials originally decided to have inmates start accruing credits on Jan. 25, but after discussions Monday with the county counsel and the District Attorney’s Office, the county decided inmates could be given credits for past good time and released, McGinness said.

Source: SacBee