What's new from Prisoners of the Census, http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/>
a project of the Prison Policy Initiative:
* * *
This week we have a new report about prison-based gerrymandering in Massachusetts, a link to an excellent news article, and a request for Mac laptops.
* * *
NEW REPORT:
Importing Constituents: Prisoners and
Political Clout in Massachusetts
by Elena Lavarreda, Peter Wagner and Rose Heyer http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/ <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/>
The press release is below.
* * *
NEWS COVERAGE
This article about our new report is an excellent introduction to the issues at stake when counting incarcerated people in the wrong place:
The Prison Town Advantage:
Inmates who can't vote nevertheless add to the power of the politicians who don't represent them
by Maureen Turner, Valley Advocate (Western Mass.), October 8, 2009
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10645 <http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10645>
* * *
MAC LAPTOP NEEDED
The Prison Policy Initiative now has more volunteers than we have computers. Do you have a relatively recent Mac laptop you no longer need? If so, please contact me. Any gifts of equipment would be tax deductible.
* * *
Press release:
CENSUS BUREAU COUNTS MASSACHUSETTS PRISONERS IN WRONG PLACE; ACCESS TO DEMOCRACY DISTORTED
[URL: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2009/10/08/ma_repor/ <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2009/10/08/ma_repor/> ]
The 2010 Census is rapidly approaching, but an old error threatens the count, charges a new report by the non-profit Prison Policy Initiative. The report explains that the U.S. Census counts state and federal prisoners as residents of the prison location, and that creates big problems for democracy in Massachusetts. Crediting prisoners to the prison towns leads to unequal distributions of political power within the state.
Under Massachusetts law prisoners -- who can't vote -- are legal residents of their pre-incarceration homes. The Census Bureau counts these people in the wrong spot, and that will create a big problem when the state next updates its legislative districts after the 2010 Census. Legislative districts must be updated each decade to ensure that each district contains the same number of residents.
The report states that five Massachusetts House districts meet federal minimum population requirements only because they include incarcerated people as local residents. In these five districts, the presence of the prisons in the Census data enables every group of 95 residents near the prisons to claim as much political power in the State House as each group of 100 residents elsewhere. By using Census Bureau counts of prison populations to pad out legislative districts with prisons, Massachusetts is inflating the votes of residents who live near prisons in violation of the Supreme Court's "one person one vote" rule.
"How the Census counts people in prison is a little understood or noticed problem," said report author Elena Lavarreda, "but it's important that the public know how the Census is diluting their votes."
The report focuses on the harm to democracy caused by the 2000 Census, but warns that the Census Bureau intends to repeat the mistake of 2000. According to executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, Peter Wagner, "The next Census is in 6 months, so unless the state acts fast, democracy will have to wait until the 2020 Census."
The report, "Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in Massachusetts", is available at http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/ <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ma/>
* * *
The Prison Policy Initiative depends on the support of the people who receive this newsletter. If you can help support our work with a tax-deductible contribution via Network for Good at http://www.prisonpolicy.org/donate.html <http://www.prisonpolicy.org/donate.html> or via a paper check sent to the address below, please do so today.
I welcome your feedback on the issue, the website, and this message.
And as always, if you prefer to not receive these messages, just let me know.
Best wishes,
Peter Wagner
--
Peter Wagner http://www.PrisonersoftheCensus.org <http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/>
pwagner@prisonpolicy.org http://www.prisonpolicy.org <http://www.prisonpolicy.org/> Prison Policy Initiative PO Box 127 Northampton, MA 01061
Thursday, October 22, 2009
High Cost of Empty Prisons
October 12, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The High Cost of Empty Prisons
By ROBERT GANGI
LAST Wednesday, changes to New York’s notorious Rockefeller drug laws went into effect, allowing judges to shorten the prison terms of some nonviolent offenders. This measure will further reduce New York’s prison population, which has already declined, in the past 10 years, from about 71,600 in 1999 to about 59,300 today. (The state’s crime rate also dropped substantially during that time.)
Nevertheless, mainly because of opposition from the correction officers’ union and politicians from the upstate areas where most of our correctional facilities are, the state has been slow to close prisons. It was not until earlier this year that policymakers in Albany, confronted with fiscal crisis, mustered the will to shut three prison camps and seven prison annexes — a total of about 2,250 prison beds — in a move that is expected to save $52 million over the next two years.
But the state could go further. The prison system still has more than 5,000 empty beds in 69 prisons. What’s more, there are other ways to lower the prison population. For starters, state lawmakers could repeal the Rockefeller mandatory sentencing provisions that remain on the books. They could also increase the number of participants on work release. In 1994, more than 27,000 people were in this time-tested program that helps them manage the transition back to their communities. Today, about 2,500 are enrolled.
In addition, the state could reduce the number of people — last year, more than 9,000 — who are returned to prison for technical parole violations like missing a meeting with an officer or breaking curfew. Most experts agree that for about half of these people it would be safer and smarter to enroll them in re-entry programs or provide more supervision. Also, more prisoners with good institutional records could be given parole. And eligibility for so-called merit time, which reduces prison terms for inmates who complete educational and other programs, could be expanded to people convicted of violent offenses many years ago.
Taken together, these actions could cut the state’s prison rolls by 5,000 to 10,000 more, enabling the governor and the legislature to close at least four prisons the size of Attica, which holds 2,100 inmates, or a greater number of smaller facilities.
After New York passed the Rockefeller drug laws in 1973, a mandatory sentencing movement swept the country, raising the nationwide prison population to nearly 2.4 million, from 300,000. This experiment in mass incarceration was a failure. There is no conclusive evidence that it enhanced public safety, and some research suggests that time in prison makes people more prone to violence. It wasted billions of dollars a year. And it has devastated the low-income minority communities where most of our prisoners come from.
New York can now help point criminal justice in a more sensible and constructive direction — and show other states how to save money — by downsizing its prison system.
Robert Gangi is the executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, a nonprofit organization that monitors prison conditions.
Op-Ed Contributor
The High Cost of Empty Prisons
By ROBERT GANGI
LAST Wednesday, changes to New York’s notorious Rockefeller drug laws went into effect, allowing judges to shorten the prison terms of some nonviolent offenders. This measure will further reduce New York’s prison population, which has already declined, in the past 10 years, from about 71,600 in 1999 to about 59,300 today. (The state’s crime rate also dropped substantially during that time.)
Nevertheless, mainly because of opposition from the correction officers’ union and politicians from the upstate areas where most of our correctional facilities are, the state has been slow to close prisons. It was not until earlier this year that policymakers in Albany, confronted with fiscal crisis, mustered the will to shut three prison camps and seven prison annexes — a total of about 2,250 prison beds — in a move that is expected to save $52 million over the next two years.
But the state could go further. The prison system still has more than 5,000 empty beds in 69 prisons. What’s more, there are other ways to lower the prison population. For starters, state lawmakers could repeal the Rockefeller mandatory sentencing provisions that remain on the books. They could also increase the number of participants on work release. In 1994, more than 27,000 people were in this time-tested program that helps them manage the transition back to their communities. Today, about 2,500 are enrolled.
In addition, the state could reduce the number of people — last year, more than 9,000 — who are returned to prison for technical parole violations like missing a meeting with an officer or breaking curfew. Most experts agree that for about half of these people it would be safer and smarter to enroll them in re-entry programs or provide more supervision. Also, more prisoners with good institutional records could be given parole. And eligibility for so-called merit time, which reduces prison terms for inmates who complete educational and other programs, could be expanded to people convicted of violent offenses many years ago.
Taken together, these actions could cut the state’s prison rolls by 5,000 to 10,000 more, enabling the governor and the legislature to close at least four prisons the size of Attica, which holds 2,100 inmates, or a greater number of smaller facilities.
After New York passed the Rockefeller drug laws in 1973, a mandatory sentencing movement swept the country, raising the nationwide prison population to nearly 2.4 million, from 300,000. This experiment in mass incarceration was a failure. There is no conclusive evidence that it enhanced public safety, and some research suggests that time in prison makes people more prone to violence. It wasted billions of dollars a year. And it has devastated the low-income minority communities where most of our prisoners come from.
New York can now help point criminal justice in a more sensible and constructive direction — and show other states how to save money — by downsizing its prison system.
Robert Gangi is the executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, a nonprofit organization that monitors prison conditions.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
To Advocates for Justice in Virginia
-----To Advocates for Justice in Virginia
Mark your calendars to attend the "Organize for Advocacy!" Conference, Virginia C.U.R.E.'s 22nd Annual Conference on Saturday, October 17, 2009, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at United Methodist Family Services dining hall, 3900 West Broad Street, Richmond, Va 23230.
Free no hassle parking!
Time is running out!
It is time to pre-register for Virginia C.U.R.E.' s Annual Conference. A pre-registration form is attached. Please fill out the form and mail with the Conference fee to Sherry King. Full information is on the form.
The Conference fee is $20 for registrations received by Monday, October 10th. After October 10th the fee is $25 for 2009 Virginia C.U.R.E. members and Life members, and $35 for non-members. The fee includes coffee and pastries in the morning and luncheon.
Mark your calendars to attend the "Organize for Advocacy!" Conference, Virginia C.U.R.E.'s 22nd Annual Conference on Saturday, October 17, 2009, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at United Methodist Family Services dining hall, 3900 West Broad Street, Richmond, Va 23230.
Free no hassle parking!
Time is running out!
It is time to pre-register for Virginia C.U.R.E.' s Annual Conference. A pre-registration form is attached. Please fill out the form and mail with the Conference fee to Sherry King. Full information is on the form.
The Conference fee is $20 for registrations received by Monday, October 10th. After October 10th the fee is $25 for 2009 Virginia C.U.R.E. members and Life members, and $35 for non-members. The fee includes coffee and pastries in the morning and luncheon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)