Showing posts with label wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wilson. Show all posts

Thursday, April 30, 2015

More police killings of black men

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?

Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/

6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he had a major spinal injury (cause unclear, and he died in the hospital a few days later). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

----

Economist has some data on police use of deadly force. The FBI reports that US cops kill over 400 people a year (justifiable cases, and it is on the rise since the '90s), but it is voluntary self-reporting, so the true # is probably higher. In comparison, usually less than 50 cops are killed by gunfire/year (less than the # cops killed in vehicle incidents). Cops in Japan+UK+Germany (cumulatively about the same pop. as the US) kill less than 20 people/year.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/dontshoot

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/30/nation/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230

----

The BAL DA is pressing charges (murder, manslaughter) against the 6 officers who were present when Gray suffered his lethal spinal injury. She also declared that Gray's arrest was illegal.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/01/403496063/freddie-gray-update-new-speculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150501

---

Apparently, it's not just black/brown victims of police violence and stupidity. A fairly non-threatening drunk woman on St. Patrick's Day was taken into custody by BART police and taken to Santa Rita jail. There was footage of the cops slamming her to the floor (or letting her fall hard). They said that they were "guiding" her to the ground. The victim was seriously injured, and is a model so the damage to her face was significant and she is suing. But a review board cleared the officers.

http://abc7news.com/news/bart-officer-cleared-in-takedown-of-woman-at-east-bay-jail/684535/
Here are some conservative responses to the Baltimore unrest:
  • Rush said the cops should be commended for the 18 times they arrested Gray in the past (for minor drug offenses) and DIDN'T KILL HIM. Yes, they deserve a medal for their restraint.
  • Cruz said it's Obama's fault for inflaming racial tensions. Yeah, by being a successful half-black man who won't pretend racial injustice is over, he's more to blame than the cops that do the beating and shooting.
  • A TX Congressman Flores blames Baltimore on gay marriage and the deterioration of family values.
As you can see, Baltimore is attributed to just about everything except police dysfunction and racial/economic injustice. The sad thing is, if you gave some conservatives truth serum, they would probably say that the BAL tragedy is due to the inherent faults of black people (maybe not in so many words).

Thursday, December 25, 2014

The psychology of police bias and violence

These were some interesting stories about detrimental police psychology and practices.

Phillip Goff from UCLA studied a sampling of police deadly force incidents (not sure the date range and selection criteria), and over 80% of those incidents involved the shooting victim making direct "threats to the officer's masculinity." So it wasn't just a disrespect for his authority ("F you, pig!"), but a challenge to his manhood. In the case of Ferguson, it was alleged that Brown told Wilson, "You're too much of a [pansy/fag/etc.] to shoot me." If true, obviously that was a bad move on Brown's part, but also reveals the dangerous attitude that some officers feel the need to demonstrate their toughness/masculinity/etc. to the public (like Marty McFly when he's called "chicken"). This is not Tombstone where gunfighters call each other out to defend their names and settle scores in the street. The bigger man is sometime the one who doesn't respond, and cooler heads need to prevail (not to mention cops are legally bound by certain restraints, though it's very hard to prosecute excessive force). Cadets and officers who display this inferiority complex, insecurity, and prideful behavior should never be permitted to have a badge and gun.

This part is a little fluffy - but this behavior could reflect the stereotypical white-black male tensions of more racist eras: white men may feel especially threatened by black strength, black genitalia, black revenge for slavery, black men taking their white women away, etc. Again, this is not evidence-based and mostly the domain of racial humor, but I think these fearful undercurrents may still be alive in the American psyche. How much of an effect they have on police actions is unclear.

Also, incidents of police-on-police violence were also studied. In cases where an on-duty officer shoots an off-duty plain-clothed officer, the victims are overwhelmingly black/brown and the shooters are overwhelmingly white. Sorry that is so vague; Reuters got the data from a police internal study, but did not provide the #s. So it's not just a cops vs. civilians thing - cops are killing each other and it seems that race is a major factor associated with the decision to shoot. Much more numerous than shootings are of course the racial profiling for routing traffic stops, stop-and-frisk, harassment, etc. Again, this is much more of a problem for plain-clothed minority officers than white officers. And these incidents may lead to tempers flaring and a violent incident.

Friday, November 28, 2014

Police brutality greatest hits


If ISIS released video like this, we would rightly call them deranged barbarians. I know these incidents may be "taken out of context", but is there a reasonable explanation for all of them (each suspect unarmed and no imminent threat to anyone)? You can see the officers have a predatory/chase mentality - they are hunting prey and need to dominate their suspects (low-brain functions vs. higher reasoning/ethics). It's not about upholding the law and protecting public safety anymore. Heck, it's not even about their own safety, as they are engaging unnecessarily closely with the suspects.  

These people are the menaces to society, not the Oscar Grants and Trayvons of the world. It's also a shame that taxpayers have to fund their salary, equipment, and pension. We are clearly not getting our money's worth. How the laws are written, it's very hard to get an excessive force conviction.

You might say, "there are good cops out there." That is true, and I hope they would be pissed to see some of their comrades behaving like this and hurting the public. I would hope they clean out the rot from within their departments. But they don't, because "the brotherhood in blue" protects its own even when fault is clear (just like other corrupt, opaque orgs like the Catholic Church). And maybe they don't enact tough police conduct laws because they don't want to be the subject of an investigation some day.

----

A coworker who grew up in NYC told me that the NYPD acts like an occupying army at times. This could be a reflection of that.

https://news.vice.com/article/anger-grows-as-nypd-blasts-protesters-with-controversial-and-painful-noise-weapon?utm_source=vicenewsfb
The Pentagon previously commissioned research into "non lethal" mass urban pacification weapons, and I guess LRAD is one of the results. I think it was originally meant for Iraq, but now they are using it against US residents and citizens, some of whom are not breaking any laws and assembling peacefully. Supposedly there are longer-term effects of the weapon, such as headaches and head ringing for up to a week. Who knows if it contributes to mental illness, brain/ear damage, or worse? I suspect the vendor and Pentagon did not really do much safety testing. It reminds me of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The brass just told soldiers to use it, and didn't know about the health risks or didn't care.

"We want to know did they have training? Do they have a written formal policy? A Freedom of Information Law request was done in 2011 and we got the results in 2012. As of then the NYPD claimed not to have any written documents."

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Ferguson grand jury decision and police use of force with blacks

This was a pretty good panel discussion about the Ferguson decision. To be clear, based on how our laws are written, what evidence was available, and how our justice system "works", Zimmerman and Mesherle were not guilty, and there was not enough here to indict Wilson. Whether that is right or acceptable is another story.

No one really expected an indictment of Wilson, however there was some concern about how the process unfolded: the prosecutor seemed to focus on the officer's perspective, the prosecutor's dad was a cop killed by a black suspect (and didn't recuse himself), Brown's family was not called to testify (but Wilson was - highly unusual), the convenience store crime footage was released, and AG Holder was indirectly involved. There is also the over-arching issue of the proximity between law enforcement and the DA's office, and whether impartial oversight of alleged police misconduct is possible. Was this g. jury just a "show trial" as justice theater, to go through the motions when no one really wanted to investigate Wilson. And maybe Wilson in fact broke no laws.

We've spoken about these issues before, but obviously if police were not armed (like in the UK, Norway, and many other places), that precludes the risk of violent altercations. We know that's not going to happen, so maybe police resources could be allocated to community outreach and rules-of-engagement/de-escalation policy analysis and training rather than ridiculous military exercises that they will never (or should never) use domestically. And instead of buying tanks and sniper rifles, maybe law enforcement could invest in officer and vehicle cameras - which have been shown to deter violence and misconduct from both officers and public. Convictions were possible in the Rodney King case because of footage, otherwise we all probably believe that the verdict would have been different.

There are "ambiguous" cases where an officer can rightfully shoot or not shoot - it's up to their discretion. The data show that when the suspect is black or brown, shooting is a lot more likely outcome. Assuming that minority suspects are no more dangerous than white suspects, this may be a manifestation of traditional racism, lack of sensitivity training, and/or unconscious fear (particularly of large black urban men). Ferguson's police force is under 10% black, yet the community is 2/3 black. Why was the actual white cop-killer in PA apprehended with little harm to him (and maybe no shots fired), but kids, mentally challenged, and unarmed/poorly armed minorities are beaten to a pulp or shot 10 times?

Would white America think it was OK if the tables were turned? Imagine if blacks were 60% of the population, had all the wealth/power (and Obama would still be president because he's half white), and most of the guns. Would they be OK with young white man after young white man (unarmed) killed by black cops or black neighborhood watchmen, with no convictions or even indictments? And all of this met the letter of the law?

----

Maybe there has been some sensationalism and race baiting by the media and others over Ferguson, but this crap isn't much better:


I guess Wilson is on his PR tour, and lucky for him he's the only one left alive to tell the world what happened that day. He took a punch from Brown, and then "feared for his life". He is 6'4" 210 lbs, but he said he was like a boy vs. "Hulk Hogan" - that's how big that "man" was (Brown was 6'4" 292 lbs). Either Wilson's stupid or melodramatic, but it's pretty hard to die from one or two punches. He was in a motor vehicle. If he feared for his life, why not just hit the gas and escape (assuming the car was running)? Only when he went for his gun did it become a "life and death" struggle. During his grand jury testimony (when he was not subject to cross-examination), he said Brown was a "demon". Is that to evoke sympathy and/or an admission of his hysteria?

Wilson's recounting of the incident could be accurate, but it's quite peculiar. I don't know their stories, but I believe that Brown did not have a history of violence, erratic behavior, or aggression. I am not sure about Wilson's record on duty. But the way Wilson described Brown, the kid seemed to be crazy. I'm not saying it's impossible, but why would a teen, when ordered by a cop authority figure to get off the road and then approach the patrol car, suddenly attack the armed officer without provocation? It's like Trayvon - did he suddenly just decide to kill an adult stranger on a whim? Then instead of finishing Wilson off in close quarters, somehow the hulk-demon Brown ends up 35-40 feet away from the police car, turns around, and charges back at Wilson - ostensibly with intent to kill (even though the kid already passed up an easier opportunity to kill Wilson)? At that point, Wilson said that the thought in his mind was, "Legally can I shoot this guy? I have to." If he was attacked by a "demon" and fearing for his life before, it's not likely that Wilson could be so conscientious and analytical in that moment. This makes me really suspicious of his version of events.

Wilson repeated that he has a clear conscience because he followed his training to the letter and did nothing wrong. To me, that's like Bush saying that he can't think of a mistake he made as president. Honest people can always admit they could have done something better - it doesn't require deep introspection and intellect. And if you are truly in the right, that doesn't mean that you are not allowed to be sub-perfect. Any time someone kills someone else, something obviously went wrong. But for Wilson to be so sure and culpability-free, that suggests he is on the defensive and hiding something. Maybe he is (rightfully) worried that if he is open and contrite, his words will be twisted and turned against him. He is not out of the legal woods yet. However, I don't think it's very persuasive to neutrals or skeptics when you show very little to no empathy or remorse, and just keep maintaining that you did everything right and you are actually the victim.

Wilson is the professional peace officer with the firearm and the training. He has the power of life and death, not Brown. Maybe he wielded that power in accordance with the laws of the land, but don't tell us that all this was 100% unavoidable and 100% of the blame is on Brown. Is conflict ever so black and white?

"Is there anything you could have done differently that would have [avoided the killing]?"
"No."
"Nothing?"
"No."

----

When you speak of intellect and police, please keep this in mind:


Bottom line:  They're smart enough to know their own limits, which makes them feel inferior.  Give him a gun and that inferiority goes away.  The police are poorly trained and intellectually ill-equipped to do a job like policing.  Police (in a civilized society) need to read a situation and determine the way to de-escalate it to protect everyone, not just themselves.  Instead, they exacerbate and intimidate.
If Brown was a 'demon', a police officer should know how to deal with them.  You cannot tell me that Brown wouldn't understand that if he punched a cop in the face, he'd be killed.    Every black child is told that he is perceived as a threat in society just because the color of his/her skin.  It is the 'talk' black parents have to have with their kids in order to hope they might not land in jail or get killed. 
Once again, it's bullshit cop story and because the american society is so racist, they believe it.
How long ago did we watch Rodney King get beaten?  Same as it ever was.  

----

Yeah, "the talk" is a good point; most black American men know not to do anything remotely aggressive towards the cops. Yet Wilson admitted to firing his gun 12 times at the unarmed Brown. As you said, I am pretty sure Wilson did/said something offensive to provoke Brown, who responded like a testosterone-fueled teen might, and then Wilson probably escalated because he felt that his petty ego/authority was challenge and he wanted to put this punk in his place. Like Jack Reacher said, people join the armed forces either because they're legacy, unable to get a better job, or want to legally kill people. I think some people become cops because they have inferiority complexes and want to wave the gun/badge around and intimidate (like Denzel's depiction in Training Day).

Maybe I'm way off base about Wilson, but I know this applies to some cops over the years based on the long record of misconduct and corruption (and those are only the cases that saw the light of day). Teachers and gov't workers get blasted by the right all the time, but they always apologize for the cops. They are all supposed to be public servants, but yes, there are structural and psychological reasons why they may put their own interests over the public's at times. But when cops do that, people can get hurt and justice suffers.

The way Wilson, Zimmerman, and some in right-wing media/politics describe, young black men are a ticking time bomb of primal rage that can't be reasoned with. That is racism to me, with tragic effects. Same thing with some Muslims - they are accused of embracing a culture of martyrdom and death. "We love life and freedom, they hate it." They're barely human, so they need to be caged and killed like dogs. So sure, when a psychotic 300 lb black guy wants to tear you limb-from-limb, of course you regretfully have to protect yourself with deadly force. Poor Wilson. I acknowledge that some blacks and Muslims fit these descriptions, but the vast majority don't. And plenty of whites exhibit this behavior and worse (the majority of mass murderers in US history were white men, often educated and not that poor). So we're profiling all wrong. But maybe the error stems from, and is reinforcement of, the centuries-old stereotypes about white man's burden and black savages.

One thing I also wanted to comment on was the criticism over the rioting and looting in black neighborhoods in the wake of Ferguson, Rodney King, Watts, Katrina, etc. This is somehow validation for conservatives that blacks are the problem. I am not condoning the behavior, but when people are given no better outlets for redress, and day-after-day subject to mistreatment and negativity all around, they are going to react poorly during times of strife. It is not inherent to blacks - it is what happens when you marginalize people and leave them with no hope/future. The discrimination, harassment, and violence (economic violence too) that some black people face (often from non-blacks) are significant disadvantages that others often dismiss because they haven't experienced it themselves. I also think Obama was too dismissive and unsympathetic of the protesters' perspective in Ferguson (esp. compared to Trayvon), but I assume he is being extra cautious so as to not get blamed/associated with the racial anger/violence.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Health Care


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112687935

I'm overseas and missed Obama's speech, but I was surprised to see the "You lie!" outburst on CNN this morning. The look on Pelosi's face was priceless - she would make a good boarding school headmistress if she ever tires of being 3rd in line to the presidency. Do you think much of America watched the speech and could be swayed, or are their minds mostly made up? Well, maybe it was mostly meant as a jolt for Congress and rebutting right-wing media's attacks.

Plus that Rep. got worked up over something so ridiculous. Although it would be humane to give some medical assistance to illegals, even if they don't want to, the costs of minimally covering that population are miniscule in the grand scale of the reform plan ($880B over 10 years at least).

I wish Obama would just come out and say, "Why are you imagining all these evil motives for our health reform? Do you think I ran for president so I could institute death panels and put insurance companies out of business? Believe it or not, we actually want to make your lives better and our country stronger, and health reform is an integral part of that. I understand that people can be distrustful of expanding government and new regulations, but at least be equally skeptical to my opponents like right-wing media and the insurance and medical lobbies. What about their ulterior motives and conspiracy theories? Maybe then you'll see I'm not so bad."

But again, Obama seems to be light on details in his big speeches. He spent a lot of time reassuring America about the things his health plan won't do. I know the bill is enormous and many details have yet to be ironed out, but at least give us a 30-second overview of how the plan will make us better. The Dems say 80% of the legislation is worked out; ok so tell us then. Unfortunately I think a lot of America still doesn't understand what he is trying to do (most Americans don't even understand what health coverage they have, nor how the industry works at present), so of course the fear-mongers fill that vacuum with a lot of rubbish.

And unfortunately I think Obama still wants to hide some of the costs of his plan from us, so as to avoid more lost support. But sooner or later he has to level with us that any meaningful health reform will cost something. We won't get by just by trimming waste and taxing the rich more. To cover more people, we will have to spend more, and to reduce per-capita costs, then we'll have to reduce some services. The CBO concluded that Obama's numbers are wishful thinking, and a zero-debt health reform is either impossible or insignificant. But those sacrifices could reap huge rewards, since so much social and economic productivity is lost due to complications from uninsured sick people and unequal employer-based insurance. Plus we could theoretically recoup some funds by capping malpractice settlements which would lower premiums (not so popular with the Dems) and taxing health-poor products, such as fatty junk foods and alcohol, to promote healthier living as we've already done for cigarettes (wishful thinking though).

I don't think it's realistic for Americans to expect that their health coverage (or any service in fact) to be immune to change with the times. Maybe some of us have "great coverage" now or in the past, but in the future we won't, or we'll have to pay ridiculous sums for it. The nature of group coverage and health policy is communal, so unless we're super-rich, we can't hope to remain on our individual islands, detached from the less fortunate among us, enjoying access to all the best treatments. Maybe our taxes will have to go up slightly, and maybe Medicare benefits will decrease a bit. Call it "socialist" and "rationing" if you want, but what do you think your HMO is doing to you now? The healthy pay for the sick. Try getting an MRI for a bruised knee, or an exotic, expensive drug when generic alternatives are available, and see how accommodating they are. And they have the luxury of denying service to cost-negative individuals, which Medicare of course can't do. Obama wants to cover the uninsured and hold insurers/medical providers accountable to provide more bang for the buck. How can that be bad for America? The Dems have to do a better job clarifying the issue. Of couse if Obama's plan calls for too many sacrifices in order to cover the uninsured, then it doesn't make sense (except morally). If that price is too high to pay, then we can stick with the feudal health care system we currently have.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The nightmare of CA's prison system


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426

A must-read/hear, and I don't say that much.

Those of us who have the misfortune of living in dysfunctional CA already know some of this, but it's really sick how the prison guard's union has really capitalized on human misery to gain money, numbers, and power. The people claiming to hold the line between the dangerous criminals and the vulnerably citizenry are the ones making the crime problem worse. Like the pharma-medical industries, they partially exist to help people, but mainly exist to help themselves. Currently 10% of state corrections employees make six figures. There's more money in treatments than cures. Repeatedly locking up people instead of educating and rehabilitating them may increase the prison guards' job security, but it bankrupts the state and makes our streets actually less safe.

And then there were the grandstanding GOP politicians like ex-governor Pete Wilson seeking to "get tough on crime". Yes the crack epidemic promoted terrible gang problems and violence in urban centers. Something had to be done, but instead of increasing drug treatment and education programs, they just made sentencing tougher. People who show a total disrespect for the law and public safety should be punished accordingly, but a nonviolent pot smoker doesn't pose the same criminal threat as Pablo Escobar. Wilson and company wanted to make California's streets safe for Joe Blow suburbanite consumer, so of course that meant locking up Jose and Mookie of the underclasses (and in dozens of cases, giving them lethal injection too). And middle-to-upper class CA supported it. What kind of society is that where we incarcerate people we don't feel comfortable with? And it's not like those same suburbanites weren't snorting blow, hiring illegal immigrant nannies, or cheating on their taxes either.

Out of sight, out of mind. Using a marketing campaign of extreme examples of extreme criminality, con men like Wilson and Reagan (remember the Willie Horton ad?) scared us silly, to the point where we would gladly cancel indeterminate sentencing in favor of mandatory (so forget the hope of early release for good behavior), and imprison someone for their entire life for stealing a TV three times, or being in the same car while a kidnapping was taking place. Missing one parole meeting would send you back to the slammer. Since Wilson's time, CA's prison population rose from 20,000 to 167,000. Yet the number of violent, maximum security convicts has remained relatively stable. The difference is the "petty offenders", who only get nastier in the racist, inhumane confines of prison instead of rehabilitated. And some depraved prison guards even derive entertainment from that tragedy. CA has set inmates up for failure, and the 75% recidivism rate proves it. Despite all these extra people locked away, CA is not really a safer place now than 1980. Some cities even suggest the contrary. Overall US crime and CA crime did drop a lot in the 1990s, but rates have rebounded in this decade. Yet the prison population has only risen steadily, so there isn't a correlation. Those politicians, prison guard's union, and apathetic, intolerant suburban voters (yes that's us), have hurt the state far worse than a million Crips ever could.

Well our bigotry and overzeal of the past have now come home to roost. Apart from the obvious challenges to our budget ($10B a year to keep the "prison industrial complex" running, on par with our entire "bloated" education budget), we have to live with the moral stain that Californians chose the path of apartheid - and I don't say that lightly. Conditions in our prisons are so horrible that we are probably in violation of the Constitution, and I'm not even talking about the assaults, rapes, and riots. Inadequate health care causes hundreds to die each year of treatable conditions, and the court-appointed receiver for prison health reform believes we would need to spend at least $2.5B in construction and $0.48B annually just to provide the legal minimum service. We've created a monster who is eating us out of house and home. The prisoners are not the monsters; it's the system and those who gain from its existence.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/cj_primer/cj_primer_013107.aspx
http://www.facts1.com/general/Casey.htm

----------

Folsom Embodies California's Prison Blues

by Laura Sullivan


August 13, 2009

In January 1968, Johnny Cash set up his band on a makeshift stage in the cafeteria at Folsom State Prison in California.

"Hello, I'm Johnny Cash," he said in his deep baritone to thunderous applause. Song after song, the inmates thumped their fists and cheered from the same steel benches now bolted to the floor.

The morning that Cash played may have been the high-water mark for Folsom — and for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The men in the cafeteria lived alone in their own prison cells. Almost every one of them was in school or learning a professional trade. The cost of housing them barely registered on the state budget. And when these men walked out of Folsom free, the majority of them never returned to prison.

It was a record no other state could match.

Things have changed. California's prisons are all in a state of crisis. And nowhere is this more visible than at Folsom today.

Overcrowded, Underfunded
A Look at Folsom Prison

Credit: Amy Walters and Laura Sullivan/NPR

Folsom was built to hold 1,800 inmates. It now houses 4,427.

It's once-vaunted education and work programs have been cut to just a few classes, with waiting lists more than 1,000 inmates long.

Officers are on furlough. Its medical facility is under federal receivership. And like every other prison in the state, 75 percent of the inmates who are released from Folsom today will be back behind bars within three years.

California's prison system costs $10 billion a year. Its crumbling, overcrowded facilities are home to the highest recidivism rate in the country. And the state that was once was the national model in corrections has become the model every state is now trying to avoid.

'Kind Of Like A Pressure Cooker'

Lt. Anthony Gentile, spokesman for Folsom, stands in the prison's empty cafeteria, beneath chipping paint, rusting pipes and razor wire.

"There's drug activity, gang activity," Gentile says. "It's kind of like a pressure cooker."

Where a photographer stood 40 years ago and captured Cash's famous concert, an officer now stands in a metal cage. He's armed with three guns and pepper spray.

When they're confined in this environment, the problems tend to simmer and stay there. It creates somewhat of the mob mentality.

- Lt. Anthony Gentile, spokesman for Folsom

There are now 15 to 20 assaults a week here at Folsom. And while inmates used to mix with one another, Folsom today is entirely segregated by race — in the cafeteria, on the yard and in the cell blocks.

"When they're confined in this environment," Gentile says, "the problems tend to simmer and stay there. It creates somewhat of the mob mentality."

To figure out how California could have gotten to such a place, you have to start in Sacramento.

Jeanne Woodford is one of four secretaries that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has had in the past five years. She spent 30 years in the department. As secretary, she lasted two months.

"Honestly, I was very hopeful when I went up there," Woodford said about Sacramento. "I thought it was all about the right policy and the right principle. It's really about the money."

And lots of it. California can't afford its prisons. Taxpayers spend as much money locking people up as they do on the state's entire education system.

How Did Things Get So Bad?

Experts agree that the problem started when Californians voted for a series of get-tough-on-crime laws in the 1980s. The state's prison population exploded immediately. It jumped from 20,000 inmates, where it had held steady throughout the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. Today there are 167,000 inmates in the system.

Jeanne Woodford was warden of San Quentin during the prison population boom.

"The violence just went out of control," she remembers. "And then the programs started going away. I was there during an 18-month lockdown. It was just unbelievably horrific."

California wasn't the only state to toughen laws in the throes of the 1980s crack wars. But Californians took it to a new level.

Voters increased parole sanctions and gave prison time to nonviolent drug offenders. They eliminated indeterminate sentencing, removing any leeway to let inmates out early for good behavior. Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences.
Derrick Poole is enrolled in Folsom's mill and cabinetry program.
Enlarge Laura Sullivan/NPR

Derrick Poole is enrolled in Folsom's mill and cabinetry program. Due to the high prison population and budget problems, Poole is one of only 10 percent of Folsom inmates who can participate in the prison's vocational programs.

Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds.

But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union.

A Prison Guard Union With Political Muscle

In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.

And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.

Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members.

"We have advocated successfully for our members," he said.

But he disputes that the union has purposefully tried to increase the prison population.

"The notion that we are some prison industrial complex, or that we are recruiting felons or trying to change laws, is a misnomer," he said.

Money And Influence

I think that prisons should be a place where an individual has the opportunity to change if they choose to and we move forward from there.

- Fulsom Warden Michael Evans

Campaign records, however, show much of the funding to promote and push for the passage of the laws came from a political action committee the union created. It is run out of a group called Crime Victims United of California.

Its director, Harriet Salarno, says the committee is independent from the union. But a review of the PAC's financial records shows the PAC has not received a donation from another group besides the union since 2004.

Corcoran does not deny that the two are closely connected.

"We support a number of victims' rights groups," he said.

When asked why the correctional officers union is involved in victims' rights at all, Corcoran said: "There are people that think that there's some sort of ulterior motive, but the reality is we simply want to make sure [the victims'] voices are heard."

But Corcoran acknowledges that the union has benefited from the increase in the prison population after these laws passed.

"We've had the opportunity to grow," Corcoran says, "and that has brought with it both success and criticism."

Secret Dealings With The Governor

Woodford says she stepped down as secretary of the corrections department when she found out that the union had been going on behind her back to negotiate directly with the governor's office.

"The union is incredibly powerful," Woodford says.

Former Secretary Roderick Hickman resigned for the same reason in February 2006.

"The biggest problem that I had was the relationship that I had with the union," Hickman says.

Hickman says the union was able to control the department's policy decisions, including undermining efforts to divert offenders from prison and reduce the prison population.

"Maybe I was just impatient," he says, "or it wasn't going to go fast enough, but [the department] is still in the same place I left it, with an over $8 billion budget. Now it's over $10 billion."

Today, 70 percent of that budget goes to pay salaries and benefits to the union and staff. Just 5 percent of the budget goes to education and vocational programs — the kind of programs that study after study in the past 10 years has found will keep inmates from returning to prison.

Shop Talk: A Chance To Cross Race Lines

From the instant you walk through the metal doors of the mill and cabinetry workshop at Folsom, you get a different feeling from other parts of the prison. In the shop on a recent day, a group of black, white and Latino inmates are bent over a table, talking to each other, discussing measurements for a conference table.

"When we're down here, we put all the politics to the side," says inmate Derrick Poole as he works on the table's legs. "It gives us a place to go where we can we can get out of the prison politics gang, where we don't get along, where we don't socialize outside our race. We socialize outside our race here."

Poole is spending nine years at Folsom for drug possession with intent to sell. In his life, he has been released from prison at least six times that he can remember. It hasn't worked out well.

"When I got out, you kind of lose your social skills," Poole said. "You get used to segregating yourself. You already weren't learned on the street. Then you come in here and you're not learning, and now your mind is more hollow, more empty."

Poole got very lucky this time, beating out hundreds of others to land a spot among just 27 inmates in the cabinetry program. When he's done, Poole will be an accredited woodworker with his GED.

Most of the men in Folsom won't be so fortunate. Just across from the cabinetry shop, program administrator and school Principal Jean Bracy sits in her makeshift office next to the welding class. She knows the statistics by heart.

"I have 1,797 inmates who read below the 9th grade level; 394 of those read below the 4th grade level," Bracy says. "When we put them back out on the streets, they're not employable."

And back on the streets is where 85 percent of all California's inmates are going one day when their sentences run out, regardless of whether they spent their time in prison dealing drugs and running a gang or learning how to weld.

Bracy only has a handful of vocational programs left, enough to reach less than 10 percent of Folsom's inmates — and the state plans to cut even that in half in the next few weeks.

"I think this is the worst I've ever seen it," Bracy says.

'A Merry-Go-Round'

It only costs her about $100,000 to run these programs — not even a blip in a $10 billion-a-year prison budget. But, says Bracy, the programs are always the first to go. Sometimes she almost feels like giving up.

"It's just not cost-effective to throw men and women in prison and then do nothing with them," she said. "And shame on us for thinking that's safety. It's not public safety. You lock them up and do nothing with them. They go out not even equal to what they came in but worse."

The numbers bear that out, with 90,000 inmates returning to California's prisons every year.

But compare that to the Braille program here at Folsom. Inmates are learning to translate books for the blind. In 20 years, not a single inmate who has been part of the program has ever returned to prison. This year, the program has been cut back to 19 inmates.

Out on the prison yard, one of the oldtimers, an inmate named Ed Steward — or "Lefty" — sits in old chair in the only bit of shade on the dusty dirt field. He watches the inmates stand in groups by their race and shakes his head.

"Nowadays, you know, the kids are just coming through this like it's a merry-go-round," he said. "Like there's nothing to it."

Most of these inmates here on this yard aren't here for serious or violent crimes. The number of inmates incarcerated in California's prisons for murder, assault or rape has been relatively unchanged in two decades. The difference is this yard is now packed with drug dealers and drug users, car thieves and shoplifters who stole something worth more than $500.

What Used To Be

But all across this prison are signs of what this place once was — when administrators came from New York and Texas to find out how Folsom kept its violence so low and its inmates from coming back.

There's the deserted shop where inmates used to train to be butchers; it was closed when the prison couldn't afford to remove the asbestos.

Its thriving medical facility was shuttered when it couldn't keep up with thousands of new inmates.

And hovering above the prison is China Hill, a now-barren field where inmates once trained to become landscapers. The prison can't afford to pay the teacher.

Warden Michael Evans can see China Hill just outside his office. Its meaning is not lost on him.

"If I have a dog and I put him in a cage and I beat [him] regularly, ultimately [it] will bite me when I open that door," he said.

After three decades working in corrections, Evans says he has come to one conclusion.

"I think that prisons should be a place where an individual has the opportunity to change if they choose to," he said, "and we move forward from there."

For now, California is at a standstill, unable to find the money to move forward with a different strategy, unable to move backward to a time when it didn't need one.

--------

In addition to being rife with typos and grammatical errors this article is disheartening from a topical perspective as well... There's a reason why it's possible to hear of a prison colloquially referred to as "Crime University" and it's a shame that we continue to push in the same direction with respect to criminal justice rather than stopping to consider whether an alternative approach might be feasible (e.g. Vipassana)...

--------

the three strikes prgrm works fine, it is the overwhelming number of prisoners in the jail system that is the problem which is the obvious problem...we simply need to reintroduce the death penalty to separate the "strikers" from the true "strikers" - i watched a documentary that showed an overwhelming ratio of inmate to guard in the prison system in the california system - it was something like 15 to 1 that is what they are dealing with...fights, riots, etc are occuring on a daily basis and this will continue to happen with our economy as it is - the prison system is a low priority - obama does not have that on the top of his list...

--------

What are we going to do? Kill people for possession of pot? Stealing a bike? There are a number of 3 strikers in jail along with drug possession criminals filling the cells in CA. My suggestions?
1. the state needs to take ownership of the prison system. They're privatized at this point and full beds means more income for these investors. Who's one of the biggest investors in the private CA prison system? Bar Bush. The private prisons get 50K per inmate per year. Hell, what if we gave these people 35K a year to live on their own? Oh, I'm sorry that would be welfare, giving people money for nothing. What's prison? Maybe we should do like they did in a prison in Tennesee? They were starving the inmates so the management could pocket the extra money.
2. legalize drugs, let all people out of jail immediately that are there for drug arrests, period.
3. Assess risk to the population based upon violence and keep those that are violent out of the general population. Unfortunately, soon all of them will be dangerous to the general population b/c they're being tortured in jail. They use sleep deprivation, bright lights and isolation in these systems. I know someone who'd been there and saw it firsthand.
4. Lock up the real violent criminals-Rumsfeld, Cheney, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove. Let them share a 6X10 cell with a toilet in the corner.

--------

Some of what you proposed may happen anyway, due to economic forces. Because of prison overcrowding, they are releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of elderly or minor-offense convicts early. Drug legalization always seems to be on the table (at the back of the table), but now with CA's deficit it seems like a reasonable price to pay for the extra revenue. Amsterdam did not deteriorate into Gomorrah, and it is much better than most, if not all, US cities.

If the prison guards treated the inmates better and tried to forge a respectful relationship, then there would be less violence. In other prisons around the world (maybe not in the US, but definitely in the past), guards don't even carry weapons. There is no lock down and solitary confinement. If you want people to treat you right, start by treating them right. And for how much we want to forget, inmates are still human beings.

I do not know how many of our life-sentence inmates are there for Three Strikes, but it is not an effective program. As I said, overall US and CA crime did drop precipitously in the 1990s. But that would have happened with or without Three Strikes. If you've read Freakanomics, the author has a very controversial theory on the reason behind US crime reduction (he cites the legalization of abortion in the 1960s putting fewer poor, desperate, crime-prone people on the streets by the 1990s, but also increases in law enforcement budget/personnel, reduced crack use, and prosperous economic conditions). We have to use data and predictions to estimate how much worse crime would have been without Three Strikes. Since it's installment of 1994, a GWU study charted its enforcement county-by-county. Since different CA counties enforced Three Strikes more or less strictly, if the program worked, you would expect crime rates to have decreased the most in counties where the enforcement was strictest. But there was no correlation, despite Sacramento's assurances that the program "drastically" reduced crime. So we're spending a lot of extra money and ruining more lives for very little social benefit.

The punishment is not proportional. Yes it's terrible if you are convicted for a felony three times in your life, but it does not warrant losing your freedom forever. Violent crime is another matter, and usually the sentencing for those offenses become de facto life terms anyway. Actually reading up on Three Strikes, it seems that the first two strikes have to be "serious" felonies, and the third can be any felony (auto theft, burglary, property theft >$500, even if no one is hurt). The second strike mandates 2X length of normal sentencing, and the third strike you are in prison for 25 to life. Good behavior rewards are reduced from 50 to 20% of sentence. And even for non-violent, non-escape-risk inmates, they are not permitted to serve their time in county jails, probation, or house arrest (as they used to do in the past) - further bloating the prison population. I was not in the state at the time, but in 2004 there was a Proposition 66 that would have toned down Three Strikes at a savings of several hundred million dollars per year to the state. It was narrowly voted down (53% to 47%), so that shows nearly as many Californians disapprove of Three Strikes as approve.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4009/index1.html

Or maybe the better solution is prevention. As L said, why spend $50k per prisoner when you can spend a fraction of that on social programs and urban outreach? Attack the seeds of crime before they grow. Poverty and low education are heavily correlated with criminality. But again, that would reduce job security for cops and prison guards, so no-go. They would rather spend millions on GPS parolee tracking, Tazers, Kevlar, assault rifles, and faster cars. You can't get rid of 100% of crime, but the whole point is getting the most bang for your buck, and hopefully doing it humanely. Yeah the private prisons idea is terrible. Just another way to fleece the gov't, like defense contracts. But it's the gov'ts fault too for shirking their responsibility on this serious issue, and passing it off to the for-profit "private sector" that is supposedly more efficient.

Monday, May 26, 2008

“CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR” and the BS revisionist history behind the film


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17424117

We know Hollywood is almost as full of BS as Washington, and unfortunately many people around the world with limited access to information base a lot of their assumptions about America/Americans on Hollywood (heaven help us all). Films like Clint Eastwood's "Iwo Jima" series, or "Jarhead" about Gulf War I, do accurate justice (without political agenda) to sensitive historical subjects and the parties affected by those monumental events. From what I can tell so far, "Charlie Wilson's War" might get a lot of critical acclaim as an excellent piece of film artistry, but it is not a legitimate historical work. 1980s Washington was still reeling after the American defeat in Vietnam, so of course why wouldn't they try to bait the Soviets into their own foreign quagmire? While the Vietnam War seriously wounded the previously robust US economy and foreign policy, a similar fiasco would be the death blow to an already corrupt, squabbling, and bankrupt Soviet centralized regime. So surely some elements in the US were hoping to help Afghans cause as much trouble as possible for the Soviets, but our involvement was not a simple "good triumphs over evil" matter.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/soviet.html

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Afghan_War.html

The myth we often hear about Afghanistan is that the vile Soviets just sought to invade and enslave the poor, innocent, defenseless Afghans to satiate their craving for conquest and empire. Well, it's true that Afghans were poor and mostly defenseless, but the genesis of the war was far from imperialistic. As was the case with most post-colonial 'Stans, Afghanistan was a fragmented, dysfunctional state on the verge of civil war among rival factions/warlords. In 1978 full-fledged civil war broke out, and in 1979 a leftist regime took power, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). The Soviets were historically on good terms with the Afghans, and donated or sold military equipment for years (initially to fight British colonialism in the 1920s), but of course the PDPA sought to further strengthen ties with the USSR (and hopefully even sequester troops), to solidify their grip on power and keep down rivals. The Soviets initially balked for a variety of strategic reasons. If they were so conquest-minded, wouldn't they have jumped at the first opportunity to enter neighboring Afghanistan as legitimately-invited allies?

The PDPA was internally fragmented (the president and prime minister were basically at war), and through coups, assassinations, and in-fighting, it was unclear whether the country would lean Islamist, pro-Russian, or pro-Western when the smoke cleared. The events leading up to the Soviet invasion are very complex, involving a lot of politics, religion, and ethnic divisions. But basically, the "official government" PDPA was fighting for its life to maintain power, and also implemented a lot of Soviet-advocated communistic policies (like land reform) which offended rural and Islamic Afghans. A rebellion spread, led by Islamists and former-PDPA members who broke off from the central government. The Rebels killed hundreds of Soviet advisors, and much of the Afghan military defected to the rebel side. As backlash against the pro-Soviet Kabul government, the rebels also made incursions into Southern USSR to kill Russian citizens and engage in other terrorist acts, as the PKK does against Turkey from their refuges in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Now if you were a leader in Moscow and saw these events unfolding on your southern border, what would you do? If a politically like-minded regime was under attack from forces threatening your national interests, what would you do? Isn't that Bush's justification for our continued presence in Iraq? It would be like a civil war in Mexico, and the pro-American government was opposed by Mexican Al Qaeda sympathizers. The rebels penetrate the US Southwest to kill Americans and wreak havoc. Would Washington just sit on its hands and try to work things out diplomatically? They would send troops at the drop of a hat! It was a documented but secret policy of the Carter Administration (as told by Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, among others) to use instability in Afghanistan to "induce Soviet intervention", and all this happened even before Charlie Wilson ever heard of the Mujahadeen. In fact, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen and other rebels began at least six months BEFORE the Soviet invasion and the "Peace through Strength" Reaganites continued the effort. But helping oppressed people win their freedom was not our goal.

"The Americans want us to continue fighting but not to win, just to bleed the Russians."- Ismael Khan. Prominent Afghan Commander, who fought against the Russians in Herat.

So as we know, opposing the Soviet occupation was sold abroad as a war for Islam, and many foreign jihadists (funded by wealthy Arabs, and in some cases, US taxpayers) flocked to Afghanistan to be trained and armed by Muslim terrorists and CIA affiliates. They grew proficient at escaping capture, conducting insurgency operations, making bombs, and killing Westerners. As the Cold War ended and America became more entrenched in Muslim/Arab affairs, Osama and others later used those skills against their former sponsors.

There is a scene in "Charlie Wilson's War" where the congressman gazes on a massive, squalid Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan, and he is so moved that he vows to help those poor people fight the Soviets and get their country back. Julia Roberts' character feels the same. One problem: the horse that America backed was comprised of the Northern Alliance warlords and Mujahadeen jihadist groups. After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, ugly civil war resumed. The PDPA eventually fell to an amalgam of former Soviet opponents who were unable to share power or even govern in the minimalist sense of the word. The Northern Alliance was so corrupt and brutal that the fundamentalist Taleban gained more traction in Afghan society/politics as the only viable alternative. They rolled into Kabul virtually unopposed in 1994 and imposed a repressive form of Sharia law. Some might say that Afghanistan was worse under the Taleban than the Soviets, so where was America then? The Soviet-Afghan War claimed one million Afghans and displaced another five, but the Taleban did almost as much damage. Yet the US did nothing until 2002, so how can we claim to care about the Afghan people? And even today with over 30,000 elite US soldiers in Afghanistan and billions of aid dollars pouring in, Afghanistan is one of the poorest and most desperate/dysfunctional nations on Earth. So what did Charlie Wilson and America really accomplish? Let's not buy the BS and see things for what they are. The history of clandestine and intermittent US involvement in Afghanistan is a shameful tragedy, not a victory to be celebrated on film as if it was D-Day.

The events on the domestic American side, as depicted in "Charlie Wilson's War", may be essentially accurate (albeit in a dark comic light), but let us not forget the initial circumstances surrounding the conflict, nor the violent after-effects that can be felt from Kabul to One World Trade Center. Charlie Wilson and others did what they thought was best for America in order to defeat our Soviet enemy. But this example illustrates how our self-serving meddling in foreign lands can have broad repercussions for years to come. Charlie Wilson might be a great American for helping weaken the Soviet military and USSR as a whole, leading to a peaceful dissolution under Yeltsin years later. He might have helped avert nuclear Armageddon. And yes, the Soviets were too stupid to avoid "The Bear Trap", and subsequently committed horrible Vietnam-like atrocities against innocent people. But they almost had no choice but to get involved militarily. Once again, America gets to dictate the rules of the game, rig events to decide the outcome, pat everyone on the back when the job is done, and write history favorably to make it all sound so noble and heroic. Now I am no friend of the cruel Soviet Union, but the truth is that the people depicted in "Charlie Wilson's War" didn't give a crap about the poor, suffering Afghans either. They USED them, like empires always use poor mercenaries to do the fighting and dying for them. Arming the Afghans was a means to an end to assure US dominance over the Soviets in the global power game. We might have beat them, but we took one hard on the chin for our trouble, in the form of 9/11 and the new struggling NATO involvement in Afghanistan.

Read what the GWU National Security Archive wrote of the Soviets in Afghanistan, compare that to the US quagmire in Iraq, and you will be stunned.

Afghanistan did not fit into the mental maps and ideological constructs of the Soviet leaders. Their analysis of internal social processes in Afghanistan was done through the conceptual lens of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, which blinded the leadership to the realities of traditional tribal society. Believing that there was no single country in the world, which was not ripe for socialism, party ideologues like Mikhail Suslov and Boris Ponomarev saw Afghanistan as a "second Mongolia." Such conceptualization of the situation led to the attempts to impose alien social and economic practices on Afghan society, such as the forced land reform.

The Soviet decision makers did not anticipate the influential role of Islam in the Afghan society. There were very few experts on Islam in the Soviet government and the academic institutions. The highest leadership was poorly informed about the strength of religious beliefs among the masses of the Afghan population. Political and military leaders were surprised to find that rather than being perceived as a progressive anti-imperialist force, the Afghanis as foreign invaders, and "infidels." Reports from Afghanistan show the growing awareness of the "Islamic factor" on the part of Soviet military and political personnel.

The Afghan communist PDPA never was a unified party; it was split along ethnic and tribal lines. The infighting between the "Khalq" and the "Parcham" factions made the tasks of controlling the situation much more challenging for Moscow notwithstanding the great number of Soviet advisors at every level of the party and state apparatus. The Soviet underestimation of ethnic tensions within Afghan society was one of the reasons of the unsuccessful policy of national reconciliation.

The realization that there could be no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan came to the Soviet military leadership very early on. The issue of troop withdrawal and the search for a political solution was discussed as early as 1980, but no real steps in that direction were taken, and the Limited Contingent continued to fight in Afghanistan without a clearly defined objective.

---------

What's next, "Oliver North's War" about the heroic (and illegal) efforts of him and the rest of Reagan's cronies to sell arms and drugs to finance a covert war in Nicaragua? BTW, another unintentional similarity between Dubya and the Gipper: Bush broke Reagan's record for most vacation days taken by the POTUS. At least Reagan had the excuse that he was America's most elderly leader, and therefore needed extra nap time.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201703.html