Legislative Updates
The following bills need your attention.
Let your legislators know how you feel. Your voice is important. Please be sure to include your
name and mailing address when using e-mail to contact your Representative or
Senator.
CJPC LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 2001-2002
AN ACT CONCERNING A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ADVISORY BOARD -
In two different forms: H.B. 3403 and H.B. 3407 -
Sponsor of both: Rep. Kay Khan
Referred to Committee on Public Safety. Current Status: 3403 - Committee recommended "ought not to pass". 3407 - still awaiting committee action.
There are two versions of this legislation: one that prescribes the composition and responsibilities of such a board (H.B. 3407); and another that would establish a legislative committee to determine the composition and responsibilities of such a board (H.B. 3403). Both versions would provide the Legislature with a board of advisors, which would research and report to them on rehabilitative programming, conditions, and other functions of the facilities of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).
Despite the roughly ¾ of a billion dollars spent annually on corrections in Massachusetts, the Legislature knows very little about the day to day operations of our correctional facilities. Unlike other state departments, DOC facilities are, as a practical matter, off limits to the public and the media. Legislators can tour facilities, but their schedules prevent them from making the substantive assessments necessary in light of the dearth of public access to the department.
While there is some public information available about DOC operations, the Legislature lacks the ability to qualitatively assess the work of the department, and is therefore hand-tied in performing their constitutional check on the Executive branch.
These bills would provide expert panels to research and report on the DOC's operations, and make recommendations to the Legislature.
The CJPC supports this legislation because it is important that the public know that their legislators have the qualitative and quantitative information necessary to review and enact changes to improve the operation of our state prisons.
Over 95% of all prisoners return to our communities, and the condition in which they return depends in large part upon the conditions in which they are kept. Corrections policy is simply too political for the Governor to keep it beyond the meaningful review of the legislature, which is supposed to ensure its satisfactory performance.
H.B. 3975 - AN ACT CONCERNING ISOLATION UNITS - Sponsored by Rep. Ben Swan.
Referred to Committee on Public Safety. Still awaiting committee action.
Under current law, a prisoner can be sentenced to an isolation unit for no more than 15 days per offense. Experts regard the effect of the Departmental Disciplinary Unit (DDU) as essentially the same as that of isolation units. (For example, both hold the potential for severe psychiatric harm, psychotic decompensation, increased likelihood of violence to guards, self, and others and interference with the ability to successfully reintegrate with community at large).
Unlike the law for isolation units, though, there is no limit on sentencing to DDU in Massachusetts. This anomaly has resulted because the SJC has stated that "DDU" is different from "isolation", and thus the existing law does not apply. As a result, some people have been sentenced to over 10 years in DDU. Perhaps more alarming is that some people are released straight from DDU back into the community.
Finally, it should be noted that while one might imagine that DDU handles the very worst and most dangerous inmates, this is often not in fact the case. In court-filed affidavits, DDU researcher Dr. Stuart Grassian reported that often the inmates he met in DDU seemed to be the ones with the greatest mental illness and mental disabilities - those most vulnerable to the harmful mental health effects of the solitary confinement itself.
This bill will bring current law regarding DDU sentencing in line with longstanding Massachu-setts law regarding sentencing to isolation units by limiting it, too, to 15 days per offense.
The CJPC supports this legislation because the overuse of isolation-like DDU time threatens the safety of prison guards, inmates and the public at large. It does affirmative harm to those serving extended sentences in DDU, and flouts the legislature's recognition of these dangers under the original law regarding isolation units.
READ MORE ABOUT THIS
H.B. 3680 - AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL ZONES - Sponsored by Rep. Anne Paulsen
Referred to Committee on Criminal Justice. Awaiting committee action.
School zone laws pertain to a variety of drug offenses that occur within 1000 feet of a school, or within 100 feet of a park, playground, or library. School zone offenses add an additional mandatory minimum sentence to any sentence given for the underlying drug offense itself. These laws were intended to protect children from drug dealers.
In fact, the majority of those charged with a "school zone" violation are nowhere near schoolchildren. This law applies regardless of the presence of minors, the time of day or week, or whether the offense occurred w/in a private dwelling that simply happened to be near a school, park, library or playground. As a recent MassINC report notes: "'It's a myth that there's any connection between this law and anybody selling drugs in school yards,' says Peter Ellikann, a Boston defense attorney, Court TV commentator, and the author of The Tough on Crime Myth. 'My first case [under this law] was of a man caught with an amount of drugs in a hotel room. Two blocks away, there was a school.'"
Because of the population density of Massachusetts cities, most "school zone" charges are leveled against city residents. According to former Assistant Attorney General Will Browns-berger's report Profile of Anti-Drug Law Enforcement in Urban Poverty Areas in Massachusetts, these laws are having a particularly devastating effect on urban poverty areas in Massachusetts.
H.B. 3860 will create a narrow exception to the application of the "school zone" charge where the offense occurred "inside of a private residence or other dwelling house within those zones, where no one immediately present during the offence was under 18 years of age."
The CJPC supports this law because it is a narrowly tailored and logical restriction of the oversentencing that occurs as a result of ambiguities in the current statute. Where children are involved in a school zone, this bill accomplishes its intent. Where children are not involved, the law does not and should not apply.
AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING GUIDELINES -
There are two versions of this legislation:
House Bill 3497 (Rep. Tobin), Senate 1004 (Sen. Walsh).
Both referred to Committee on Criminal Justice. Public hearing was on May 10.
In 1994, "Truth in Sentencing" legislation was passed that dictated a number of criminal justice
sentencing changes. One of the aspects of this legislation was the formation of a
Sentencing Commission, charged with creating a "sentencing grid" that would take absolute
sentencing discretion out of judges' hands, and establish consistent sentences while maintaining
population neutrality. After long work and negotiation, the Commission, comprised of an assortment of
criminal justice professionals of a spectrum of ideologies and backgrounds, issued its unanimously
recommended grid before the 1997 - 1998 legislative session, where it was introduced as a bill.
As presented in its two separate forms today, this legislation creates a set of presumptive guidelines
for sentencing, based upon the seriousness and/or violent nature of the crime committed and the criminal
record of the person who committed the crime. If a judge deems the presumptive sentence too lenient,
or too harsh, the judge can depart from the presumptive sentence by writing an appealable decision in
which the reasons for the departure are stated.
We have strong reservations about the consecutive sentencing provisions of both bills and other mechanisms
that seem likely to increase the prison population in Massachutsetts.
Of the two, though, the CJPC is more supportive of Senator Walsh's version of the bill (S.B. 1004)
which embodies the commission's original recommendations
because of one important provision; it allows judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentences. Under the
Commission's recommendations, a judge may assign a "non-mandatory" sentence of the same range if the
judge finds a mitigating factor to do so. ("Mandatory minimums" do not allow for earning credits
toward release via good behavior or participation in rehabilitative programming, nor do they allow
for pre-release or parole.) Further, if the judge finds that a second mitigating factor merits it,
the judge can also prescribe a sentence that is less than that recommended in the grid. Both of
these departures are appealable by the prosecution.
The House version of the bill (H.B. 3497) includes changes recommended by the District Attorney's Association. This version would significantly limit judges' ability to depart from mandatory minimums. Another important change is that it would change the calculations of people's criminal histories, which would skew the entire grid upward. Finally, the sentences for certain sections of the grid are also increased. These recommendations by the District Attorneys Association reflect the interests of that one constituency, as opposed to the unanimous recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, which represented the criminal justice system as a whole. Because of both the nature of the changes made and the narrow interests represented in the House version of the bill,
the CJPC is opposed to H.B. 3497.
The CJPC has a longstanding position against mandatory minimums. They are a proven failure as an effective crime deterrent, as a rehabilitative tool, and as a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. They end up incarcerating many people with scant or no criminal records, and/or no violent criminal history. Mandatory minimums strip judges of their sentencing discretion, and transfers it instead to the more politically influenced prosecutors. Without mandatory minimum sentencing, judges can and will send deserving drug offenders to prison. But far too often under mandatory minimums, judges are forced to send people to prison in situations in which nobody benefits. Justice is not served by mandatory minimum sentencing.
With changes to limit a judge's ability to issue consecutive sentences, we support S.B.1004, the
Sentencing Commission's recommended Sentencing Guidelines.
H.B. 3344 AN ACT CONCERNING MENTAL HEALTH -Sponsored by Rep. Kay Khan
Referred to Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs. Public hearing date not yet set.
This bill would require that each person, upon arrival at a prison or jail, receive a comprehensive screening by a qualified health care professional for mental health and substance abuse issues, including the collection of all the inmate's prior mental health records. All inmates determined to be in need of mental health services will be provided with access to a level of mental health services at least equivalent to that available in the community. Ultimately, it ensures that this population will receive the amount and quality of mental health services that it needs.>br>
While mental health services are currently offered in our jails and prisons, the level of service, despite the best efforts of those professionals on staff, absolutely fails to meet the mental health needs of that population. It is estimated that roughly 1 in 6 inmates has a mental health problem. In 1997, the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health estimated that over 2,000 seriously mentally ill people were released from custody.
As a Boston Globe editorial noted, "Prisons aren't meant to dispense mental health care, but they must meet the great need for it."
The CJPC concurs with this position. Mental illness should be taken seriously - especially for those not in a position to take care of it themselves.
WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT THESE BILLS:
- Please contact your legislators to let them know how you feel about these pieces of legislation. Further, please share this information with your friends and neighbors, and urge them to do the same. State Representative Ellen Story recently noted that 3 or 4 letters on a given issue is enough to influence a legislator's actions on that issue. If legislators do not hear from you, though, there is no way for them to know your feelings on these issues.
- Letters to the Editor of your local papers are also a very important way to inform your legislators and the rest of your community about the need for such legislation.
For more information about legislation, representatives and senators, committee assignments, and other legislative concerns, please contact your local legislators at:
Senator/Representative
State House
Boston, MA 02133
(617)722-2000
- or visit the legislative website at: www.state.ma.us/legis
For further information regarding
specific bills, please
e-mail us.
|
Upcoming Events
Speakers Bureau