 |
| "The Board's mission is to grant parole to those offenders whose release is compatible with public safety." |
Here are the release numbers so far this year:
January: 19 (of these, none were women, four were geriatric)
February: 13 (no women, one geriatric)
March: 34 (two women, five geriatric)
April: 39 (two women, nine geriatric)
May: 36 (no women, six geriatric)
With a growing percentage of inmates eligible for geriatric release and a long list of persons in prison with excellent behavior and work records, one hopes these numbers will increase.
The following explanations are offered to for not granting parole:
More Time to Serve
The Board may determine an offender should satisfy a greater portion of the sentence imposed based on the crimes) committed.
Conviction of a New Crime while Incarcerated
An offender whose criminal behavior continues while incarcerated demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and a risk to the community.
Crimes Committed
The Board considers the nature and number of crimes committed by the offender.
Extensive Criminal Record
If an offender has multiple convictions, this signals a lengthy pattern of criminal behavior and inability to abide by the laws of the Commonwealth.
History of Substance Abuse
A history of drug or alcohol abuse bears upon an offender’s ability to make rational and law-abiding decisions.
History of Violence
Multiple and historical violent crimes against citizens suggests the probability that an offender will re-offend with similar violent crimes if released on parole. A violent act associated with the current incarceration may be considered a part of the offender’s history.
Further Participation in Institutional Work and/or Educational Programs
This refers to offenders who are beginning to demonstrate positive changes, but the Board is still reluctant to release them. The Board is acknowledging the change and encouraging continued improvement but is looking for further participation and completion of programs.
Poor Institutional Adjustment
This applies to offenders who are not demonstrating an attitude or motivation toward a positive adjustment. The offender continues to receive unfavorable reports and may not be involved in programs, etc.
Prior Failure under Community Supervision
This refers to an offender’s proven inability to function in the community and to abide by the rules of supervision. It may include new criminal convictions or technical violations.
Record of major institutional infractions - not ready to conform to society
This refers to an offender’s inability to follow prison rules.
Risk to the Community
Considering the nature of the crime(s), prior failures on supervision, and institutional adjustment, releasing an offender on parole is not in the best interest of the community.
Serious disregard for property rights of others
This refers to criminal behavior that impacts the property of others.
Serious Nature and Circumstances of the Crime
This reflects the harm committed or caused to others, the magnitude of the crime, and its impact on the victim and community.
Longer Period of Stable Adjustment
The Board is recognizing an offender is beginning to demonstrate positive changes but would like to see the offender continue this adjustment over a longer period.
An Inmate's Appeal Letter
After having been turned down for the fourth time for geriatric release and numerous times for a well-deserved parole based on his behavior record, a Virginia inmate wrote the following appeal to the Parole Board:
Dear Ms. Bennett, chair,
In accordance with 53.i-40.01 of the Code of Virginia my petition for Geriatric Conditional Release was denied because the Parole Bioard stated that "After a careful study and evaluation of all available information pertaining to my case..."
With all due respect I must question the statement. Assuming that the Department of Corrections exists primarily for the purpose of correcting, not warehousing, offendersI would consider myself as a sign of success rather one one of DOC's failures to accomplish its mission to correct.
In the past 21 years I've proven that I am a changed man who is full of remorsefulness, as your records should show, and that furthermore the three reasons given now and in past denials have had to do with my past actions of 40-plus years ago and not my present institutional record. If my current status does not meet the criteria of DOC's rehabilitation programs then I find myself questioning whether the system is either flawed, broken or entirely dysfunctional".
Report Questions Fairness And Purpose Of Prison Commissaries
In its first-of-its-kind data analysis, the Prison Policy Initiative explores the economics of prison commissaries in three states, Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington.
The ongoing - and growing - exploitation of incarcerated people and their families has been a central theme in our work at the Prison Policy Initiative. In our new report, attorney Stephen Raher explores another overlooked but central part of prison life: the commissary. The fairness of prison commissaries is an essential bread-and-butter issue for incarcerated people, who have only the store's limited options to choose from when the prison fails to provide them with what they need.
In his report, The Company Store: A Deeper Look at Prison Commissaries, Raher analyzes commissary sales data to address questions like:
What do people spend the most money on in prison commissaries?
How "fair" are prices, compared to "free-world" prices and relative to prison wages?
How does the emerging digital market compare to traditional commissary sales, like food and toiletries?
The three states sampled - Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington - were the few from which we could easily obtain detailed statewide commissary sales data. Fortunately, this sample includes examples of both state-run and privately operated commissary systems, as well as a range of prison population sizes. While we would warn against generalizing broadly based on this small sample, the report highlights a number of issues that merit further study and serious consideration by policymakers.
The purpose and fairness of prison commissary systems come into question in light of the report's findings:
Incarcerated people spent an average of $947 per person annually through commissaries - well over the typical amount they can earn at a prison job. In these three states, an incarcerated worker holding a job supporting the prison, such as food service or custodial work, would usually earn $180 to $660 per year.
Incarcerated people buy most items to meet basic needs, like food, hygiene, and over-the-counter medicines, rather than "luxuries." 75% of the average person's annual commissary spending in the three sampled states was used to purchase food and beverages, indicating a widespread need to supplement the food provided by the prisons.
The findings also point to the incentives of the prison retail market for private commissary vendors:
While private vendors generally charge prices comparable to those found in outside prisons, monopoly contracts and the ability to transfer goods straight from the warehouse to the customer mean vendors' operating costs are often lower than in the "free world."
The most obvious price-gouging is found in new digital services marketed to prisons, such as email and music streaming. Prison and jail telecommunications providers are aggressively pushing these new products and services, where they can charge prices far higher than similar businesses do outside of the prison setting.
Even in state-run commissary systems, private companies are poised to profit. In Illinois, the Keefe Group (one of the largest commissary companies) was not contracted to run the commissary, but still made up the dominant share (30%) of the state's purchases for commissary goods.
Commissaries present yet another opportunity for prisons to shift the costs of incarceration to incarcerated people and their families. Meanwhile, telecommunications contractors with prison contracts are maximizing their revenues by offering more digital services at exorbitant rates. Instead of leveraging incarcerated people to subsidize the prison system by monetizing their every need, the report concludes, states could more effectively cut costs by drastically reducing prison populations.
June 17, 2018, Washington Post Letter to the Editor
Gay Gardner of the Coalition Against Solitary Confinement submitted the following letter to the Post in response the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety's piece "Virginia's Corrections System is a Model for Other States":
Although Virginia’s prisons are far from the worst in the nation and improvements have been made, they fall far short of Brian Moran’s “wholesale culture change.”
Moran should visit prisoners I know who have suffered abuse, including prolonged solitary confinement. They include—
• men studying the Bible at Nottoway Correctional Center who were thought to be discussing filing grievances about mail restrictions, for which they were charged with “inciting a riot,” sent to Red Onion, and placed in solitary confinement;
• a man who has endured 16 years in isolation and was required to repeat the “step-down” program five times for reasons that were never discussed with him;
men with credible allegations of retaliation for filing complaints, ranging from withholding food to assault;
• men with documented mental illness who long for treatment but have received, at most, psychotropic drugs; and men placed in undocumented solitary confinement lasting weeks or months following disciplinary charges who were not allowed to speak, call witnesses, or have surveillance video reviewed at their disciplinary “hearings.”
These men would be surprised to know that “restrictive housing” is not used as punishment, that they received a fair hearing, and that all prisoners’ mental health care needs are being met.
No comments:
Post a Comment