Matthew T. Mangino
The Crime ReportJanuary 10, 2012
They say justice is blind. It must be to ignore the plight of the mentally ill in America’s prisons.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s recent two-part series on serious mental illness highlights the shortcoming inherent in a failed system. Wisconsin is far from the only state to push the mentally ill off on the criminal justice system.
An internal review of conditions inside a North Carolina prison, recently obtained by the Associated Press, found that inmates held in solitary confinement were often locked in cells for extended periods without being let out for meals, recreation time or even showers.
This past February, a North Carolina inmate being secured in solitary confinement had a doctor’s order requiring one hour of exercise per day in the prison’s day room. A review of prison records found that the inmate had not left his cell for 78 days consecutive days.
This is not an isolated case.
According to research published in the Harvard University Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the mentally ill typically account for as much as one-half of the population in solitary confinement. In Wisconsin, a 2010 audit of three state prisons reported that “between 55 percent and 76 percent of inmates in segregation [solitary confinement] are mentally ill,” according to a report published in The Crime Report.
Last year, a Utah prisoner suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder died of starvation and dehydration after spending four months in the Salt Lake County Jail. A significant period of his incarceration was spent in solitary confinement. Twenty-year-old Carlos Umana weighed approximately 180 pounds when he entered the jail; when he died, he weighed just 77 pounds.
Why would a young man suffering from mental illness, to the point that he would starve himself to death, be in prison?
According to National Public Radio, the answer is simple; the three largest inpatient psychiatric facilities in the country are the Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island in New York City and Cook County Jail in Illinois.
Jails and prisons are America's de facto psychiatric hospitals.
As a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, my number-one priority is public safety. There are, at times, inmates with severe mental illness who might not be suited for prison. Nonetheless, many are also too dangerous to be released directly to the street.
During the 1960s, policymakers across the country decided to close mental health institutions in favor of community treatment. In 1955, there was one psychiatric hospital bed for every 300 Americans.
Today, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, a Virginia-based non-profit dedicated to the treatment of severe mental illness, there is one psychiatric hospital bed for every 3,000 Americans. As the Journal Sentinel reported, there are 20 times as many people with mental illness in jails and prisons as there are in psychiatric hospitals.
As it became obvious that the community treatment experiment was not working, some policymakers found it easier and less expensive to stigmatize mentally ill persons as criminals and send them to prison, rather than to treat them with the attention and compassion that is required for those suffering from a debilitating disease.
Once in prison, mentally ill inmates have a difficult time getting out. Prison rules are often violated by offenders who believe cellmates, guards and even family at home are out to harm them.
The mentally ill are often targeted by fellow inmates who are aggravated by the strange manifestations brought on by their illness. Mentally diseased inmates may have a problem concentrating in programming and therefore fail to complete required treatment programs.
Prisons are not completely to blame.
Prison medical systems were not designed nor equipped to provide quality mental health services to prisoners in need. Seriously mentally ill inmates often face overworked or undermanned staff overwhelmed with the need to evaluate and implement treatment plans for an ever growing population of ill inmates.
Our board and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections work extremely hard to assist inmates with mental illness transition back into the community. Some of my colleagues have committed considerable time and energy to this process.
Such efforts do not eliminate the fact that an absence of available psychiatric hospital bed space makes it extremely difficult to place those inmates with violent criminal histories and intensive treatment needs.
Until we are willing to acknowledge that our prisons have become de facto mental hospitals— and unless we are willing to make the hard and costly decisions that both protect the public and humanely treat those inflicted with disease— I believe the American mental health gulag will continue to indelibly blur the line between justice and expediency.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Trial selection is on trial
Matthew T. Mangino
Youngstown Vindicator
January 8, 2012
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees, to every person accused of a crime, the right to a trial by jury. That right is also ingrained in Article I of the Ohio Constitution. In fact, Ohio is one of only 21 states that continue to leave the request for a jury trial exclusively in the hands of the defendant. However, not every defendant wants to face a jury.
There are a number of tactical reasons that would require a defendant to request a trial in front of a judge as opposed to a jury. A defendant raising technical legal claims may prefer a learned judge over a group of laymen unfamiliar with the nuances of the law.
A defendant with a lengthy criminal record may prefer a judge who has seen many defendants with checkered pasts as opposed to jurors new to the realities of the criminal justice system.
Unfair bias
At times, a crime is so heinous that a jury may be repulsed by the facts. A defendant may choose to take her chances with a judge and avoid the unfair bias that comes with the appalling circumstances of some crimes.
Finally, some defense attorneys judge shop. If the case is assigned to a judge who has been known to be lenient in certain circumstances, the defense will seek a trial in front of that judge without a jury.
Therein lays the concern, for some, with Ohio’s law. While the law is clear that a defendant is entitled to a trial by jury, there is no corresponding “right” for a defendant to demand a trial in front of a judge. Nearly a half century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to a criminal trial in front of a judge. Yet that is precisely what happens in Ohio. The prosecution has no options once a defendant waives a trial by jury. That may soon change.
The Legislature is considering H.B. 265. The bill seeks to condition the defendant’s ability to waive a jury trial on the consent of the prosecutor and court. Essentially the bill would empower prosecutors to demand a jury trial, thus giving them veto power over a defendant’s attempt to waive the right.
Although the District of Columbia, the federal government and most states have similar laws that limit a defendant’s exclusive right to select the form of trial, this bill is not without its detractors.
Some suggest that H.B. 265 would supersede the authority of the Supreme Court Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure. A Judicial Impact Statement prepared by the Ohio Judicial Conference suggested, “Although the General Assembly may desire to express its will that prosecutors also be able to demand a trial by jury, the General Assembly does not have the authority to establish court procedures in conflict with an existing Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure.”
The Supreme Court Commission overwhelmingly refused to provide prosecutors the right to demand a jury trial over the objection of defendants, finding that to do so would be “patently unfair to defendants.” The position of the Judicial Conference is that the H.B. 265 cannot be implemented because the Ohio Constitution expressly granted the authority to oversee the courts to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Ballot-box issue
There may be another way to get this done. In 1998 Pennsylvania voters approved a constitutional amendment. The question presented to the voters was simple: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to provide that the Commonwealth shall have the same right to a trial by jury in criminal case as does the accused?”
A constitutional amendment may be the only way to provide Ohio prosecutors with the same authority.
Visit the Vindicator
Youngstown Vindicator
January 8, 2012
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees, to every person accused of a crime, the right to a trial by jury. That right is also ingrained in Article I of the Ohio Constitution. In fact, Ohio is one of only 21 states that continue to leave the request for a jury trial exclusively in the hands of the defendant. However, not every defendant wants to face a jury.
There are a number of tactical reasons that would require a defendant to request a trial in front of a judge as opposed to a jury. A defendant raising technical legal claims may prefer a learned judge over a group of laymen unfamiliar with the nuances of the law.
A defendant with a lengthy criminal record may prefer a judge who has seen many defendants with checkered pasts as opposed to jurors new to the realities of the criminal justice system.
Unfair bias
At times, a crime is so heinous that a jury may be repulsed by the facts. A defendant may choose to take her chances with a judge and avoid the unfair bias that comes with the appalling circumstances of some crimes.
Finally, some defense attorneys judge shop. If the case is assigned to a judge who has been known to be lenient in certain circumstances, the defense will seek a trial in front of that judge without a jury.
Therein lays the concern, for some, with Ohio’s law. While the law is clear that a defendant is entitled to a trial by jury, there is no corresponding “right” for a defendant to demand a trial in front of a judge. Nearly a half century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to a criminal trial in front of a judge. Yet that is precisely what happens in Ohio. The prosecution has no options once a defendant waives a trial by jury. That may soon change.
The Legislature is considering H.B. 265. The bill seeks to condition the defendant’s ability to waive a jury trial on the consent of the prosecutor and court. Essentially the bill would empower prosecutors to demand a jury trial, thus giving them veto power over a defendant’s attempt to waive the right.
Although the District of Columbia, the federal government and most states have similar laws that limit a defendant’s exclusive right to select the form of trial, this bill is not without its detractors.
Some suggest that H.B. 265 would supersede the authority of the Supreme Court Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure. A Judicial Impact Statement prepared by the Ohio Judicial Conference suggested, “Although the General Assembly may desire to express its will that prosecutors also be able to demand a trial by jury, the General Assembly does not have the authority to establish court procedures in conflict with an existing Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure.”
The Supreme Court Commission overwhelmingly refused to provide prosecutors the right to demand a jury trial over the objection of defendants, finding that to do so would be “patently unfair to defendants.” The position of the Judicial Conference is that the H.B. 265 cannot be implemented because the Ohio Constitution expressly granted the authority to oversee the courts to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Ballot-box issue
There may be another way to get this done. In 1998 Pennsylvania voters approved a constitutional amendment. The question presented to the voters was simple: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to provide that the Commonwealth shall have the same right to a trial by jury in criminal case as does the accused?”
A constitutional amendment may be the only way to provide Ohio prosecutors with the same authority.
Visit the Vindicator
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Merry Christmas!
Pope Benedict, leader of the world's 1.3 billion Roman Catholics, delivered his twice-yearly "Urbi et Orbi" (to the city and the world) message and blessing to tens of thousands of people in St Peter's Square on a crisp but clear day as millions of others watched on television around the world.
At the end of his address, the 84-year-old pope, celebrating the seventh Christmas season of his pontificate, delivered Christmas greetings in 65 languages, including Turkish, Hebrew, Arabic, Swahili, Hindi, Urdu and Chinese, reported Reuters.
"May the Lord come to the aid of our world torn by so many conflicts which even today stain the earth with blood," he said, speaking in Italian from the central balcony of St Peter's Basilica.
"May the Prince of Peace grant peace and stability to that Land where he chose to come into the world, and encourage the resumption of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. May he bring an end to the violence in Syria, where so much blood has already been shed," he said in a firm, steady voice.
To read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/25/us-christmas-pope-idUSTRE7BN0GG20111225
At the end of his address, the 84-year-old pope, celebrating the seventh Christmas season of his pontificate, delivered Christmas greetings in 65 languages, including Turkish, Hebrew, Arabic, Swahili, Hindi, Urdu and Chinese, reported Reuters.
"May the Lord come to the aid of our world torn by so many conflicts which even today stain the earth with blood," he said, speaking in Italian from the central balcony of St Peter's Basilica.
"May the Prince of Peace grant peace and stability to that Land where he chose to come into the world, and encourage the resumption of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. May he bring an end to the violence in Syria, where so much blood has already been shed," he said in a firm, steady voice.
To read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/25/us-christmas-pope-idUSTRE7BN0GG20111225
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: Congressional Hearing Repartee Falls Flat
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
December 16, 2011
Last week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform again took up the issue of the ill-fated Department of Justice (DOJ) gun trafficking operation known as “Fast & Furious.”
As the hearing came to a close, Committee Chairman Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), compared Attorney General Eric Holder’s conduct to that of Richard Nixon’s attorney general before Watergate. Holder likened the ongoing congressional inquiry to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt for communists in the U.S. government.
Holder told the committee that he does not plan to comply with additional requests for DOJ records, including Holder’s internal emails regarding his response to the operation. “You stand in contempt of Congress unless you have a valid reason,” Issa told Holder.
Holder responded that not sharing the internal department communications with Congress is consistent with the practice of past administrations.
“John Mitchell responded that way, too,” Issa told Holder, referring to Nixon’s former attorney general, who was later convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with Watergate.
Holder replied, invoking his own historic allusion, “The reference to John Mitchell: Let’s think about that. … As they said in the McCarthy hearings at some point, ‘Have you no shame?’”
Congressman Issa is off-base comparing Holder to John Mitchell and his role in Watergate. Mitchell was no longer part of the Nixon administration during Watergate. He had resigned as attorney general on February 15, 1972, months before the Watergate break-in.
The Watergate Independent Prosecutor Archibald Cox requested eight recorded conversations taped in the White House, two of which included conversations with Mitchell. The request was refused by the White House. Mitchell had nothing to do with that decision.
When Mitchell testified before the senate Watergate Committee it was in his role as campaign director of Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign. According to Carl Bernstein, certainly an authority on Watergate, "John Mitchell's testimony to the Watergate committee focused on what he called 'the White House horrors,’” crimes committed by Nixon staffers.
Congressman Issa's allusion indicated, at best, a superficial understanding of history -- or, at worst, an ill conceived attempt to lump Attorney General Holder with America's greatest scandal.
Attorney General Holder's retort was close, but also off the mark. He was referring to what had become known as the Army-McCarthy Hearings. In 1954, Senator McCarthy and his staff were accused of using influence to help a former staff member with an army assignment. The Army’s special counsel Joseph N. Welch disclosed to the New York Times that a young lawyer in his law firm was a former member of a left-wing group while in law school.
Although aware of Welch’s disclosure, McCarthy nonetheless confronted Welch about the young lawyer during the nationally televised hearings. Attorney Welch then famously took on McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Visit Matt Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
December 16, 2011
Last week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform again took up the issue of the ill-fated Department of Justice (DOJ) gun trafficking operation known as “Fast & Furious.”
As the hearing came to a close, Committee Chairman Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), compared Attorney General Eric Holder’s conduct to that of Richard Nixon’s attorney general before Watergate. Holder likened the ongoing congressional inquiry to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt for communists in the U.S. government.
Holder told the committee that he does not plan to comply with additional requests for DOJ records, including Holder’s internal emails regarding his response to the operation. “You stand in contempt of Congress unless you have a valid reason,” Issa told Holder.
Holder responded that not sharing the internal department communications with Congress is consistent with the practice of past administrations.
“John Mitchell responded that way, too,” Issa told Holder, referring to Nixon’s former attorney general, who was later convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with Watergate.
Holder replied, invoking his own historic allusion, “The reference to John Mitchell: Let’s think about that. … As they said in the McCarthy hearings at some point, ‘Have you no shame?’”
Congressman Issa is off-base comparing Holder to John Mitchell and his role in Watergate. Mitchell was no longer part of the Nixon administration during Watergate. He had resigned as attorney general on February 15, 1972, months before the Watergate break-in.
The Watergate Independent Prosecutor Archibald Cox requested eight recorded conversations taped in the White House, two of which included conversations with Mitchell. The request was refused by the White House. Mitchell had nothing to do with that decision.
When Mitchell testified before the senate Watergate Committee it was in his role as campaign director of Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign. According to Carl Bernstein, certainly an authority on Watergate, "John Mitchell's testimony to the Watergate committee focused on what he called 'the White House horrors,’” crimes committed by Nixon staffers.
Congressman Issa's allusion indicated, at best, a superficial understanding of history -- or, at worst, an ill conceived attempt to lump Attorney General Holder with America's greatest scandal.
Attorney General Holder's retort was close, but also off the mark. He was referring to what had become known as the Army-McCarthy Hearings. In 1954, Senator McCarthy and his staff were accused of using influence to help a former staff member with an army assignment. The Army’s special counsel Joseph N. Welch disclosed to the New York Times that a young lawyer in his law firm was a former member of a left-wing group while in law school.
Although aware of Welch’s disclosure, McCarthy nonetheless confronted Welch about the young lawyer during the nationally televised hearings. Attorney Welch then famously took on McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Visit Matt Mangino
Monday, December 12, 2011
California Shifts Prisoners from State Prison to County Jails
In California the early release of inmates has become the means by which the state is complying with a U.S. Supreme Court order to lower its prison population. As the state empties its prisons county jails struggle to accommodate state prisoners flowing into their facilities.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision requires California to lower its prison population by 30,000. To meet the mandate, those convicted of certain crimes who until now served their sentences in state prison now must serve their time in a county jail. No inmates are being moved from state prisons to county jails. But as these people are sentenced, they will be sent to a county jail rather than state prison, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The L.A. County Sheriff is hoping to deal with the influx of state prisoners by developing alternatives to custody — such as electronic monitoring — for low-risk offenders awaiting trial. The Sheriff’s Department oversees the county jail. According to the Times, L.A. County's jails are expected to house as many as 8,000 state prisoners by mid-2012. Los Angeles County prosecutors said in a report that the numbers could fill up the jails as early as this month.
Some counties, including Los Angeles, are under court order to prevent jail overcrowding. So officials said that some inmates will be released to make way for the state prisoners. Some counties — including Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino — have also reported receiving significantly more state prisoners from courts than the state projected, reported the Times.
State officials and some sheriffs believe the higher-than-projected number of state prisoners being sent to jails has occurred in part because defense attorneys waited until realignment took effect to settle their clients' cases. By doing that, the attorneys were assured that their clients would get jail time instead of prison time.
The L.A. County Sheriff is hoping to deal with the influx of state prisoners by developing alternatives to custody — such as electronic monitoring — for low-risk offenders awaiting trial. The Sheriff’s Department oversees the county jail. According to the Times, L.A. County's jails are expected to house as many as 8,000 state prisoners by mid-2012. Los Angeles County prosecutors said in a report that the numbers could fill up the jails as early as this month.
Some counties, including Los Angeles, are under court order to prevent jail overcrowding. So officials said that some inmates will be released to make way for the state prisoners. Some counties — including Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino — have also reported receiving significantly more state prisoners from courts than the state projected, reported the Times.
State officials and some sheriffs believe the higher-than-projected number of state prisoners being sent to jails has occurred in part because defense attorneys waited until realignment took effect to settle their clients' cases. By doing that, the attorneys were assured that their clients would get jail time instead of prison time.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Will private prisons work?
The Youngstown VindicatorDecember 11, 2011
Ohio was facing an $8 billion budget shortfall in 2010 when Gov. John Kasich took office. He proposed an ambitious and unprecedented plan to balance the corrections portion of the budget — sell five prisons to private companies.
Lake Erie Corrections Institution, located in Ashtabula County, was the only prison sold. It’s the first state prison in the nation to be sold to a private company.
Correction Corporation of America (CCA) bought the facility for $72.7 million. The state will pay CCA $44.25 per inmate per day in addition to an annual $3.8 million ownership fee.
CCA may be familiar to many because the company operates the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown. The state’s ability to sell only one of five prisons slated for sale was not a concern for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. “It’s not a disappointment at all,” Annette Chambers-Smith, deputy director of administration told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, “... we thought we would need to sell all five of them to net $50 million.”
Major player
CCA operates 60 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Those facilities have more than 80,000 beds and currently house about 75,000 offenders. CCA owns 44 of the facilities it operates, representing more than half of all the private prison beds nationwide. According to the company website, CCA with its 17,000 employees is the fifth-largest corrections system in the nation, behind only the federal government and three states.
Privatization may seem like a promising way to generate revenue and cut costs in difficult economic times. Ohio’s prisons are over capacity. As of October, Ohio’s 30 prisons had the capacity to house 38,196 inmates, but actually confined 50,334.
There is an incarceration bubble in America. That bubble may burst as budget woes force states to reduce prison populations andthe federal government look for alternatives to an immigration policy that has been a boon to private prisons.
Prison reduction efforts are obviously not part of the package offered by corporate-run prisons. They have no incentive to explore alternatives to incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, half-way houses or other diversionary efforts to reduce the number of non-violent offenders behind bars.
Ohio, like many states, is trying to reduce its prison population. Nonviolent offenders often serve the shortest sentences. There are about 12,000 inmates in Ohio serving state sentences of less than one year. Some estimate that reducing short term sentences in state prison could trim inmate population by about 4,000 within four years.
The Texas-based criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast recently reprinted portions of CCA’s latest annaul 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CCA acknowledged that the company is “dependent upon the governmental agencies with which we have contracts to provide inmates for our managed facilities. We cannot control occupancy levels at our managed facilities ... a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenues and profitability.”
The report continues, “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by…leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices.”
Federal threat
CCA is not ignoring the threat of leniency or a reduction in occupancy. According the Chattanoogan, citing a report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, CCA hired 199 lobbyists in 32 states between 2003 and 2010. On the federal level, CCA spent more than $18 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2009.
CCA’s Ohio lobbyist, Don Thibaut, served as Gov. Kasich’s chief of staff when he was in Congress, says The Associated Press. The connections go beyond a lobbyist. Kasich’s corrections director Gary C. Mohr spent five years as a consultant for CCA.
The incarceration bubble, like the real estate bubble before it, will burst, which could mean trouble for Ohio taxpayers.
Visit the Vindicator
Ohio was facing an $8 billion budget shortfall in 2010 when Gov. John Kasich took office. He proposed an ambitious and unprecedented plan to balance the corrections portion of the budget — sell five prisons to private companies.
Lake Erie Corrections Institution, located in Ashtabula County, was the only prison sold. It’s the first state prison in the nation to be sold to a private company.
Correction Corporation of America (CCA) bought the facility for $72.7 million. The state will pay CCA $44.25 per inmate per day in addition to an annual $3.8 million ownership fee.
CCA may be familiar to many because the company operates the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown. The state’s ability to sell only one of five prisons slated for sale was not a concern for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. “It’s not a disappointment at all,” Annette Chambers-Smith, deputy director of administration told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, “... we thought we would need to sell all five of them to net $50 million.”
Major player
CCA operates 60 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Those facilities have more than 80,000 beds and currently house about 75,000 offenders. CCA owns 44 of the facilities it operates, representing more than half of all the private prison beds nationwide. According to the company website, CCA with its 17,000 employees is the fifth-largest corrections system in the nation, behind only the federal government and three states.
Privatization may seem like a promising way to generate revenue and cut costs in difficult economic times. Ohio’s prisons are over capacity. As of October, Ohio’s 30 prisons had the capacity to house 38,196 inmates, but actually confined 50,334.
There is an incarceration bubble in America. That bubble may burst as budget woes force states to reduce prison populations andthe federal government look for alternatives to an immigration policy that has been a boon to private prisons.
Prison reduction efforts are obviously not part of the package offered by corporate-run prisons. They have no incentive to explore alternatives to incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, half-way houses or other diversionary efforts to reduce the number of non-violent offenders behind bars.
Ohio, like many states, is trying to reduce its prison population. Nonviolent offenders often serve the shortest sentences. There are about 12,000 inmates in Ohio serving state sentences of less than one year. Some estimate that reducing short term sentences in state prison could trim inmate population by about 4,000 within four years.
The Texas-based criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast recently reprinted portions of CCA’s latest annaul 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CCA acknowledged that the company is “dependent upon the governmental agencies with which we have contracts to provide inmates for our managed facilities. We cannot control occupancy levels at our managed facilities ... a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenues and profitability.”
The report continues, “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by…leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices.”
Federal threat
CCA is not ignoring the threat of leniency or a reduction in occupancy. According the Chattanoogan, citing a report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, CCA hired 199 lobbyists in 32 states between 2003 and 2010. On the federal level, CCA spent more than $18 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2009.
CCA’s Ohio lobbyist, Don Thibaut, served as Gov. Kasich’s chief of staff when he was in Congress, says The Associated Press. The connections go beyond a lobbyist. Kasich’s corrections director Gary C. Mohr spent five years as a consultant for CCA.
The incarceration bubble, like the real estate bubble before it, will burst, which could mean trouble for Ohio taxpayers.
Visit the Vindicator
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: Legislators race to capital to prevent PSU repeat
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
November 18, 2011
The Penn State sex scandal and cover-up has generated a bevy of activity at the state capital. As with other high profile criminal prosecutions legislators look to law making as a way to prevent future victimization.
Last Sunday, Governor Tom Corbett appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. Governor Corbett replied, “Absolutely,” when asked whether Pennsylvania’s Mandated Reporter Law should be changed. He added, “I wouldn’t be surprised to see a bill passed between now and the end of this year.”
However, with a flurry of bills being proposed in the state House and Senate, Governor Corbett cautioned lawmakers to move deliberately as they consider legislative fixes to the Penn State scandal. Everybody wants "to do something," Corbett said. "We should do something. But we need to do it in a very thoughtful, deliberative process."
Below is by no means an exhaustive list of pending or proposed legislation but it provides a glimpse into the bi-partisan reaction of state legislators to the scandal at Penn State.
State Sen. Kim Ward (R., Westmoreland) has authored a bill that would make it mandatory for anyone employed by a college or university to report child abuse. The bill also would require that any allegations go directly to the head of the institution and to the state Department of Public Welfare.
Rep. Kevin Boyle (D., Phila.) introduced a bill that would mandate all child abuse allegations be reported directly to the police.
A bill proposed by Rep. Mike Vereb (R., Montgomery) would create an offense of sexual assault by a sports official -- including coaches, referees, and employees of nonprofits that engage in sports activities.
State Sen. Wayne Fontana, (D., Pittsburgh), said he would ask Senate leaders to move a bill he first introduced in 2005 that would amend state law to require any professional who works with children to report suspected child abuse to police.
Rep. Louise Bishop (D., Phila.) and Rep. Todd Stephens (R., Montgomery), are proposing legislation that would make it mandatory to promptly report suspected sex crimes against minors.
State Rep. Dan Deasy, (D., Westwood), has proposed a bill that would require an individual who witnesses or an individual who is told by a direct witness about a sexual crime against a child to report it to law enforcement. Failure to report could result in a third-degree felony charge, which carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison.
State Sen. Larry Farnese, (D., Phila.), recently proposed a bill that would bar pension payments to state and city employees convicted of sex crimes against children.
Reactionary legislation has, at times, done more harm than good. The General Assembly would do well to heed Governor Corbett’s admonishment. Proceed with caution. Do not rush legislation and give due deference to the experts who regularly deal with child sex abuse. Let something positive come from this enormous human tragedy.
Visit Matt Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
November 18, 2011
The Penn State sex scandal and cover-up has generated a bevy of activity at the state capital. As with other high profile criminal prosecutions legislators look to law making as a way to prevent future victimization.
Last Sunday, Governor Tom Corbett appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. Governor Corbett replied, “Absolutely,” when asked whether Pennsylvania’s Mandated Reporter Law should be changed. He added, “I wouldn’t be surprised to see a bill passed between now and the end of this year.”
However, with a flurry of bills being proposed in the state House and Senate, Governor Corbett cautioned lawmakers to move deliberately as they consider legislative fixes to the Penn State scandal. Everybody wants "to do something," Corbett said. "We should do something. But we need to do it in a very thoughtful, deliberative process."
Below is by no means an exhaustive list of pending or proposed legislation but it provides a glimpse into the bi-partisan reaction of state legislators to the scandal at Penn State.
State Sen. Kim Ward (R., Westmoreland) has authored a bill that would make it mandatory for anyone employed by a college or university to report child abuse. The bill also would require that any allegations go directly to the head of the institution and to the state Department of Public Welfare.
Rep. Kevin Boyle (D., Phila.) introduced a bill that would mandate all child abuse allegations be reported directly to the police.
A bill proposed by Rep. Mike Vereb (R., Montgomery) would create an offense of sexual assault by a sports official -- including coaches, referees, and employees of nonprofits that engage in sports activities.
State Sen. Wayne Fontana, (D., Pittsburgh), said he would ask Senate leaders to move a bill he first introduced in 2005 that would amend state law to require any professional who works with children to report suspected child abuse to police.
Rep. Louise Bishop (D., Phila.) and Rep. Todd Stephens (R., Montgomery), are proposing legislation that would make it mandatory to promptly report suspected sex crimes against minors.
State Rep. Dan Deasy, (D., Westwood), has proposed a bill that would require an individual who witnesses or an individual who is told by a direct witness about a sexual crime against a child to report it to law enforcement. Failure to report could result in a third-degree felony charge, which carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison.
State Sen. Larry Farnese, (D., Phila.), recently proposed a bill that would bar pension payments to state and city employees convicted of sex crimes against children.
Reactionary legislation has, at times, done more harm than good. The General Assembly would do well to heed Governor Corbett’s admonishment. Proceed with caution. Do not rush legislation and give due deference to the experts who regularly deal with child sex abuse. Let something positive come from this enormous human tragedy.
Visit Matt Mangino
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)