While I understood the fiscal arguments to delay the implmentation of Measure 57, I think it was bad policy to weaken the pre-existing sentencing scheme with increased earned time so that criminal sentencing actually ended up softer than it was before the passage of 57.

On a policy level we did the opposite of what most voters wanted, namely more accountability for criminals. It makes me worry about the next draconian ballot measure that people will vote for because they can't trust our party on the crime issue.

The problem with this is that no one trusts DOC. DOC recently released a guy who attempted to kill someone in prison on "good time". He had something like a dozen serious disciplinary infractions. "Good time" doesn't mean "good time". It means "population management".

On the bigger issue, I might agree to giving DOC some reasonable amount of the sentence time to give good time on, if the Legislature would repeal the sentencing guidelines and just say that judges could sentence offenders anywhere within the statutory range. That way JUDGES COULD DO WHAT WE ELECT THEM TO DO! The guidelines were a misbegotten attempt to limit prison population, not any reasonable way to adjudicate criminals. Yes, some people should have relatively short sentences because their offenses are relatively minor. However, the guidelines are absurd when applied to chronically recidivist offenders.

Sentences from a court should reflect the rational judgments of the judge on the severity of the offense and the history of the offender, not be artificially constrained on the high OR low end. Those who want to give DOC more discretion to save money need to realize that DOC is constrained because they've made absolutely terrible judgments in the past and will continue to do so in light of population pressures. People don't trust DOC. DOC controls its own regulations about when to give good time. That's a mistake, given their history of using bad criteria to release people. I hate to say that the Legislature should take it away from them, but that's where we are. DOC release professionals cannot be allowed to have any discretion because they refuse to use it appropriately.

Oregon sentencing law is a mess. Really, they should just start over.

[Full disclosure - I am currently an employee of the Department of Corrections.]

First up - trusting statements that contain elements like "no one trusts..." or "everyone knows..." etc., are automatically suspect. Even in terms of hyperbole it's simply silly. As for the anecdotal release of "a guy who attempted to kill someone in prison on 'good time,'" well, as is common here... how about a reference to establish that fact. Whether true or not, it bears only tangentially on the definition of "good time." Despite this, on the "bigger issue:"

"That way JUDGES COULD DO WHAT WE ELECT THEM TO DO!"

Here the bottom line is straightforward: the moment the sentencing guidelines became law, that's precisely what we elect judges to do! Follow the law. The sentencing guidelines of 1989 provide for judicial discretion. On the other hand, if you're talking about measure 11 mandatory minimums - that's an entirely different bucket of worms... er, legally established law that a duly elected judge should abide by, eh?

The notion that the DOC is the reason for early release, whether good or bad, is errant nonsense. While DOC winds up administering good time and early release, it's done within the bounds of statutory and administrative legislation largely established by people OUTSIDE the DOC. In fact, when rule and policy changes are being discussed, input is solicited from many quarters, including civilian boards. Moreover, when referring specifically to sentencing guidelines and good time, it's worth noting at least a portion of the rule in question:

(1) For inmates sentenced on or after November 1, 1989, the maximum amount of earned time credits is 20 percent of the total sentencing guidelines sentence. In determining whether an inmate will receive earned time credits for the review period under consideration, inmate performance will be evaluated in two areas: 10 percent for compliance with the Oregon Corrections Plan and 10 percent for maintaining appropriate institution conduct. The only possible determination for each area is noncompliance or compliance.

(2) For inmates with eligible crimes sentenced on or after July 1, 2009 for a crime committed prior to July 1, 2013, or inmates sentenced prior to July 1, 2009 and for whom the sentencing court has issued a supplemental judgment authorizing the Department of Corrections to consider the inmate eligible for additional earned time credits, the maximum amount of earned time credits is 30 percent of the total sentencing guidelines sentence. In determining whether an inmate will receive earned time credits for the review period under consideration, inmate performance will be evaluated in two areas: 15 percent for compliance with the Oregon Corrections Plan and 15 percent for maintaining appropriate institution conduct. The only possible determination for each area is noncompliance or compliance. see Prison Term Modification

Apparent on its face is that it's a yes or no, compliance or noncompliance, evaluation. Moreover, DOC is not the governmental body that passed HB 3508-B, nor is it the civic body that is responsible for measure 57. However, like the judges, they are responsible for following and upholding the statutory, administrative, and policy mandates issued by their "bosses" ...and generally, that would be the public at large, and specifically, our elected representatives.

My argument isn't that DOC is blameless. We've made our share of blunders. My point is that the civic body, who largely ignores DOC, also ignores their own culpability in the problem they've helped to create. The Oregonian is at least trying to offer up explanations and alternatives. Instead of spending so much air on fixing the blame, how about spending some time on fixing the problem.

"DOC release professionals cannot be allowed to have any discretion because they refuse to use it appropriately." That is virtually the same as one of the arguments that was used to pass measure 11 mandatory minimums. The kind of legislation that took away discretion from judges "because they refuse to use it appropriately."

Let's be prudent - unintended consequences can be devastating... like a huge prison population with diminishing fiscal resources...

For those of you who think only cowards post anonymously, also errant nonsense, my name is Steven Finster - tho why that matters I really don't know. An argument is valid or invalid with or without a proper name... unless the purpose is simply to argue to the man. I hope not.

Hopefully this little rant doesn't come off as entirely partisan - and contributes to a constructive conversation.

Cheers!

press release The real world of prison, crime and justice

“A story that needs to be told” By author John J. Pecchio

This letter will inform the mind and startle the soul. You will read how crime and punishment in this country is out of control. My books “Hell Behind Prison Walls” and “The Devil’s Den of Prison and Justice” are true compelling and gripping stories taken from my personal thoughts and experiences of working in a prison system for almost three-decades.
My Website www.johnpecchio.com is a good informational tool on prisons and justice. You can click on my miscellaneous icon that will take you into my books, newspaper articles and guestbook entries, on what people say about my regional best selling books, and our justice system. Do not overlook the {audio video commercial} to the rights that will show the type of criminals I worked with and how they act and look in today’s prisons… If you are interested in scheduling this author for a Book Signings, Personal Interviews and Prison Presentations, my e-mail address and phone numbers is also, available on my Website. When prisons were in command prisoners could look forward to being productive in life. But after several decades of prison bureaucrats experimenting with new reform methods they ended up taking a well run prison system and turned it into a Nightmare of Hell and a Playground for Criminal’s Rights. There is no prison reform methods left that will cure the lack of administrative and prisoner discipline, or stop how prisons have become so contaminated with flaws, imbedded with unthinking unknowing or corrupted officials and political bureaucrats?
it send chills up and down your spine, when you are forced to move daily between freedom and captivity while walking a delicate line between administrative politics and the threat of inmate violence. The lockup system in these new high-tech all solitary confinement prisons, have turned most convicts into psychopathic monsters, acting like prehistoric man existing all over again…

My prison career was coming to an end and I was looking forward to my retirement when what I always expected would happen did happen. One morning in my shop, without security present, I was brutally attacked by a serial killer serving two life terms for several senseless killings. He showed no remorse in society nor did he in prison. He should have received the death penalty, but lawmakers and prison officials choose to protect this criminal’s rights at taxpayers’ expense… Gang wars are taking over our society like butter melting over a hot stove. Approximately eighty-percent of thugs and gangsters control prison compounds and are career criminals, which come from the ghettos of our society.
Eventually, the old gang members from the streets will be incarcerated for new crimes, and meet up with old gang members already imprisoned. Together they will bond once again, to continue dealing in contraband and committing more crimes in prisons.
Taxpayers are living in hard times to support their families and keep their jobs. But this merry-go-round of political justice to protect criminal’s rights while they keep violated the rights of other is un-constitutional… In today’s society we have too many repeat-felons being released from prisons without being fully disciplined or rehabilitated. That is why repeat felons along with illegal-immigrants are committing most of the crimes in the United States. Lawmakers for years cannot locate approximately twelve-million illegal immigrants crossing the borders into this country. The new programs they are offering is to trick illegal immigrant out of hiding, by providing full amnesty, and give them entry permit into this country, along with healthcare benefits, at taxpayers’ expense. This is not going to help reduce the deficit and crime rates in this country.
Federal Lawmakers recognize that prison spending is out of control. They keep pressuring the local government and prison officials, to set up a program that will reduce prison overcrowding and release thousands of criminals that have not completed their sentences or been fully reformed. For example, in California they have approximately 33-prisons that are filled with about 153-thousand criminals, and most of them are murderers, rapist, pedophiles, and drug-pushers and mentally unstable inmates living off the taxpayers. But why are lawmakers demanding that 55-thousand criminals from the California Correctional Facilities, be released within 3-years. When most of them are career criminals and will return back to prisons committing the same crimes? Taxpayers’ will be paying over $5,000 dollars a years to keep one-criminal on parole. Not to mention, the cost of law-enforcement officers chasing down the same felon(s) and again, will be putting them through our Judicial System at taxpayers’ expense. The present California Governor is now trying to make lawmakers reconsider their options of releasing prisoners because of the recidivism rate, which is more then seventy-nine percent returning in one to three-years. The three major problem that criminals have when incarcerated is to get revenge, continue dealing in contraband. And hate correctional officers because they remind them of the police officers on the streets. Prison Officials; know that repeat felons get more violent and evil-minded because they are surrounded, daily, by the same type of criminals they have become. You cannot reform criminals without re-socializing them first. And that’s why rehabilitation and prison reform have become just words to keep the taxpayer’s money flowing into these institutions.
In Mexico, the crime rates are high, and that breeds a lot of corruption in their society, including law-enforcement officials. They now have the highest kidnapping rate in the world. When these Mexicans and millions of other illegal immigrants keep pouring over the boarders into our county, crime rates keep increasing. Phoenix Arizona now has the second highest kidnapping rate in the world. The federal panel of lawmakers within our government has created a stimulus package to help the American taxpayers that are out of work and many have to foreclose on their homes. The sad situations within our government is taking chances on stimulus packages while the supporting the highest deficit in the history of this country? How can our children and grandchildren paying for all this and keep up with government experiments and their political adventures without jobs? Prison spending is out of control. And the Unites States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. When I hear how local governors, of each state, keeps on playing politics with the federal government in hopes they can reduce prison spending by reducing prison population, closing prisons, and reducing prison staff. This type of thinking is hypercritical and appalling to the security of prisons and society.
Hello out there my fellow American, don’t walk to the employment office run, before some lawmakers pass a new law to allow illegal immigrants to collect unemployment… Prison officials cannot afford or keep release dangerous prisoners frivolously. Our criminal justice system was developed by lawmakers to pass laws to put these criminals behind bars and keep society safe. You can now read how federal and state prisons have deteriorated to their worst condition in the history of these institutions. They have changed from being run with dignity and strong security into a hellish nightmare where corruption is the norm. With the loss of positive leadership in our prisons came the increase of prisoner’s power, primarily caused by their ability to hide behind highly-defended “Civil Rights”, which has now taken precedence above all else. These rights allowed them to live without fear of strong retribution for their actions, thereby leading to a breakdown in inmate behavior and resulting in riots, fights, and physical and verbal abuse of prison workers.

Sincerely

John J. Pecchio, Author

There are trade-offs in every approach.

If you have one size fits all laws, with the provision that judges and prison administrators must follow them to the letter, a procrustean bed is created, since special circumstances not envisioned in the law often exist that make presumed penalties inappropriate (do we really want, for example, the college kid who unwittingly shares a bong hit with a mature looking 17-year old at a party to get the same sentence for "Delivery of MJ to a minor" as the drug dealer who sells to kids?)

If you have unfettered discretion, you have uncertain sentences with the potential for race discrimination, people getting away with things if they know the right people, etc.

It's safe to say both are miscarriages of justice.

the bottom line is, unless you're interested in government by bar code readers, SOMEBODY is going to be making decisions on a case by case basis. Seems to me, it would serve democracy better to let the elected judiciary make those decisions rather than the unaccountable bureaucracy of an administrative agency like the DOC. I'm not trying to be too harsh on Skald and other DOC workers--they work hard trying to do the right thing; but the nature of the agency is disempowering to the voters when agency officials, and not elected officials, are the decisionmakers.

Skald - Perhaps I was a bit too hard on DOC. DOC uses population management, rather than more appropriate criteria, because it's underfunded. The current sentencing regime is not adequately funded because M11 (blame Mannix, who knows better, but doesn't care) and M57 (blame the Lege, which should know better) did not contain adequate funding mechanisms.

That being said, when I review the lists of the people I've put in prison who are getting out on "good time" and "alternatives" it's quite common that I seem people getting 2/3 time cuts. And they're not model inmates - they're truly horrible people with terrible records. Of course, some of the "not that bad" prisoners are also getting huge cuts. EVERYONE is getting huge cuts.

As for the larger picture on sentencing, I don't think Joe on the street realizes just how constrained judges are. The sentencing guidelines are an administrative regulation from the executive branch, as approved by the Legislature. M11 and M57 were passed because voters were frankly pissed off at how little time serious and repeat offenders were getting under the guidelines. Now, we have an absurd kluge of a system that gives a sentence based on a variety of factors, including sentencing enhancements, that don't make much sense. Judges have allowed their discretion to be eroded unreasonably. Judges should have the authority to sentence an offender anywhere in the statutory range (preferably after a recommendation by a jury, but that's another issue). Why do you think that the Criminal Justice Commission, an unelected government committee, should be able to effectively override the elected members of the judiciary by passing dumb sentencing guidelines? Don't we believe in democracy and the separation of powers?

If you think a judge is sentencing too lightly, then vote against him or her. If you think a judge isn't sentencing harshly enough, vote against him or her. How exactly do I vote against the CJC?

As for anonymity, I post this way at the request of my politically elected boss, who does not share my views. I used to post with my real name, until his political opponents (who apparently don't believe in free speech) started hassling him to shut me up.

Obviously, people care more about keeping weed illegal than keeping their communities safe. Don't quote me sentencing guidelines either. That doesn't take into account all the people that go down because they won't recant before the inquisitor. That doesn't take into account law enforcement time spent away from violent crime. If the cops weren't sniffing around like dogs in heat for every plant they can find, they would be collecting more evidence against violelent felons, and they would have stiffer sentences in the first place. You know why policy is that way? Because it's a lot easier than solving real crimes. Since 1968 the approach with the puh-lease has been to create more emphasis on non-violent crime, so that they can process more cops along the line. The bunch we train now couldn't catch a cold. That is why non-violent, statutory crime is so important to them.

This has been going on for 50 years! Sit there and seriously tell me it will magicially change. Tell me how much more you want to spend. Tell me that violent felons aren't getting off easier all the time. Barak Obama won't reverse Bush's policies? No one has reversed Richard Nixon's failed "War on Drugs" yet! Policy wonks don't hold the answer. Just say "no" to the failed War on Non-conformists!

Sent to the committee by Doell...re: how well DOC administers "good time". Skald? Any rebuttal?

I thought you'd be interested in this story. DOC inmate John Anthony Brown was sentenced to 24 months in prison for a Mult. Co. robbery on May 16, 2008. Brown went to Coffee Creek for DOC intake, where he promptly used a razor blade to sharpen the end of his plastic fork into a weapon. He used the weapon to take a DOC counselor hostage for 90 minutes. I presented the case to grand jury and Brown was indicted on charges of First-Degree Kidnapping, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Supplying Contraband and Possession of a Weapon by an inmate. Those charges are pending with a January 5, 2010 scheduled trial date.

Defendant went to the Oregon State Penitentiary where he received a total of 9 additional major rules violations that landed him in IMU for the majority of his stay. Defendant also received a host of "minor" rules violations. The major violations are as follows:

June 29, 2008:  Defendant fashioned a 4-inch bolt into a weapon by filing down one end and concealed 11 pills in his cell.



July 14, 2008: Defendant was ordered to pack his property in order to move to another cell in the Segregation unit.  Defendant refused and refused again.  Officers explained that he would be placed in "closed supervision status" if he did not comply.  He refused again and said, "if you put me in a cell with somebody, I'm going to murder him."



August 5, 2008:  Defendant covered his cell light bulb and hid a small orange pill, Wellbutrin, in his cell.  No segregation sanctions were recommended because Defendant had previously received 180 days in Segregation, the maximum allowed by DOC rules.



August 12, 2008:  Defendant fashioned two toothbrushes into weapons by sharpening them into a point and fashioned a makeshift handle by wrapping cloth around the other end.  No additional sanction because Defendant was already in IMU.



August 24, 2008:  Defendant became combative with staff during an escort back to his cell in the IMU.  Defendant tried to turn towards staff and pull away and said threatened, "when these hands are free, its just you and me."



August 25, 2008:  Defendant blocked the entrance to his cell with sheets and his mattress.  He was ordered to remove them but refused.  The corrections officer notified the sgt, and Defendant removed the items but re-fortified his cell 15 minutes later.  When an entry team was assembled, Defendant removed the sheets and mattress a second time.  No sanction was available, because Defendant was already in IMU.



August 29, 2008:  Defendant concealed five Benadryl pills in a role of toilet paper.



November 29, 2008: When taken from his cell to the shower in the IMU, Defendant pulled on his "tether," pulling a corrections officer in to him.  He repeatedly ignored orders to stop pulling, but it took multiple corrections officers to gain control of him.  When it was over, one officer had received a cut to his hand.



July 22, 2009: Concealed Wellbutrin and Benadryl in his inmate tote.

Defendant was scheduled to be released on January 11, 2010, per DOC time computation records.

However, on September 30, 2009, DOC notified the Washington County Jail that Defendant was released to the Washington County Jail because he qualified for 30% Good time/Earned time on his Multnomah County Robbery sentence. I obtained written records for DOC's time computation department and learned the following: Defendant received a total of 122 days of Earned Time/Good Time Credit--again, per DOC records. This is 16.9% of his total sentence.

Apparently, Kidnapping a staff person, committing 9 additional major rules violations, and spending the majority of your prison sentence in the IMU/Segregation Units are insufficient reasons to forfeit good time/earned time. Are there no circumstances that would cause DOC to revoke all of an inmates Good Time/Earned Time?

[Full disclosure: I work for the Department of Corrections, but I speak only for myself… right Kari? I think that’s how it’s worded ;-) ]

MLW – I’ll hit the anonymity issue first. That comment wasn't directed at you. During the course of my reading/participating in Blue Oregon conversations, many BO stalwarts have thrown the “anonymous coward” label around on enough occasions that I figured to forestall the nonsense up front. As I said, I think an argument is valid or invalid on its merits with or without a formal name attached. It gets tiresome to see that meme get trotted out so often. I was in the habit of using the moniker I use at my website, but this was a much more substantive response – a name seemed appropriate for me.

As for John Brown, I think you know the answer to your own question since you seem to work in the court system. First, Inmate Brown’s conviction must be for Robbery III, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue as both Robbery I and II are 137.700 crimes and are restricted from good time. Moreover, this is where the illusion of “discretion” comes into play for DOC. As you indicated, Inmate Brown received almost 17% good time. DOC must abide by the rule established for good time, in Brown’s case, specifically:

…inmates sentenced under the sentencing guidelines prior to July 1, 2009 and for whom the sentencing court has issued a supplemental judgment authorizing the Department of Corrections to consider the inmate eligible for additional earned time credits, may be eligible to earn sentence reduction credits (earned time credits) up to a maximum of 30 percent of each sentencing guidelines sentence.

The sentencing court must authorize the Department of Corrections to consider good time. Additionally, as I mentioned in my previous post, the 30% is split into two 15% categories – one of which is relatively easy to meet. The Oregon Corrections Plan is meeting basic programming requirements – for short term inmates this is a fairly easy hurdle – and since it’s a pass/no pass requirement there’s 15% of the good time which DOC must award to meet due process requirements (about a 110 days for a 24 month sentence). Finally, maintaining appropriate institution conduct is measured in terms of review periods. I don’t know the length of the review periods, but if it was 6 months for example, and Brown had clear conduct for all 6 months of the review period, he would be awarded a proportional percentage – 27 days for the 180 day review period.

That is a fairly straight forward explanation from the rule book that provides so much discretion to the Department of Corrections. More to the point however, is that the sentencing court could have simply refused the supplemental judgment that authorized the computation of earned time. Still, I believe the more important issue is that pending cases cannot be taken into consideration. The kidnapping charges must first be adjudicated, Brown found guilty and properly sentenced before DOC can properly “use” that information for the purposes of sanctions.

Ultimately, I suppose we can go back and forth here, or we can provide a position. Mine is simple – I agree with the Oregonian: mend it, don’t’ end it. If you think the DOC should have less discretion, then by all means, lobby to change it when the legislature tweaks the bill to improve it. Rather than address the benefits of good time on recidivism and current institutional behavior (save that for Carla’s post?), I’ll say sincerely, thanks for the challenge to my thinking! Though I might not change quite the way one might wish – your comments definitely led me to re-evaluate my position.

Cheers, The Skald ;-)

Crap, all my formatting disappeared!

[Full disclosure: I work for the Department of Corrections, but I speak only for myself… right Kari? I think that’s how it’s worded ;-)]

MLW – I’ll hit the anonymity issue first. That comment wasn't directed at you. During the course of my reading/participating in Blue Oregon conversations, many BO stalwarts have thrown the “anonymous coward” label around on enough occasions that I figured to forestall the nonsense up front. As I said, I think an argument is valid or invalid on its merits with or without a formal name attached. It gets tiresome to see that meme get trotted out so often. I was in the habit of using the moniker I use at my website, but this was a much more substantive response – a name seemed appropriate for me.

As for John Brown, I think you know the answer to your own question since you seem to work in the court system. First, Inmate Brown’s conviction must be for Robbery III, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue as both Robbery I and II are 137.700 crimes and are restricted from good time. Moreover, this is where the illusion of “discretion” comes into play for DOC. As you indicated, Inmate Brown received almost 17% good time. DOC must abide by the rule established for good time, in Brown’s case, specifically:

…inmates sentenced under the sentencing guidelines prior to July 1, 2009 and for whom the sentencing court has issued a supplemental judgment authorizing the Department of Corrections to consider the inmate eligible for additional earned time credits, may be eligible to earn sentence reduction credits (earned time credits) up to a maximum of 30 percent of each sentencing guidelines sentence.

The sentencing court must authorize the Department of Corrections to consider good time. Additionally, as I mentioned in my previous post, the 30% is split into two 15% categories – one of which is relatively easy to meet. The Oregon Corrections Plan is meeting basic programming requirements – for short term inmates this is a fairly easy hurdle – and since it’s a pass/no pass requirement there’s 15% of the good time which DOC must award to meet due process requirements (about a 110 days for a 24 month sentence). Finally, maintaining appropriate institution conduct is measured in terms of review periods. I don’t know the length of the review periods, but if it was 6 months for example, and Brown had clear conduct for all 6 months of the review period, he would be awarded a proportional percentage – 27 days for the 180 day review period.

That is a fairly straight forward explanation from the rule book that provides so much discretion to the Department of Corrections. More to the point however, is that the sentencing court could have simply refused the supplemental judgment that authorized the computation of earned time. Still, I believe the more important issue is that pending cases cannot be taken into consideration. The kidnapping charges must first be adjudicated, Brown found guilty and properly sentenced before DOC can properly “use” that information for the purposes of sanctions.

Ultimately, I suppose we can go back and forth here, or we can provide a position. Mine is simple – I agree with the Oregonian: mend it, don’t’ end it. If you think the DOC should have less discretion, then by all means, lobby to change it when the legislature tweaks the bill to improve it. Rather than address the benefits of good time on recidivism and current institutional behavior (save that for Carla’s post?), I’ll say sincerely, thanks for the challenge to my thinking! Though I might not change quite the way one might wish – your comments definitely led me to re-evaluate my position.

Cheers, The Skald ;-)

My apologies for the double post.

This discussion is oddly split between two threads (Mannix). Would be nice if all the points were made to bear on each other. I already made the substantive part of my comments there, so I won't repost.

MLW – I’ll hit the anonymity issue first. That comment wasn't directed at you. During the course of my reading/participating in Blue Oregon conversations, many BO stalwarts have thrown the “anonymous coward” label around on enough occasions that I figured to forestall the nonsense up front.

It's a character test, don't you know? Blog management decides not to have any form of validated ID, doesn't publish guidelines on the subject, and everyone that doesn't do what they would have done is morally abject. Took me 12 hours to write code that connects a page to FB and twitter, yesterday, so I have no sympathy.

Right... a character test. Didn't ask for sympathy, don't want any - try not to presume so much.

<h2>Good post, Kari.</h2>