April 2012 Graterfriends

Graterfriends ― A Publication of The Pennsylvania Prison Society ― April 2012

The opinions expressed are of the authors and not necessarily those of Graterfriends or The Pennsylvania Prison Society.

1

A Publication of The Pennsylvania Prison Society Promoting a humane, just and constructive correctional system and a rational approach to criminal justice since 1787

Volume 43 Issue 4 www.prisonsociety.org www.facebook.com/PennsylvaniaPrisonSociety April 2012

Not in My Footsteps by Lee A. Horton, CN-2067, SCI Mahanoy

In this Issue

From the Editors, News ................................................. 2

Spotlight ......................................................................... 3

Mrs. GE-6309 Time, Birthdays, Crossword Solutions .. 4

Legislative Highlights .................................................... 5

Report on Smoking, Think About It .............................. 6

Legal Chat ...................................................................... 7

Mailroom..................................................................... 7-9

Our Voices .................................................................... 10

Pass the Word .............................................................. 11

Announcements, Literary Corner ................................ 13

Graterfriends Order Form, Save the Date .................. 14

Crossword ..................................................................... 15

“The Last Word” by William DiMascio ........................ 16

“Happy are the sons whom fathers educate. There is not error in their being’s plan.” (Ptaah Hotep, c. 2340 B.C.). This missive is written to all incarcerated men and women concerning our responsibility to our families. Too many of our family members are following in our foot-steps to prison. This trend is destroying our families and our communities. Increasingly, parents are finding them-selves doing time with their children, older siblings with younger siblings, and uncles and aunts with nieces and nephews. This is not acceptable.

To quote Jesse Jackson, “Every generation needs the instruction and insights of past generations in order to forge its own vision.” Just because we are in prison does not remove our familial obligations. Our families need our instruction and insight to help them see where they are going, regardless of our prisoner status.

Zora Neal Hurston once wrote: “[T]he present was an egg laid by the past that had the future inside its shell.” For us, this means that our past actions are the dysfunc-tional parents of our loved ones’ present day bad deci-sions. Even as prisoners, we have family members who look up to us. Our sons and daughters idolize us, our younger siblings revere us, and our nephews and nieces admire us. They want to be who we once were — or who they believe we were. As such, we have a profound influ-ence over them and they will listen to us.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to tell them the truth about the streets, the court system, and prison in order to lead them in the right direction toward the high roads and away from the low ones. It is our duty to de-stroy their unrealistic vision of life, where they believe hustling is a career choice and it is OK to rob, steal and cheat to get by, and that it is acceptable to go to prison.

We should engage them with the wisdom we have learned from our experiences. Whether during visits, over the phone, or in letters, our goal should be to say whatever we can to prevent them from following in our footsteps. I don’t care who you are — innocent, guilty or unrepentant — we should all want a positive prison-free future for our family members.

Thus, it is all up to us to teach them that it would be a grave error to put on our old shoes. Tell them the truth — that those shoes are too small, will only cause pain in the long run, and will not last the distance of a lifetime. Warn them not to travel the roads we once travelled. Tell them that those roads start out wide but soon nar-row; that at first they seem easy to navigate but quickly turn rocky; that they appear as shortcuts but are really paths to nowhere. Let them know that the longer a per-son walks those roads the farther they lead them away from their best future, ultimately leaving them strand-ed, wandering the barren wasteland of lost opportuni-ties without a compass to help find their way back.

People, we must fulfill our obligations to our families today. If we do so, limitless futures will be hatched for them tomorrow instead of caged futures. It is time for us to act now, our inaction is not a viable option. We may not be able to help those who are here with us already, but we can help the ones standing at the cross-roads trying to figure out which way to go. Our mantra to them must be, “NOT IN MY FOOTSTEPS.”

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pennsylvania-Prison-Society/152360631500372


2


From the Editors

Graterfriends is a monthly publication from the Pennsylvania Prison Society. The organization was founded in 1787 and works toward enhancing public safety by providing initiatives that promote a just and humane criminal justice system.

This issue is made possible through contributions from our readers and funding from Phoebus Criminal Justice Initiative through the Bread & Roses Community Fund.

We reserve the right to edit submissions. Original submissions will not be returned. We will not print anonymous letters. Allegations of misconduct must be documented and statistics should be supported by sources.

245 North Broad Street · Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Telephone: 215.564.6005 · Fax: 215.564.7926 www.prisonsociety.org

www.facebook.com/PennsylvaniaPrisonSociety

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: William M. DiMascio

MANAGING EDITOR: Mindy Bogue

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS: Danielle Collins, Bridget Fifer

FOUNDER: Joan Gauker

Letters more than a page in length (200 words) will not be published in their entirety in Mailroom or Legal Chat Room, and may be considered for another column. All columns should be no more than 500 words, or two double-spaced pages.

To protect Graterfriends from copyright infringement, please attach a letter stating, or note on your submission, that you are the original author of the work submitted for publication; date and sign the declaration.

If you have a question about Graterfriends, please contact Mindy Bogue, Communications Manager, at 215-564-6005, ext. 112 or [email protected].

(See Occupy Philly, continued on page 12)

News by Cory Clark, Occupy Philly Media

On February 20, the Occupy movement as a whole held a national day of action for the reduction of prison popu-lations and improvement in prison conditions in the United States. Occupy Philly, members of The Pennsyl-vania Prison Society, Decarcerate PA, and community activists from around Philadelphia gathered at 1717 Arch Street to protest Hill International Ltd., a company heading the expansion of SCI Graterford.

Protesters held signs saying, “No More Prisons!” and similar thoughts. There were several speeches about the current statistics regarding incarceration in Penn-sylvania, and others that related conditions in the prison system.

“Inmates have nothing to do but work at slave wages, watch TV, drink coffee, and go to programs that don’t work and often repeat each other. There’s no real educa-tion in prisons — no way to build yourself up — after they’ve torn you down,” said Assad Jackson, a former offender who is now an activist in his community.

It’s been said that if you don’t have a strong commitment to education, then you need to have a strong commitment to incarceration. Pennsylvania’s government has under-

Mr. Lee A. Horton’s front page article could not have come at a better time. We recently presented the report on children of incarcerated parents to the Pennsylvania Senate and it has been getting a lot of attention in the press. At the presentation, Rev. Dr. Wilson Goode stated, “I saw in that prison a grandfather, a father, and a grandson -- all in the same prison, at the same time. And they met for the first time in prison. As I was leaving, the grandson pulled me aside and asked, ‘Dr. Goode, I have a son that I've never seen. Do you think I will see him for the first time in prison, too?’”

In response to the several letters we’ve received over the past months regarding smoking in Pennsylvania’s prisons, Editorial Assistant Danielle Collins has written a report (page 6) about our state’s policies, the smoking policies of other states, and their effect on the prison population.

Editorial Assistant Bridget Fifer has written an article (page 3) about mandatory minimum sentencing, why some consider it unconstitutional and why it doesn’t work. She has also included a timeline featuring im-portant dates in the history of mandatory minimum sen-tencing in the United States.

Finally, don’t miss our information in the Legislative Highlights section (page 5) about the recently passed Voter ID Bill, now Act 18. It will be important infor-mation for you when you are released and wish to vote.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pennsylvania-Prison-Society/152360631500372



3

-Drug sentence “cap” lowers sentence for low-level drug offenders

-Constitutionality of mandatory sentencing reiterated (Harris v. U.S.)

-It is declared unconstitutional to increase sentences based on evidence not admitted or proven as fact by a jury. Decision affects mandatory minimum laws in 13 states (Blakely v. Washington)

2000s

1990s

-U.S. Supreme Court rules that federal sentencing laws do not violate separation of power (Mistretta v. U.S.)

1980s

1970s

Spotlight

WHY MANDATORY MINIMUMS DON’T WORK by Bridget Fifer, Graterfriends Editorial Asssistant

The United States government is structured in a three-branch system with checks and balances in place to ensure that no one branch becomes more powerful than the oth-ers. In school, children are taught about how these checks and balances work, but nobody mentions areas in which they are threatened. One way the checks and balances between the Judicial and Executive branches are being threatened is the concept of mandatory minimum sentenc-ing. The timeline below illustrates a background of key movements in the progression of mandatory minimums, which are essentially in place to attack the drug trade.

What seems like an effective way to “catch those at the top of the drug trade and deter others from entering

AN OVERVIEW OF IMPORTANT CHANGES MADE TO MANDATORY SENTENCING

it” (FAMM: Families Against Mandatory Minimums), has resulted in large numbers of low-level offenders fac-ing long sentences. In addition to threatening checks and balances and doing little to attack the drug trade while increasing the prison population, mandatory minimum sentencing also poses problems for the judicial system in many other ways. Minimum sentencing laws make it difficult for individuals with drug abuse histories to re-cover, and make it impossible for a judge to treat each case circumstantially. This results in about 60 percent of the prison population being locked up on drug charges.

It’s estimated that 1.4 million people in the United States prison system have serious drug and alcohol abuse issues. Mandatory minimum sentencing strongly affects first-time offenders. Often, this sentence is the first time in a person’s battle with drugs that he or she is faced with ceasing use. Being locked up makes it almost impossible for these individuals to seek and receive the treatment they need to recover.

Not only does mandatory minimum sentencing strongly contribute more to punishment instead of rehabilitation, which the American prison system seems to value, it also

-New York implements mandatory sentences for some drug offenses (Rockefeller Drug Laws)

-Michigan implements a minimum sentencing for possession of over 650 grams of cocaine or heroin (Michigan 650 Lifer Law)

-Increase in opposition campaigns -Arizona promotes treatment for first- and second-time drug offenders as alternative to prison (Proposition 200)

-Michigan 650 Lifer Law repealed -Increase in minimum sentences for gun offenses

(See Mandatory Minimums, continued on page 15)

http://famm.org/


4


April Birthdays

DEATH ROW

If you do not want your name published, send a letter to Graterfriends each year you do not want it to be included. Be sure to note your date of birth.

CROSSWORD SOLUTIONS

Below are the solutions to crossword puzzles printed in this issue and the previous issue of Graterfriends.

Mrs. GE-6309 Time

by Reesy Floyd-Thompson

March 2012

HOW TO BE A PRISONER’S WIFE

Keeping a marriage together with an incarcerated spouse is hard. Relationships of this kind tend to have a high fail-ure rate. I am determined not to let his incarceration be-come a death sentence for our relationship. Here’s how:

Don’t live in shame: People in love with prisoners are crazy — at least, that’s what the world believes. It is not my job to make others feel ‘OK’ with the choices I make. What others think of me and my decision to stay with my husband is not my business. I will not hang my head in shame.

Have a support system: I’m still adjusting to this, almost nine years in. I surround myself with a strong support system. That goes a long away to keeping me sane. I’m not afraid to ask for help. There are days when I feel like I can’t carry on. In fact, I schedule at least two emotional breakdowns a month. But, my support system loves and helps me.

Budget and plan: Loving an incarcerated spouse is expensive. Bills such as postage costs, calls, visitation, packages, and books add up quickly. I figure my normal monthly budget, then factor in prison expenses (distinguishing wants from needs), and plan, plan, plan. The number one reason for divorce in free-world couples is money. Money concerns are an added stress we don’t need.

Keep love alive: One of the biggest challenges as a prisoner’s wife is staying in love. Communication is the foundation of any relationship. It does the relationship a disservice to downplay my true thoughts. Letters and calls are dates; I savor them. Each word and action is an offering of the heart. Being a prisoner’s wife taught me the art of courtship. Love is mental. Love is a commit-ment. I’m committed to having a boundless love, in spite of the boundaries.

Our relationship is under new management and re-quires us to think outside the system. The only institu-tion that matters is our marriage. I expect to be in a rela-tionship, not a “prison relationship.” Living life as if the prison doesn’t matter is the only way to ensure we do not face life without the possibility of a strong, healthy, last-ing relationship.

Reesy Floyd-Thompson is the founder of Prisoners’ Wives, Girlfriends, & Partners (PWGP). For more infor-mation about this group, please write Reesy at:

PWGP P. O. Box 14241 Norfolk, VA 23518

Herbert Blakeney FB-5713, GRN

Scott Blystone AP-9152, GRN

Richard Boxley EL-5206, GRA

Terry Ray Chamberlain CL-6265, GRN

Michael Conforti BQ-0537, GRN

Jermont Cox CE-8242, GRA

Jose DeJesus DS-0256, GRN

Robert Anthony Flor GW-0422, GRN

Randy Todd Haag AK-7856, GRN

Kevin J. Marinelli CT-9974, GRN

Kenneth Miller EC-6130, GRN

Michael Pruitt GF-1448. GRN

Edwin R. Romero, CZ-3206, GRN

Michael Brandon Singley EP-2753, GRN

Brian Thomas AY-7427, GRN

Stephen E. Treiber FD-8026, GRN

James W. VanDivner GY-6354, GRN

Ernest Wholaver, Jr. FY-3325, GRN

Craig Williams BX-9919, GRN

GRA = SCI Graterford PO Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426-0244

GRN = SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370-8090

April 2012

http://pwgp.org/



5

Ann Schwartzman

Policy Director, The Pennsylvania Prison Society

Legislative Highlights

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has been holding Appropriations Hearings to discuss budget items. They have also voted on several criminal justice bills in which you may be interested. This information is current as of March 15, 2012.

BILL NO. PRINTER NO.

DESCRIPTION CHIEF SPONSOR PPS POSITION

HB 934 PN 3166 ACT 18

Requires everyone to show picture ID before they are allowed into a voting booth. This bill may impact indi-viduals without driver’s licenses, including senior citi-zens, people who use public transportation, young peo-ple, and individuals just released from prison. (Passed House 6/23/11; passed Senate 3/7/12; Governor signed as Act 18, 3/14/12)

Rep. Daryl Metcalf R-Butler County

Oppose

HB 1352 PN 2227 ACT 24

Amends the Public School Code of 1949 by further providing for background checks of prospective employ-ees and the conviction of employees of certain offenses; collection of identifying information of students attend-ing institutions of higher education, and more. (Passed House and Senate 6/30/11; Governor signed as Act 24, 6/30/11)

Rep. T. Stephens R-Montgomery County

Oppose

SB 1428 PN 1966

Amends Title 18 (Crime and Offenses) of the Pennsylva-nia Consolidated Statutes, further providing for crimi-nal history record information and expungement of non-violent offenses after maintaining a clean record for five years. (Referred to Judiciary 2/16/12)

Rep. Kitchen D-Philadelphia County

Support

UPDATE ON THE VOTER ID BILL (HB 934) The Voter ID Bill (HB 934) has passed both the Pennsylvania House and Senate. Governor Cor-

bett signed HB 934 into law as Act 18 of 2012 on March 14, flanked by Secretary of State Carol Aichele and Representative Daryl Metcalfe, the sponsor of the bill.

This bill was opposed by a coalition of organizations led by Pennsylvania Voice, AARP, and the County Commissioners Association. Our concern is that thousands of Pennsylvania citizens will be deprived of their right to vote.

Moving forward, lawsuits challenging Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law in an effort to block its im-plementation and have it overturned are expected shortly. We are seeing the same scenario in several other states that also passed similar legislation. You will hear more about these legal challenges in the future.

Now, we need to educate the public about the new requirements for voting and work to ensure that every voter in Pennsylvania gets the documentation he or she will need in order to vote in the November and future elections. Groups are already coming together at the local, regional, and statewide levels to help make this happen, and we will all need to be a part of these efforts.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=0934


http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=S&type=B&BN=1428



6


Think About It

“UPDATING THE STATISTICS”

by Paul Schlueter III, AY-8900, SCI Dallas

In a New York Times opinion piece dated January 10, 2012, A. Blumstein and K. Nakamura report that New York reviewed the cases of 88,000 people, all first con-victed in 1980, for subsequent recidivism. About 30 per-cent of the first offenders never reoffended. Of the rest, the likelihood of individuals reoffending dropped to about what is expected of someone with no criminal record (“redemption time”), about 10 to 13 years.

Their point is that people should be protected from dis-crimination in jobs, housing, and licensing for five years after a misdemeanor and 10 years after a felony. After that, criminal records should be sealed from public access.

In the Justice column of The Atlantic (Jan./Feb. 2010), “Misfortune Teller,” Nadya Lahi writes about University of Pennsylvania professor Richard Berk, who has come up with a statistical algorithm for determining the risk of recidivism of prior offenders. He finds that the earlier the first offense, and the later the most recent offense, the more likely a person is to reoffend. Also, he finds that the severity of a crime previously committed DOES NOT predict whether the offender will commit a violent crime in the future; this suggests that the distinction between violent and non-violent offenders in parole decisions should be re-evaluated. In fact, Berk set up a similar algorithm system for Philadelphia in 2006, and has been “working with” the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole for about two years. Berk claims his system is like a Ferrari compared to the LSI-R survey, a 54-question survey now used by Pennsylvania and many other states to evaluate risk, which Berk compares to a Ford Focus. However, critics worry that Berk’s algorithm still relies too heavily on prior record scores, which unfairly bias results against African-American offenders, simply be-cause they are over-represented among the sampling.

It is too soon to tell for sure whether Berk’s algorithm is a good thing or a bad one, and who will benefit the most. Pennsylvania officials are likely to be reluctant to consid-er letting currently-unparolable lifers to benefit at all.

One thing is certain; real science requires not only peer review, but also replication of results through independent follow-up studies. Until these safeguards have been ap-plied, we should be wary about grand conclusions or policy decisions which may be based on premature findings.

Editorial note: Due to the recent debate we’ve seen regard-ing smoking in Pennsylvania’s prisons, we have researched the issue and printed this report for your information.

Between 70 and 85 percent of prisoners smoke, com-pared to 20 percent of the American public. Smoking and tobacco use have long been considered an inherent part of prison culture, but in the early 1990s, many states began to restrict smoking and tobacco use in prisons due to concerns over healthcare costs for inmates. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the incarcerated have a right to breathe clean, smoke-free air and that forcing non-smoking inmates to live in smoke-filled prisons con-stitutes a form of cruel and unusual punishment prohib-ited by the Eighth Amendment.

Currently, 46 out of the 50 states have indoor smoking bans, while 14 of those states ban tobacco products and smoking on all prison grounds. These represent the most restrictive policies for tobacco use in state prisons, and many more states seem to be following suit. Only four states do not restrict tobacco or smoking in state prisons: Alabama, Missouri, North Dakota, and Mississippi. In Missouri, Senator Jim Lembke has proposed legislation to completely ban tobacco in all state prisons.

When enacting an indoor/outdoor tobacco and smoking ban, state prison officials typically announce the policy anywhere from six months to a year in advance. This gives inmates and staff the chance to adjust without going “cold turkey,” and to access smoking cessation support. When the Federal Bureau of Prisons went smoke- and tobacco-free in 2004, inmates and guards were offered smoking-cessation programs, as well as nicotine patches. The patches were free to guards, but inmates were required to pay for theirs. Often the cost of nicotine patches is prohibi-tive, making the transition even harder for prisoners.

Florida implemented a statewide prison tobacco ban in September 2011, and made nicotine patches available to inmates for $34.99. Six months before enforcing the 2011 tobacco ban, prisoners and staff were informed that they were going to gradually implement the new policy. Until the ban took effect, inmates were permitted to smoke dur-ing recreation time in designated areas to steadily wean themselves off of tobacco. Employees are currently permit-ted to smoke in designated areas off prison grounds.

In implementing a successful tobacco ban, the Virginia Department of Corrections also took a gradual approach. Inmates and staff were informed a year in advance and had access to smoking cessation and nicotine replace-ment therapy programs. In a February 6, 2012 email, Director of Communications Larry Traylor shared some

(See Smoking, continued on page 12)

REPORT ON SMOKING IN PRISONS by Danielle Collins

Graterfriends Editorial Assistant

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/opinion/paying-a-price-long-after-the-crime.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/misfortune-teller/8846/



7

Mailroom

PRISONERS FORCED TO MOVE TO VA. HAVE NO JOBS AFTER RETURNING TO PA.

As of late, lifer inmates who were previously working in the Correctional Industries Shops at SCI Graterford have been returning from Virginia. These inmates were transferred unwillingly to the care of the Virginia DOC and were informed that upon their return, as long as they had not been cited for misconducts while temporari-ly in Virginia, they would be getting their jobs back. So far, that has not been the case.

They have now been told that lifer inmates WILL NOT be given their old jobs back in the Correctional Indus-tries Shops that they had been removed from as a result of being unwillingly transferred and taken to Virginia. Not only are they losing their former jobs, but they are more or less being punished unfairly.

And not to pick on the non-lifers that were also relocat-ed, but the returning non-lifers ARE getting their previ-ous jobs back with Correctional Industries, as long as they did not engage in any type of misconduct in Virginia.

I find this situation totally unfair and I hope that this loss of job is corrected and rectified for the good of those who did not deserve to lose their jobs and were informed initially that they would not.

James R. Cruz CL-1798, SCI-Graterford

RE: “HEY, WHAT ABOUT US?”

Back in August 2011 (Our Voices column), I wrote a letter entitled, “Hey, What About Us?” The article was for long-term incarcerated men — men looking for help and programs that will provide them with assistance. Upon further digging for answers, I found that I could contact the Bureau of Treatment Services in Harrisburg and answers could be found there.

Finally, I received a reply from Keith Fenstemaker, Treatment Programs Specialist, Bureau of Treatment Services. He wrote:

“The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is cur-rently piloting a long-term offenders program at several of our facilities across the state. After the pilot program is complete, there will be a determination if the program will be offered on a larger scale. We are optimistic the program will do well and are anticipating that it will be made available to more facilities.”

NEED HELP WITH PRISON PROGRAM

I’m writing to ask for help. I’ve been in the therapeutic community for eight months and was discharged for lack of participation and not using house tools. I believe that this is not true and I don’t know what to do. Is there any-thing I can do to be reinstated? I cannot say anything to change the minds of the staff or prison. I want to know if anybody else is having the same problem, or has any advice. Now I might not be able to finish my carpentry class because of being discharged from the program. I also have a problem with group speaking and they don’t look at this problem. Any help is appreciated.

Terry Graham JG-2267, SCI-Fayette

CELL EXTRACTIONS

On January 25, 26, and 27 of 2012, SCI Albion per-formed approximately 30 cell extractions. What triggered these was a corrections officer (CO) slighting a man who has a great many friends. The CO in question has a shady past at another facility, and was reportedly trans-ferred here for a fresh start. For some reason, the CO said the man threw an RHU shoe at him during a strip search for a trip to the law library. This was false; no such assault took place. In fact, the man was only two days away from completing his solitary confinement time, plus he had no motive to attack.

As further punishment, each extractee was placed in the restraint chair for at least four hours in a suicide smock. One man has endured some ten days in the chair. The staff put this chair in the main RHU hallway, like a trophy of their hard work. Once time is up, the still-smocked man is placed in a cold Albion cell with no blan-ket, mattress, pillow, or even toilet paper or soap. SCI Albion RHU would have less than half the problems and grievances it does if the on-site administration, superin-tendent, and deputies would make rounds as done in other facilities. If the superintendent and/or one deputy superintendent would make weekly rounds, many issues would be resolved.

In closing, the unity I witnessed shocked me, as every-one is normally out for themselves only. I urge all read-ers of this story to please cut it out and ask family mem-bers to send it to the governor and the media. Together we can right all these wrongs.

Darren Gentilquore GX-1572, SCI Albion

Legal Chat

(See Mailroom, continued on page 8)


8


When submitting a letter or column to Graterfriends for

publication, please remember to attach a letter (or note on your

submission) that it is for publication and that you are the original author; date and

sign the declaration. Thank you.

I’m asking that if anybody knows of this pilot program at their facility, please let it be known and explain exact-ly what the inner-workings of this program are.

Kevin Coleman AJ-2978, SCI Fayette

MY RESPONSE TO SMOKING ISSUE

There must be a compromise. If you don’t like to smell smoke on someone, or smoking period, don’t cell up with someone who smokes. If the person is smoking outside, come on! It is the only place we can smoke without get-ting a write up.

Smokers and non-smokers have rights. Smokers have the right or privilege to smoke, and non-smokers have the right to clean air inside. However outdoors is a public area. I haven’t heard any bans on smoking outdoors ex-cept at bars and restaurants. People smoke to enjoy it, relieve stress, or because they are ADDICTED. As pris-oners we have no right to tell other prisoners what to do. There are many other issues more important than fighting about smoking.

Indoors, technically, our cells are our homes. We sleep there, sometimes eat there, and go to the bathroom there. If you are complaining about the ventilation sys-tem, allow smokers the ability to buy filters to place on the vents. Besides, the air we breathe in the cells is not 100 percent pure, either. Allow smokers to buy ashtrays which eat smoke (which they do make), or air purifiers.

I understand that smoking in government buildings is against the law, but also where you sleep or live is your home. Would you want someone telling you what to do in your own home?

Brothers and sisters, prison life is hard enough without fighting each other over minor issues, like smoking. What about parole, over-crowding, prison wages, commissary prices, and equal treatment of prisoners as human be-ings? Positive, effective change can only come about if people are willing to set aside differences and come to-gether, willing to learn, understand and have compassion for each other. Thank you, and God bless you.

Jesse Keith Blough HQ-7572, SCI Albion

STILL FIGHTING THE PHONE SYSTEM

In the February issue, Mr. Yount brought up what he called a “socially regressive commission on Pennsylvania inmates and their families.” I mention this because those of you that have been around for a minute should re-member his fight with the then T-Netix phone system.

In late 2005 and early 2006, I picked up the torch and filed my own complaint with the Public Utility Commis-

sion. I crashed and burned after several telephonic hear-ings before Judge Ember S. Jandebuer. Although sympa-thetic to our cause, she dismissed the case for not stating a claim, all of which I reported here in Graterfriends.

I then followed this attempt up with dozens of letters to everyone I could think of. Two things are noteworthy of the effort. First, John Shaffer, Ph.D, in the Office of Ad-ministration within the DOC, gave me a breakdown on the funds collected for the use of the phones. In a letter that I have to this day, he said “eight million dollars” were collected. Of that, the Inmates General Welfare Fund received “three million” and the remaining “five million” was put into the State General Fund. Who else has a problem with this?

Second, I used the Freedom of Information Act to get what I could about the Inmates General Welfare Fund and its charter with the DOC and State. Guess what I found? The people that handle these funds cannot be audited by State auditors, only in-house audit staff! What a racket that supports John’s words!

What I’d like is information on what has happened to HR 4466, known as “The Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2005.” During our fight, it was stuck in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I fear that, as always, something worthy fell between the cracks and these monies were put in the hands of those who don’t deserve it. It’s our money that could go to much needed education. I ask anyone with information concerning this subject to please contact me. I really appreciate it.

Jeffery Neal Saxberg DX-5126

P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17002-0200

Editorial Note: Research done by the Pennsylvania Pris-on Society has led us to believe that the last action re-garding HR 4466 was referral to the Committee on Ener-gy and Commerce. Anyone with any further information is asked to contact Mr. Saxberg or the Pennsylvania Pris-on Society. Thank you.



9

IN RESPONSE TO MR. TERRY GRAHAM’S INQUIRY REGARDING SB 1161

Thanks to Graterfriends reader Dana Lomax Williams (OP-2742, SCI Muncy), we have news to share regarding Senator Greenleaf’s SB 1161. Ms. Lomax found infor-mation in our November 2010 Graterfriends (Legislative Highlights) indicating that this bill was passed, becom-ing Act 95 on October 27, 2010. The information about the law is below:

“The Prison Reform Bill of 2010, sponsored by Senator Greenleaf, has undergone several revisions due to numer-ous amendments. Although the bill is quite different from the original version…it provides provisions that will im-pact programs, policies, and populations in corrections, parole, and other criminal justice agencies. The new law calls for adoption of risk assessment tools, sentencing guidelines for state intermediate punishments, evalua-tion of boot camps and state intermediate punishments, confidentiality of victim information, distribution of pro-ceeds from inmate labor, use of evidence-based practices in parole decisions for better reentry coordination, gradu-ated sanctions for technical parole violators, conditions of parole to include drug screenings of parolees regardless of offense, omitting program non-completion as a reason to deny parole, notification requirements for certain offend-ers going to group homes in certain counties, and more.”

We thank Ms. Williams for sharing this information.

Mindy Bogue Graterfriends Managing Editor

A GLARING CONTRADICTION

Somebody, please tell me if the following makes sense: According to political figures and high-ranking DOC offi-cials, the State of Pennsylvania is facing an economic crisis and needs to reduce its prison population “out of necessity” as a cost-saving measure. Clearly, the state has in parole, pre-release, and the commutations process, three release mechanisms available to achieve any level of reductions it wants.

The Board of Parole and Pardons, as the gate-keepers to freedom or continued imprisonment of the Common-wealth, can independently evaluate and release people as they see fit. But, for too long, a genuine show of mercy has been absent from the Board of Pardons. There are hundreds of release-worthy candidates in the state: men and women who, once granted their freedom, would nev-er come back. This is especially so among geriatric pris-oners, many of whom have served more than 30 years.

The “powers that be” could make much better use of such people. They are qualified to make contributions to public safety upon release. Instead, this untapped hu-man potential is allowed to waste away needlessly, sub-ject to a conviction turned into a cruel sentence of death by lethal incarceration. When is enough enough?

Tens of millions of tax-payer dollars could be saved by

the commonwealth through the use of these release mechanisms for geriatric prisoners alone. But, in the hue and cry for these needed reductions, where does the Board of Parole and Pardons stand on these issues? They seem to be the greatest hindrance to these necessary re-ductions. The common person would think they’d have a moral obligation to help the state reduce the budget in this crisis situation. They seem to get a free pass for not doing their part to help.

Where are the voices calling for those over at the Board of Parole and Pardons to act? There is silence from the politicians, DOC officials, the press, the governor, the prison population, our family members, faith-based groups, and prisoner support organizations. Silence eve-rywhere! No one is calling for these gate-keepers of free-dom to act in the best interest of the state in this crisis situation.

Together, we can change this. There is a solution for returning released citizens safely back into the communi-ty. To find out what you can do to help, write to me:

James Taylor AF-4120

PO Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426

SCI CAMP HILL DAY OF RESPONSIBILITY, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2012

Editorial Note: This article was featured in “Monthly In-mate News,” a newsletter from SCI Camp Hill. It was sub-mitted to us by Harry Twiggs, AF-3025, SCI Camp Hill.

On Saturday, February 25, 2012, the Activity Depart-ment hosted a daylong event entitled, “A Day of Respon-sibility.” It was held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Over 125 CDCC and GP inmates attended the event.

The day was organized and planned with input from inmate Harry Twiggs and a committee, along with a for-mer employee, Ms. Cathy Sabatino, overseeing the event. After opening remarks by Harry Twiggs and Ms. Sabatino, three guest speakers (Ms. Lynn Shiner, Karen Laird, and Destiny Brown) shared their experiences of the impact of crime on their lives. After a lunch break, the inmates were divided into small groups and rotated among subjects such as responsibility, confession, repentance, forgiveness, rec-onciliation, restoration, amends, and health.

The main guest speaker for the day, Mr. Jonathon Queen, an ex-offender, ended the day with an insightful and inspirational talk on the “hows and whys” of a re-sponsible life.

Before ending the day, all the inmates recited and signed a pledge to take responsibility for their past, present, and fu-ture actions and to make a difference in their communities.

A “Thank You” is extended to all the staff and inmates who worked so hard to make this “Day of Responsibility” a huge success.


10


Our Voices

STICK TO YOUR MISSION by Joshua Michael Uhrich, HS-4335, SCI Albion

As we entered 2012, I reflected on two DOC challenges I faced just prior to the Christmas season. Then, when I most recently learned of a certain change in DOC policy, all mere reflection was translated into a motivation to act. I felt obliged to put pen to paper.

My first challenge was as follows. For Christmas 2010. I sent out 75 cards—nearly all purchased from the com-missary—to family and friends. This year, to be more thrifty, I asked my parents to send me 50 blank Christ-mas cards from their wealth of extras. After I did not receive the package for a week, my father investigated. He called the SCI-Albion mailroom and spoke with a gentleman—probably the mailroom supervisor. The DOC employee informed my dad that the package was confis-cated by the mailroom because inmates are not permit-ted to receive “unsigned cards.” After my dad asked what safety/security risk is associated with unsigned cards, the employee responded, “Well, we prefer that inmates

purchase cards from the prison commissary.”

My second personal challenge followed just days later. Three approved phone numbers on my phone list suddenly, without notice were inaccessible. The three numbers were all local Erie 814 numbers that my brother and two sisters obtained through a service called Google Voice. In short, Google Voice is a service that allows individuals to assign additional phone numbers to an already existing land or cellular phone line, at no cost. For a year I was able to en-joy calling my siblings weekly, at a rate of $1.69 per 15-minute phone call, as it was financially feasible. Now, that opportunity is nearly a financial impossibility because a 15-minute long distance call is at least $6.00. Eventually, the DOC removed all Google Voice phone numbers.

Most recently the Pennsylvania DOC discontinued one day of inmate visitation every month due to a cost saving initiative. It was this most recent issue that compelled me to expose the Pennsylvania DOC’s hypocrisy.

The DOC’s mission statement in part reads: “The mis-sion of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is… to provide opportunities for inmates to acquire… values necessary to become productive law-abiding citizens…” One such value for successful and productive reintegra-tion into society is maintaining—or forming—a healthy support system while incarcerated. Research has proven that those who upon exiting the DOC’s custody are sur-

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC)?

by Dominic Hershey, JM-5721, SCI Somerset

A few years ago, I was introduced by a friend to the world of “The Uniform Commercial Code”. At the time, there was a wealth of information in our institution. Fas-cinated, I studied night and day for months. Aside from the initial shock of the material and its claims, I was equally puzzled as to how this “taking back of one’s TRUE freedom” could exist without the public as a whole taking advantage of it, or even being aware of it! I surely had never, in my 35 years, heard of it! So, of course, I grew skeptical.

Then, on an otherwise normal day, a war was waged, and it had become obvious that either we were already being watched, or someone on the block was informing security who had this information. There were three shake-downs that day. All three cells belonged to my comrades, who also had UCC information in their cells. It was obvious that the COs were there solely for our paperwork.

After having my paperwork taken, I was escorted to an empty dorm area along with my cellie, where we were informed to stand by while one of the security members

went through our paperwork page-by-page, looking for UCC information. So, naturally, I inquired as to why they were so interested in confiscating this information. One of the COs went on a brief rant about how inmates were trying to use this information to put liens on peo-ple, they’re clogging up the courts with frivolous motions, and they don’t know that this is pertaining to corporate law and has nothing to do with us. At which time the other officer stopped him and said, “hold on now, I have a friend in Oregon who is sovereign; he has no birth cer-tificate, no social security card, no license; doesn’t pay taxes or anything!”

This was confirmation for us that the information, at least in part, was valid. Several days later I was told that someone, using this sort of information, had put a lien on then-Secretary of the DOC Jeffery Beard, and that is what spurred the war on this information. Also, to my knowledge, all commercial and maritime law books, as well as anything pertaining to the UCC have been removed from our law library! Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that denying us access to the courts? And isn’t that my right under the 14th Amendment?

It’s not what we might do with the material; it’s wheth-

(See Mission, continued on page 14)

(See UCC, continued on page 14)



11

Pssst… Pass the Word

AN IMPORTANT CASE by George Rahsaan Brooks-Bey, AP-4884 SCI Frackville

The third circuit court of appeals recently overturned a first degree murder conviction in the case of Johnson v. Mechling, No. 08-2477. Johnson argued that the evidence to convict him was insufficient to support the conviction. The court set out by applying the established federal standard by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jackson v. Vir-ginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). (“The Constitution prohibits the criminal conviction of any person except upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the offense.”) However, “a properly instructed jury may occa-sionally convict a person even when it can be said that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson at 318). A reviewing court must deter-mine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of crime beyond a reasonable doubt” (Jackson at 319). This standard must be applied with explicit reference to the substantive ele-ments of the criminal offense defined by state law. The Court looked to Pennsylvania law only to establish the elements of the offense. They then turned to the “federal question” of whether the Superior Court was objectively unreasonable in concluding that sufficient evidence sup-ported Johnson’s convictions.

Pennsylvania statutes define murder as an “intentional killing.” Johnson was found guilty of first-degree murder (See Important Case, continued on page 13)

as “an accomplice.” Under Pennsylvania law, one is an accomplice if, “with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense,” he or she either “solicits such other person to commit the offense or the crime” or “aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing [the offense].” (See Everett v Beard, 290 F3d500, 512 [3d cir. 2002]; Commonwealth v. Cox, 863 A. 2d 536, 551 {PA. 2004].)

The Third Circuit ruled Johnson’s conviction “did not” survive the due process challenge because the “state rec-ord” did not contain sufficient evidence to permit any reasonable fact finder to conclude that Johnson, as an active partner, shared intent with his co-defendant to commit murder or that Johnson acted in such a manner as to encourage or facilitate the murder. (See, Smith v. Horn, 120 F. 3d. 400, 410 [3d cir. 1997].) The Court ruled that Johnson “was not the shooter and that securing a first-degree murder on accomplice liability where shared intent is involved,” is no easy task. (See Commonwealth v. Raymond Johnson, 966 A2d 523, 543 [PA 2009]; Com-monwealth v Murphy, 844 A. 2d 1128, 1238 [PA. 2004].) The Court ruled it is essential “that there be a logical and convincing connection between the facts established and the conclusions inferred. Put another way, the differ-ence between an inference and a speculation is that an inference is a reasoned deduction for the evidence; a speculation is a guess.” (See Commonwealth v. Konz, 402 A. 2d 773, 788 [PA. Super 2003].)

SOUND OFF! by Dana Lomax-Williams, OP-2742, SCI Muncy

We here at Muncy’s Women’s State Penitentiary are elated to know that Representative Ronald Walters stated that the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is opening a federal probe of Pennsylvania’s prison system, and that it will eventually cover all the state prisons. Many women are very hesitant about speaking out about the sexual harassment due to retali-ation, especially with these lengthy sentences. Who will protect them?

For one thing, we are in dire need of an unbiased, bo-na fide, certified hearing examiner. Kerrs-Barr (our hearing examiner) gives out state sentences with the help from and under the influence of her friends, who are usually the ones who wrote you up. How do I know? So glad you asked. From experience. Many of the em-ployees here either grew up together, went to school

together, or were married and dated each other. And they have the audacity to talk about the inmates. The nerve. If we go in front of the hearing examiner, we are doomed if we do not have four legs. She loves the pup-pies here in the puppy program.

I have never been a problematic inmate, like so many others here. However, because I grieved a particular staff member for discharging me from a program with-out a legitimate reason, they had it in for me. This indi-vidual happened to be very good friends with Kerrs-Barr. Let’s just say, after I was paroled, this individual made sure that the hearing examiner punished me se-verely for something that truly didn’t warrant such harsh punishment. Due to me going to the hole, my re-lease was delayed by two years.

Unfortunately, the staff can call the hearing examiner and either plead on our behalf, or ask for us to be cruci-fied. She’s judge and jury. Well, it’s about time someone spoke up and sounded off. There are numerous issues that need to be exposed, and this is just the beginning many. I have nothing else to lose, but I am speaking out for all my sisters that are imprisoned by their fear of retaliation. We need an outside advocate. Changes must be made here. Look for more from me speaking out and sounding off.

Thank you.


12


Occupy Philly, continued from page 2

funded, to a significant extent, both basic and higher edu-cation in Pennsylvania, while continuing to build prisons.

America has the highest persons per capita incarcer-ated in the world, exceeding even China and Russia. “We have more frivolous laws that require prison sen-tences than any other country in the world, including rogue dictatorial states. We have become a country where the prison industrial system has taken control, our answer to everything has become, ‘put them in prison,’” said Danielle Finger, artist and political ac-tivist with Occupy Philly.

“There are so many problems that feed into the prison industrial complex in Pennsylvania, but the injustice becomes clear when the state spends more on prisons than it does on schools,” said Nate Kleinman, a human rights activist in Philadelphia. “This is just a disaster. If we spent more money on educating our young we wouldn’t need as many prisons. Most crimes committed are committed by desperate people — stealing something to pay a bill, or feed an addiction — and they don’t have the education to get the few jobs that free trade has left us with.”

More than 70 percent of Pennsylvania’s prisoners come from minority communities, and 99 percent of them are from poor communities. The solution is simple: educate our young people, bring jobs to the state. Don’t hinder

companies with out-of-date over regulation, but imple-ment smart regulations that take business, the environ-ment, and — most importantly — people into account.

If you want to lower the state budget in this “time of economic crisis,” lower the prison population and put the right people in jail, such as violent offenders. Apply fair prison sentences appropriate to the crime instead of three-to-seven years for a crime of omission, or a two-to-four-year sentence for a drug problem.

We need to depopulate our prisons and repopulate our schools!

We have more frivolous laws that require prison sentences than any other country in the world.

of the secrets of Virginia’s successful policy. Wrote Tray-lor: “The effects were minimal because almost all Virgin-ia jails had already eliminated tobacco products prior to this ban so inmates coming from local and regional jails were already tobacco free prior to coming into the state system.” Additionally, Virginia prisons implemented a “step down” program for inmates and staff using a curric-ulum developed by the National Commission on Correc-tional Health Care (NCCHC). Penalties for violating the tobacco ban will not be as harsh as other infractions, and will be cited as administrative offenses that lead to loss of privileges but not criminal prosecution.

Many familiar with state prisons have warned that ban-ning smoking and tobacco products will only serve to in-crease violence in prisons and turn the items into contra-band. Since implementing a tobacco ban in March 2009, Ohio officials have noticed an increase in violence and are investigating to discover the cause. Gary Mohr, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, expressed concern over the rise in violence in Ohio prisons and stated “Tobacco has become a currency that’s used in our prisons.” There have been incidences of guards smug-gling and selling cigarettes, but such events are rare in proportion to the number of state prison employees.

Pennsylvania’s policy, effective September 11, 2008, is consistent with the Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits smoking in a public place. Smoking is permitted only in designated outdoor areas, and staff and inmates who smoke are offered resources pertaining to smoking cessa-tion. Additionally, the Inmate General Welfare Fund has funding available to facility managers for smoking cessa-tion programs.

In deciding whether to begin a smoke and tobacco free policy, officials must weigh a number of concerns and considerations to make an informed decision. This in-cludes balancing concerns over inmate health with ques-tions of whether inmates have a right to smoke. It also involves careful planning, as ending a nicotine habit “cold-turkey” can be dangerous and terribly unpleasant. Nationally, it appears that banning smoking is becoming the norm, and many state prison systems are eager to get on board.

References: 100% Smokefree Correctional Facilities. Issue brief. American Non-

smokers' Rights Foundation, 2 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/100smokefreeprisons.pdf>.

Blitstein, Ryan. "Smokers Behind Bars Can Quit, Too." Miller-McCune. 18 Dec. 2008. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/smokers-behind-bars-can-quit-too-4060/>.

Fitzgerald, Sandy. "Tobacco Ban Might Be Igniting Ohio Prison Vio-lence." Newsmax.com. 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/prison-violence-ohio/2012/01/23/id/425101>.

Gardner, Amy. "Cigarette Ban Being Implemented in Va. State Pris-ons." Washington Post. 16 June 2009. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061502330.html?nav=emailpage>.

"Maxwell Muff Et Al. v. Terry Collins Et Al." Web. 17 Feb. 2012. Zoroya, Gregg. "Smoking Bans Spread to Prisons." USATODAY.com.

21 July 2004. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-21-prison-smoking-usat_x.htm>.

Smoking, continued from page 6

Have you read the recent report about children of incarcerated par-ents? If you want to learn how we can help these “invisible victims”

of incarceration, go to: www.prisonsociety.org and click on

the “What’s New?” page.

http://www.prisonsociety.org/Whats_New.shtml

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/100smokefreeprisons.pdf

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/100smokefreeprisons.pdf

http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/smokers-behind-bars-can-quit-too-4060/

http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/smokers-behind-bars-can-quit-too-4060/

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/prison-violence-ohio/2012/01/23/id/425101

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/prison-violence-ohio/2012/01/23/id/425101

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061502330.html?nav=emailpage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061502330.html?nav=emailpage

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-21-prison-smoking-usat_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-21-prison-smoking-usat_x.htm



13

We seem to have a gap between our cherished ideals about justice and the realities of the prison environment.

—Nicholas deB Katzenbach, former U.S. Attorney General

Preserving Your Claim Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) is a new docu-ment that was recently sent to all of Pennsylvania’s state prison libraries. It was written by Alex Rubenstein, 2012 Candidate for J.D. at Rutgers School of Law-Camden. It is intended to provide some background information on the PLRA, and also explain how the law impacts court claims filed while in jail or prison. Additionally, this pamphlet explains how to properly follow the grievance process employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in order to help protect any claims you may bring relating to prison conditions from being dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Even for claims that are not affected by the exhaustion require-ment, this pamphlet should serve as a helpful tool for correctly filing grievances.

Beccaria: A Chapbook Anthology by Aja Beech is once again available, for a limited time. To or-der a copy, prisoners may send a check or money order for $5 to:

Aja Beech 2445 Coral St. Philadelphia, PA 19125

Life Support for Women with an Incarcerated Loved One is a new support group for women looking for a safe place to share feelings and concerns about incarcerated family members. The group meets the second Tuesday of every month, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Pennsylvania Prison Society: 245 N. Broad Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (Race-Vine station, across from Hahnemann Hospital). For more information: Mason Barnett, 215-564-6005, ext. 106 (Prison Society)Desiree Cunningham 215-758-5877 (Support Group questions only)

Announcements Literary Corner

Important Case, continued from page 11

For an inference to be reasonable, it “must flow from facts and circumstances proven from the record, and must be of such volume and quality as to overcome the presumption of innocence and satisfy the jury that an accused one’s guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.” A rea-sonable inference is one where the facts must flow from inferences, not conjecture, speculation or suspicion. Infer-ences must be reasonable and establish a prima facie case of criminal culpability; anything less rises no higher than “guess work.” (See Commonwealth v. Wodjak. 466 A. 2d 991, 996 [PA 1983].)

Lorenzo Johnson (who has written articles in Graterfriends about his actual innocence) is black, poor and happened to be on the scene when the crime oc-curred. Mere presence has “never been a crime,” but that’s not how an all-white jury saw it.

KANGAROO COURT By David Lusik, CQ-3760, SCI Forest

As I lay awake on my bunk waiting to got to court, I had a vision of court jesters and barristers, all disguised even to the eyes in fraud, then came the judge in her polka dot robe that looked like a dress, what a masquerade a real kangaroo court. Next came Tyranny, Here ye! Here ye! Here ye! This court is now in session! The evil prosecutrix called her first witness, A fat clown who left me panic stricken, I felt like Alice falling down the rabbit hole in wonder-land, Then came the verdict of anarchy’s tempestuous cry, Guilty, guilty, Guilty, on all charges, My poor mother fainted, My sister cried, I picked myself up and told the judge give me liberty or give me death, The lone old hag laughed and snarled, She declared, I am the Queen, God and the law of this land, Take this scoundrel off to jail forever!


14


NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Please allow 6-8 weeks for receipt of your first issue.

Make a check or money order payable to

The Pennsylvania Prison Society

245 North Broad Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Prisoners may pay with unused postage stamps.

Name _________________________________________ Prisoner Number _______________ Institution _________________________________

Address ______________________________________________ City _______________________________ State _______ Zip ________________

Payment Amount _____________________________________ Payment Method _____________________________________________________

SSSUBSCRIPTIONUBSCRIPTIONUBSCRIPTION IIINFORMATIONNFORMATIONNFORMATION

Receive Graterfriends and Correctional Forum for:

Are you a prisoner who just wants Graterfriends? You may subscribe just to Graterfriends for $3.

Support our mission and become a member!

$5 Prisoner $10 Prisoner Family Student $40 Regular Membership $100 Friend of the Society

$200 Patron $250 Sponsor $500 Founder $1,000 1787 Society

Mission, continued from page 10

rounded by a spouse, close family members, and/or friends are most likely to succeed in home and communi-ty environments.

Blank Christmas cards, reasonably priced phone calls, and daily visitation: all three directly affect inmates’ systems of support. Inmates’ support systems directly affect inmate values and the success rate of reintegra-tion into society. The DOC should be applauding the fact that prisoners have family members who can help their incarcerated loved ones send special cards to other fami-ly and friends. The DOC likewise should be praising inmates for finding a legitimate, legal service that helps them call family and friends at a reasonable cost. The DOC should be adding days and hours to allotted visita-tion times in order to accommodate family connection. Instead, the DOC implicitly is discouraging and jeering at these inmate-initiated attempts at rehabilitation.

Shame on you, Pennsylvania DOC, for not adhering to your mission statement. C’mon… you can do better.

er or not we have the right to possess these materials. Has anyone heard of the right to bear arms? Yeah, we might shoot someone with the gun we buy and possess; nevertheless, we have the right to it. So, at this point, I would like to know what is being done about the prohi-bition and confiscation of said legal materials. Does anyone have anything in front of the courts? I would like to know the status of any action being taken, and if there is any class action, if I can be named as a plain-tiff, and how.

UCC, continued from page 10

Save the Date!

The 225th Annual Business Meeting 11:00 a.m., May 8, 2012

To be held at The Defender Association of Philadelphia 1441 Sansom St. Philadelphia 19102

A light lunch will be served after the meeting.

Please RSVP to [email protected] or 215-564-6005, x116

Later in the day we will be celebrat-ing 225 years of service. Please watch for your invitation to this tick-eted event or check our website for more details.

http://www.philadefender.org/



15

Public Acting, continued from page 16

Easy Crossword #14 by Dave Fisher (puzzles.about.com) For solution, see page 4.

Mandatory Minimums, continued from page 3

and so forth – rather than prisons and correctional officer overtime.

What we have are approaches that favor facts and evi-dence and others that reflect the way people’s percep-tions shape them. And when it comes to perceptions, it seems everybody has one of their own.

The fact is that on complex social issues such as these there are so many shades of understanding that progress doesn’t get made until people agree on an acceptable gray tone. Folks who pushed for a black or white re-sponse have to accept the compromise they can live with.

David Mathews, president of the Kettering Foundation, suggests that both types of knowledge are critical. “There are no experts on what should be, but forum organizers have helped distinguish public knowledge from expert knowledge and have validated its importance,” he wrote in the Kettering Review. “This has been important at a time when the attraction of research-based knowledge threatens to devalue other time-tested ways of knowing and deciding.”

He goes on to note that deliberations almost always broaden the definition of a problem, creating multiple options for actions. Public action that follows is often difficult to discern. The public rarely falls into lock step behind a solution; indeed, on the more intractable prob-lems in our society there are frequently a variety of steps needed to address an issue. And, consensus is less often an immediate outcome than a shared sense of direction.

Participants then move in a variety of ways to advance that shared direction. That’s what Mathews calls “public acting.” It occurs in ad hoc associations, other civic or-ganizations and in involvements with related local groups – like the ripples spreading when a stone is dropped into a pond.

Public acting, in essence, becomes the bridge or missing link between informed judgment and political will. It’s the way the public does nonpartisan politics and it hap-pens without storming the Bastille.

places judges in a position where they are incapable of exercising their discretion. “I resent the fact that Con-gress has…put me in a position where I have to send a young man…to jail for 10 years for a crime which doesn’t deserve more than three or four…They do it for political reasons. It looks good when some candidate stands up and says ‘I voted for a 10-year mandatory minimum.’ I wish that candidate could come into this courtroom and…have to sentence this young man to 10 years in jail. They wouldn’t find it easy,” says Alan H. Nevas, (U.S. District Judge, Connecticut).

Across 1. Stalemate in tic-tac-toe 4. “___ Maria” 7. “Naughty you!” 12. Ginger __ 13. Name fit for a king? 14. Bank contents 15. Serape 17. Separate 18. Margarita fruit 19. Hush-hush 21. Attempt 23. “___ so fast!” 24. __-been (former

somebody) 27. Is literate 29. Head support 30. Priest’s apparel 33. Days in September 35. One-__ 36. Its got the beat 38. Write down 39. Animal house 40. Stands for 44. Swapped 47. Detect 48. Not our 50. Vienna is its capital 52. Not so good 53. Hit the slopes 54. Leb. neighbor 55. Private 56. “Amen!” 57. Allow

Down 1. TV option 2. __ well (no problem) 3. Work groups 4. Biblical boat 5. Flying formations 6. Prolong 7. Brainy 8. Tiger’s target 9. Bar request 10. Chess pieces 11. CBS logo 16. Almost 20. Charges 22. Nay's opposite 25. Behave 26. Wild blue yonder 28. Bearing weapons 29. Most kind 30. Limit 31. “__ to Joy” 32. Ship’s light 34. That guy 37. Nervous 39. Challenger 41. Fourth in a series of 12 42. Brouhaha 43. Commence 45. Ascend 46. Fist, slangily 48. __-night doubleheader 49. Sweetheart, briefly 51. Bro’s counterpart

http://www.kettering.org/media_room/periodicals/kettering_review

http://puzzles.about.com/


16


THE LAST WORD

“Public Acting” Essential Element of Social Justice Reform

by William M. DiMascio Executive Director, The Pennsylvania Prison Society

First Class postage is required to re-mail

245 North Broad Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

April 2012

(see Public Acting, continued on page 15)

For almost twenty years I have been associated with the Kettering Foundation, a nonprofit research institu-tion headquartered in Dayton, Ohio. The Foundation is committed to studying the way the public works in a de-mocracy, and it has supported the activities of the Na-tional Issues Forums Institute.

The Institute identifies emerging concerns that impact the public in areas such as education, crime, economics, family values, etc. Because these matters are so huge, a framing process has been developed so that the issue of the day can be taken up by a group interested in deliber-ating the pros and cons and arriving at common ground for action.

It all sounds rather sensible and neat, but reality has a way of dampening the effort. What a good framing can do is help participants have a productive discussion. What it cannot do is get people to act.

It’s like discussing the fact that the incarceration rate for African American men in the U.S. is more than four times greater than it was in South Africa during apartheid, then refusing to advance legislation aimed at racial justice.

It’s like reaching understanding that the parole system is designed to provide post-release guidance, then requir-ing those who are most in need of supervision after being released from prison to max out.

In other words, you can bring the public to informed

judgment, but generating the political will to act is an-other matter. What’s missing?

Emotion, fueled by high profile (intense media buzz) crime, certainly moves people to act quickly – often times in ways that create more problems than they solve. The hastily imposed moratorium on parole in response to the police shooting in 2009, for example, caused a dramatic spike in the number of state inmates and wound up cost-ing untold millions of dollars as Pennsylvania was as a result forced to send some 2,000 prisoners to rented cells in Michigan and Virginia.

But here’s what may be missing ultimately: discussion that moves away from statistics and so-called expert opinions and focuses on the way everyday people view the issue. While there are people who look at corrections, for example, from a humanistic vantage, many others do not. For most people, the primary concern is safety. Will I and my loved ones be safe from violence and secure from corruption by incarcerating individuals? The public certainly seems to think so, despite statistics that some-times indicate otherwise.

Another concern people share has to do with money. No amount of spending is too much when personal safety is at stake, but as folks feel less threatened they would like to have their tax dollars used for more quality of life items – like better schools, a cleaner environment,

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE PAID CLAYSBURG, PA PERMIT NO. 84

http://www.kettering.org/

http://nifi.org/

http://nifi.org/

Self Improvement

April 2012 Graterfriends