Archive

Archive for the ‘Crime Bills’ Category

WV Judiciary Subcommittee Moves 2 Bills

January 10th, 2012
Comments Off

The House of Delegates Judiciary Subcommittee A approved two pieces of draft legislation Jan. 9 aimed at increasing personal protection and decreasing the number of offenders currently in state’s corrections system.

The Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act “is an omnibus revision of the criminal justice system,” according to the bill’s abstract. “The primary objective of the bill is to maintain public safety and hold offenders accountable while reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for offenders.” Report by The State Journal.

The West Virginia Legislature has been looking at the issue of jail and prison overcrowding for some time. Jim Rubenstein, commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Corrections, and Larry Parsons, executive director of the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority, have testified before a variety of legislative interim committees on the issue. In previous testimony, both have said nearly 1,800 inmates have created a strain on already-strapped resources. Problems within the system include double-bunking, an increase in assaults and an inability to separate inmates based on classifications, among other problems.

But the Public Safety and Offender Accountability Act aims to strengthen probation and parole. For example, the bill would require courts and corrections authorities to incorporate risk and needs assessment information into the decision-making process, including for pre-trial supervision, at sentencing, in evaluating parole suitability and setting terms for parole and throughout the period of probation and parole supervision. The bill also authorizes the Department of Corrections to allow offenders to complete required programming in the community while under GPS monitoring.

Rubenstein said at the Jan. 9 meeting that the Department of Corrections does have a number of substance abuse treatment beds at Mount Olive as well as beds in the Beckley facility.

“We provide education, treatment and extended treatment,” he told the committee.

Rubenstein said the Department of Corrections is working to streamline how it determines an offender’s needs. He said the department will begin using LS/CMI, or Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, to determine if an inmate has a critical need, no need or is somewhere in between. He went on to say that some inmates are waiting for space to open up before they can be treated for their substance abuse addictions, though he couldn’t pinpoint how many.

“I imagine that would change from facility to facility,” he said.

The committee also approved a draft of a bill that would increase personal safety. Currently, the only type of restraining order a person can take out is against family or same-household members. However, the bill proposed a more general restraining order that can be issued in cases of stalking, trespassing and destruction of property, among other offenses.

Proceedings regarding the general restraining order would be heard in magistrate court as opposed to family court.

Although organizations associated with domestic violence pushed for this bill, it has not been vetted by law enforcement or the courts, according to counsel. Adults can take out this order for themselves, for minors or incapacitated adults. Petitioners must prove the acts against them as well as a reasonable apprehension that the acts would continue unless the order is issued.

“The idea is this will be, for a lot of folks, an opportunity to protect themselves in ways they can’t now,” counsel told the committee.

Both drafts will now go to the House Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

Tammy Crime Bills, Overcrowding, Recidivism, West Virginia

FL Legislator Will Bring Back Bill Addressing Shackling Of Pregnant Women

October 7th, 2011
Comments Off
Betty-Reed-360x270-300x225

State Rep. Betty Reed, D-Tampa (Pic by Meredith Geddings, via myfloridahouse.gov)

State Rep. Betty Reed, D-Tampa, says she is getting ready to re-introduce legislation that would create humane rules for the shackling of pregnant women who are incarcerated.

Last session, the bill almost made it to a final vote, but it eventually died in early May. Reed tells The Florida Independent she is not sure why House Speaker Dean Cannon did not move the bill forward, but says she is ready to try again. Report by The Florida Independent.

In 2010, the state of Florida received an “F” for its shackling policies in a report compiled by the Rebecca Project for Human Rights. The report (.pdf), “Mothers Behind Bars: A state-by-state report card and analysis of federal policies on conditions of confinement for pregnant and parenting women and the effect on their children,” analyzes whether a state’s policies harm pregnant women who are incarcerated. It was also “intended to help advocates assess their own state’s policies affecting these significant phases of pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenting.”

The report gave a failing grade to any state that failed to “comprehensively limit, or limit at all, the use of restraints on pregnant women during transportation, labor and delivery and postpartum recuperation.” Thirty-six states, including Florida, received failing grades.

According to the report, of the states that received failing grades:

Twenty-two states either have no policy at all addressing when restraints can be used on pregnant women or have a policy which allows for the use of dangerous leg irons or waist chains.

When a pregnant woman is placed in restraints for security reasons, eleven states either allow any officer to make the determination or do not have a policy on who determines whether the woman is a security risk.

Thirty-one states do not require input from medical staff when determining whether restraints will be used.

Twenty-four states do not require training for individuals handling and transporting incarcerated persons needing medical care or those dealing with pregnant women specifically, or have no policy on training.

Thirty-one states do not have a policy that holds institutions accountable for shackling pregnant women without adequate justification.

Thirty-four states do not require each incident of the use of restraints to be reported or reviewed by an independent body.

With help from the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Reed and state Sen. Anthony Hill, D-Jacksonville, introduced House Bill 779 this past session. The bill would have put policy in place specifically regarding the restraint of incarcerated pregnant women in Florida.

According to a summary, the bill:

Prohibits use of restraints on prisoner known to be pregnant during labor, delivery, & postpartum recovery unless corrections official makes individualized determination that prisoner presents extraordinary circumstance requiring restraints; provides that doctor, nurse, or other health care professional treating prisoner may request that restraints not be used, in which case corrections officer or other official accompanying prisoner shall remove all restraints; requires that any restraint applied must be done in least restrictive manner; requires corrections official to make written findings within 10 days as to extraordinary circumstance; provides that use of restraints at any time after it is known that prisoner is pregnant must be by least restrictive manner necessary; requires findings be kept on file; authorizes woman restrained in violation of act to file grievance within specified period; provides that these remedies do not prevent complaint under any other law; requires facilities to inform female prisoners of rules; requires reports.

Reed says she was disappointed the bill did not make it to a final vote, and was surprised it did not get more momentum from Cannon, considering the priority state legislators gave a slew of anti-abortion bills that session.

“I thought that was the perfect time,” she says. “They said they were going to protect babies, and I was hoping they would protect women, too. I don’t understand why they did not push this to pass.”

Reed says another obstacle was the the Department of Corrections’ reaction to the bill.

A response (.pdf) from the department posted on the website of the Association of State Correctional Administrators, claims that the Rebecca Report was “misleading.”

According to the agency’s statement:

The Florida Department of Corrections does not shackle or otherwise restrain female inmates in any stage of labor. As per the accompanying procedures pregnant inmates are restrained in wrist restraints in front of their body during transport outside the facility for medical appointments and closely escorted by a corrections officer utilizing a ‘custodial touch’ to insure that the officer can provide assistance should the inmate stumble or otherwise become unstable so as to assist her in preventing a fall. A pregnant woman, who is being transported, may be restrained in this manner, depending upon her custody level and behavior. If the inmate is already in labor during transport, she will not be restrained. In the hospital after delivery is complete, inmates are tethered to their beds by one ankle. This is the department’s standard restraint practice for inmates in outside hospitals to provide security for the hospital and to prevent escapes. Additionally, there is a correctional officer in the room with them at all times, to be sure they have access to the bathroom or any other needs they may have.

Reed, along with civil liberties and reproductive rights advocates, believe each state should have specific policy in place that would deter bad practices.

“I know the Department of Corrections wasn’t happy,” Reed says, “but I am going to keep on filing [the bill].”

Reed says she “in no way supports the criminal behavior of the women.” However, she does believe that they should receive humane treatment.

“We are not telling [the Department of Corrections] how to do their job,” she says. “This is a human issue.”

Tammy Crime Bills, Female Inmates, Florida

Canada Tories Rush Debate On Crime Bill

September 28th, 2011
Comments Off
mulcairsept27-620

NDP House leader Thomas Mulcair speaks to reporters outside the House of Commons before debate begins to limit the amount of time MPs will have for consideration of the Conservatives' omnibus crime legislation. (Sean Kilpatrick/CP)

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan has moved to significantly limit debate on the government’s latest omnibus crime bill, using a tactic one veteran NDP MP denounced as “nasty” and intended to “stifle debate.”

Passing the legislation within 100 sitting days of Parliament was one of the Conservatives’ campaign commitments. Report by CBC News Canada.

Government MPs used their majority to win the vote on a time allocation motion Tuesday morning by a margin of 158-133.

Van Loan’s time allocation motion was provoked by a Liberal attempt last week to delay the legislation by a “reasoned amendment” which would have deleted every page of the more than 100-page bill.

The Liberals gave a variety of reasons for wanting to stall the process, saying the bill ignores the best evidence on public safety, crime prevention and rehabilitating offenders, the government hasn’t provided a clear cost estimate, and that bundling so much legislation together “will compromise Parliament’s ability to review and scrutinize its contents and implications on behalf of Canadians.”

The safe streets and communities act was introduced only last week when the House of Commons returned from its summer recess. Following the passage of the motion, the House debates the bill at second reading for only two more days before it next comes to a vote as early as Wednesday evening.

After that vote, the bill moves on for study at the House justice committee, which is chaired by a Conservative MP and has a majority of Conservative MPs who can vote to protect the government’s intentions for the bill in committee. The legislation could theoretically be in front of the justice committee as early as next Tuesday.

On Twitter, NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies decried Van Loan’s “nasty motion on C10 crime bill to stifle debate.”

One rookie Tory MP, Mark Strahl, fired back from his account: “Media and opposition express shock at CPC plans to pass tough on crime bill. We’re just delivering on campaign promises. Get used to it.”

Pamela Stephens, a spokesperson for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, wrote CBC to offer that “while the Opposition [parties] continue to look at ways to delay or obstruct these important measures, Canadians gave our [government] a strong and clear mandate to continue making our streets and communities safer.”

Before debate on the motion began, Opposition House leader Thomas Mulcair summoned reporters to the foyer Tuesday morning to protest the government’s attempt to “shove this down the throats of Parliamentarians.”

Mulcair expressed particular concern about the costs of the legislation, which imposes mandatory minimum jail sentences that could significantly ramp up prison costs both federally and provincially.

“If the Conservatives remain bloody-minded about this, that they’re going to impose the guillotine no matter what, and that they’re going to have this show of force, they might be able to use their majority,” Mulcair admitted, adding that “Canadians will decode that they’re not respectful of our institutions, but they’ll also understand across Canada…that the long-standing argument of the Conservatives that they were different from the Liberals, that they were not going to be downloading massive costs onto the provinces, is a falsehood.”

“The NDP always objects to spending money when it comes to fighting violent crime,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson shot back during question period. “I’m proud to be part of a party that knows where money should be spent.”

“I’ll tell you who’s been silent, it’s the NDP on the cost of victims in this country,” Nicholson said in response to another question about the government’s refusal to disclose more details about the cost of the bill.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page started yesterday on an investigation of the costs of the omnibus crime bill and hopes to report back to Parliament in 60 days.

The NDP wants to extract from the bill several measures on which they believe it could be possible to get unanimous consent in the House, and pass those quickly: new offences to protect children, putting victims rights in the parole process into law, and changes to lengthen the time period in which offenders must demonstrate crime-free behaviour in order to become eligible for parole.

During question period, NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said the government was wrong to shut down a bill Parliamentarians had spent “less than four minutes a page debating.” Comartin said he would ask the government to agree to fast-tracking these measures on which everyone could agree.

“We offered to do that before but then we got a majority and now they’ve withdrawn that,” Nicholson replied.

The justice minister said the NDP want the part of the bill that cracks down on drug dealers removed. “Nobody is going to agree to that. Let’s get the whole thing passed. That’s what Canadians want,” he said.

During his morning press conference, Mulcair had vowed that the government will have a major fight on its hands when it comes to other aspects of the bill, including its “copycat American three strikes, you’re out” policy on criminal pardons (which the NDP argues has failed in the U.S.), the centralizing of arbitrary control over international prisoner transfers in the justice minister’s office (which did not make it all the way through the previous Parliament before the election was called), and moves to impose a “U.S.-style war on drugs” which the NDP believes also has failed in the U.S.

Tammy Canada, Crime Bills, Rehabilitation