As the Pew Report shows, 1 in 31 Americans serve under the authority of the criminal justice system. Prisons are not changing these people for the better. Congress has reported on the high recidivism rates that make this clear. We need prison reform to change these dismal results.

By blocking prisoners from nurturing strong family ties, policies in the prison condition the perpetuating cycles of failure. Rather than restricting access to telephone, visiting, and e-mail, administrators ought to encourage prisoners to nurture family ties. Society pays the price with high recidivism rates when administrators hinder prisoners from connecting with family and positive role models.

Prison administrators could encourage more offenders to reform and work toward law-abiding lives if they offered mechanisms through which prisoners could earn gradual increases in freedom. Such mechanisms have not existed in prisons where I have been held. All that has mattered has been the number of calendar pages that turned and the avoidance of disciplinary infractions. Such policies do not encourage money. This is the fundamental flaw that keeps both recidivism rates and prison operating costs high. Prison reforms that offer incentives can persuade more prisoners to adjust in positive ways.

In a previous article I wrote that prison camps waste taxpayer resources. I’ve been confined to various prison camps since 2003. No physical boundaries prevent prisoners in camp from walking away. Since camp prisoners serve time according to an honor system, and administrators have classified camp prisoners as not posing a threat to society, I argued that prison camps ought to close and those assigned to camps ought to serve community-based sanctions. Jesus observed that most white-collar offenders who were sentenced to prison served their terms in prison camps. He asked how I thought society should punish white-collar criminals if camps were shut down.

The Pew Report documents the billions of dollars taxpayers spend to fund America’s prison system. That report showed that $9 of every $10 spent on corrections goes to fund prisons. Community confinement centers, on the other hand, cost taxpayers far less to operate. Such sanctions may present opportunities for offenders to pay their own costs of supervision. Yet not all offenders would be appropriate for such diversions or alternatives to incarceration.

I am of the opinion that citizens ought to measure justice by an offender’s efforts at reconciling with society. Those citizens who evaluate an offender should take into consideration much more than calendar pages that turn. An enlightened society such as ours has many options. Though as Justice Kennedy said in his speech to the American Bar Association, we incarcerate far too many people, and our prisoners serve for too long.

An offender like Madoff, who bilked billions, and who was more concerned about his own affairs than the interests of his victims or reconciling with society ought to face imprisonment. In some cases, society may deem it just to keep a criminal like Madoff in prison for life. Since he is 70 already, that may not be much longer.

Whether an offender is convicted of a white collar crime or another type of crime, I believe society would reap more rewards from its criminal justice system if it offered offenders mechanisms through which they could work to redeem themselves and earn gradual increases in freedom. Once they earn minimum-security status, however, they ought to release to a community-based sanction. Camps waste taxpayer resources.

When I think of correcting, I think of making something right. To me, when discussing the context of the prison environment, an emphasis on corrections would imply an emphasis on preparing offenders to emerge as law-abiding, contributing citizens. The irony is that statistics show that the longer society exposes an individual to corrections, the less likely that individual is to function successfully upon release.

Since statistics show that 70 percent of the people who serve time in prison return to confinement after their release, and independent researchers like those who produced The Pew Report show that prison expenditures divert tens of billions each year from social programs like education and health care, it would seem to me that the “institutionalized lifestyle” does not function so well as a tool for correcting. On the other hand, prisons perform brilliantly as a system for warehousing human beings. They are extremely effective at facilitating cultures where gangs and antisocial values proliferate. They encourage us-versus-them attitudes. Perhaps one of the greatest successes of the prison system is that, thanks to prison lobbyists, they have generated billions in profits for the businesses and organizations that provide the goods and services to keep the industry growing. Those accomplishments have come at the cost of losses in funding for programs that actually reduce crime, especially educational funding, but prisons have been booming for longer than two decades.

As a long-term prisoner, I have considered it my responsibility to overcome the challenges that confinement presents. I began serving my term at 23, and I felt a deep sense of remorse for the shame and disappointment my criminal convictions had brought to my family. That remorse motivated my prison adjustment. I wanted to adjust in a way that would help me redeem the bad decisions I had made as a younger man. By educating myself, I hoped to prepare for release and for reconciliations with society.

I’ve served more than 21 years in prisons across the United States, and I’ve lived through the pernicious influences of the penitentiary system. I feel as if I have a duty to help Americans understand more about the failure this system breeds. It is not because I expect changes will advance my release date. I’ve served my time and expect to continue until my sentence expires. Yet as a citizen of this country that I love, I feel as if I must debunk the myths that prison propaganda perpetuates.

Our country incarcerates far too many people and prisoners serve sentences that are far too long, as Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed. We need prison reforms that will serve the interests of American citizens, not the interests of those who profit from warehousing humanity.

Katie A., a college student,  asked what kind of policy changes I would suggest to increase the possibilities for correction in America’s prison system.

Naturally, I recognize the need for prison staff members to maintain security and order within an institution. Prisons exist to protect society. When policies create oppressive environments, however, they lessen the likelihood of encouraging reform among the offenders that prisons hold. High recidivism rates make this clear. The Pew Report recently published findings that show how our prison system has grown. Despite $9 of every $10 in correctional spending going to confine people in prison, the Second Chance Act published findings that show seven of every 10 prisoners recidivate. Although I’ve been a prisoner for more than 21 years, that data suggests to me that this public policy is in need of reform.

We need prison reforms that do not necessarily make prisons more lenient, but rather provide incentives that would encourage offenders to work toward earning freedom through merit. When administrators implement policies that extinguish hope, that require staff members to do nothing more than guard, they miss an opportunity to create an environment where real growth can take place.

The policies that I would change would be those that totally isolate offenders from hope of making meaningful contributions to society. Rather than telling prisoners that the only matter of importance is the turning of calendar pages, I would recommend reforms that offer mechanisms through which prisoners can work to reconcile with society.

If prisoners perceived that they could work toward making a positive change in their classification and status through merit, prisons would inspire hope. That hope would lessen the troubling tendency of negative adjustments. The high rates of failure that our nation’s prisons condition are well documented. My experience convinces me that prison reforms that include incentives would create an atmosphere where corrections can take place. Such reforms would lower recidivism rates, lower operating costs of prisons, and lead to safer societies.

Richard is a criminal justice student who wants to know what I believe we can expect with regard to prison reform. Obviously, as a long-term prisoner I do not have an inside track on information. Nevertheless, I can infer that President Obama will act decisively. I base my influence on what I have read of his leadership thus far.

Matt Kelley reported on The End of Federal Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. That change marks a decisive break from the policies that existed under Bush. It provided further evidence that President Obama would not allow politics to drive his leadership. He recognized that science trumped ideology when it came to leadership.

In speaking about his decision to provide federal funding for stem-cell research, President Obama clearly stated that he would rely upon objective data from qualified experts to influence his decisions. I feel strongly that President Obama will use that same criteria when it comes to prison reform.

The Pew Report recently published data that shows the extraordinary expenditures Americans waste on confining more than 2.3 million people. Justice Anthony Kennedy, of the U.S. Supreme Court, said that our nation confines too many people and American prisoners serve sentences that are too long. Senator Jim Webb has called for prison reform panels. Many from academia have published findings showing that taxpayers receive more benefit through community-based sanctions for nonviolent offenders.

Prison lobbyists have driven the prison boom over the past two decades. And a paucity of leadership from prior presidents has resulted in extraordinarily high costs for taxpayers. I expect to see prison reforms under President Obama’s leadership that will change these trends.

I totally agree with Rachel. It is a travesty that any citizen in our country lacks the resources to advance his or her academic or vocational training. People who want to improve their qualifications to lead more meaningful lives and contribute to society ought to have ample opportunities to find support. It is in the interest of every American to improve the educational levels of our populace. The more we educate our citizens, the more we advance the goal of enlightenment in our society.

According to Solomon Moore’s article on 3 March 2009 in the New York Times, one reason that law-abiding citizens lack access to educational funding opportunities is that billions of dollars have been diverted from investments in social programs. Those funds have been swallowed by out-of-control spending to expand our nation’s prison system. Rachel is correct in that too much money is taken away from programs that can help advance our society; that money has been wasted on the pernicious system of the penitentiary.

Rachel’s concern about prisoners who earn degrees is misplaced, however. Although there has been a surge in prison spending, those funds have gone for construction costs, staffing, and the billions needed ot provide the goods and services necessary to keep millions of people locked up. Prisoners have not had access to Pell Grants since the mid-1990s. Even then, the emphasis was not on educating prisoners. I was confined in a high security penitentiary with more than 2,500 other prisoners, yet I was the only prisoner to earn a university degree in that institution.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently released a report available at www.ussc.gov. That report shows the overwhelming growth of our prison system. The Pew Report showed the criminal corrections spending quadrupled over the past two decades, outpacing all spending other than medicaid. Much of that spending is wasted, as our system incarcerates far too many people, and it keeps them in prison for far longer than necessary, as one of our supreme court justices expressed. A consequence of this misguided public policy is that funds are available to the prison system, and those funds were diverted from more useful social programs that can help law-abiding citizens.

I am but one example. I could have been released after I served eight years. By then I had earned two degrees. I had made significant efforts to reconcile with society and was well prepared to make contributions that would provide a return on the investment in my education. Instead of being released, however, taxpayers paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue my confinement. I’ve served 21 years now. Yet taxpayers will spend more than $100,000 to confine me for another four years. Will this serve the interest of justice? I don’t think so. Though it will divert tax dollars from funding education programs for worthy citizens.

Administrators want this gravy train of funding for corrections to continue. To believe they want to see recidivism rates drop would be akin to believing tobacco companies want people to stop smoking. It is bad public policy, but the expenditures keep prison lobbyists busy. Unfortunately, the expenditures are diverted from useful programs that can help ordinary Americans.

As I read her question, I understood that it came from the premise of the conservative principle that prisons deter crime. I am much more of a liberal. This philosophical debate goes back centuries, articulated well between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes believed that man was inherently evil and that only strict laws and punishment would keep the beast in line. Locke, on the other hand, believed that we all began as a clean slate, and our behaviors were learned in accordance with our exposures to society.

I am convinced that society can deter crime best by educating its populace. People pursue crime, I believe, because they do not perceive mechanisms through which they can reach the American dream. At least that is what I believe to be the motivation that drives most financial crimes. Myriad factors drive violent crimes, including passion and lost senses due to substance abuse, depression, and hopelessness. I am not convinced that the threat of prison serves as an adequate deterrence.

The prison lobbyists that have an interest in expanding prison budgets would disagree, as they seek to deter funding from social programs to expand this system of human warehousing. The recently released Pew Report shows that prison expenditures have grown at a much faster rate than other social programs, though I don’t believe more prison has stopped anyone from criminal behavior.

Deterring crime in society begins with bringing more access to opportunity. As government leaders implement reforms that will provide all Americans with a path to fulfillment, I feel convinced that more citizens will strive to leave as contributing members of society. Hopelessness, racism, inequality, and other social injustices lead many to crime. With those afflictions, I do not think that prisons serve as a deterrent. But my perceptions, of course, have been influenced from the 21-plus years I’ve spent locked inside of prison boundaries.

I recognize that prisons serve a purpose in our society. They must isolate those who prey upon others and whose behavior demonstrates an unwillingness to accept the values that make America great. Yet prison lobbyists have succeeded in deluding others into believing that we need more and more prisons. This wrongheaded emphasis has resulted in public policies that lead to massive prison expenditures and reduced expenditures on education and health care. Take a look at the problem in the great state of California.

The corrections system has grown by massive proportions, though recidivism rates show that little correcting is going on. Meanwhile, education budgets are slashed to make room for more prison spending. People with last names like Santos or Diaz or Torres are told that there is no funding for college of unemployment. If they lack a strong set of personal values or moral code, they make bad decisions, as I did. The response that has guided public policy for at least 20 years has been to lock those people in prison, but I don’t think it has deterred crime. Perhaps I am wrong, though I feel more emphasis on education and social equality would lead to a safer society.

Good morning Toastmasters and guests. Thank you for the honor of your attendance and attention.

I want everyone in this room to know that I stand here with an immense amount of optimism, and I am convinced that my good spirits come with a sound basis in reality. As most of you know, on Tuesday, March 11, the United States Senate passed The Second Chance Act of 2007. Members of the House of Representatives passed that same legislation late last year. According to a March 12 report from the Wall Street Journal, the Bill will be sent to President Bush for signature. The process has thus begun to make the Second Chance Act law.

Many people here at Taft Camp have questioned me on whether I think this legislation will change anything within the federal prison system. I do.
Others have expressed pessimism, believing that administrators will drag their feet in implementing changes, and that in the end, all policies will remain the same. Although I can understand and appreciate such cynicism, my experience compels me to respectfully disagree.

To explain the position that I am taking, I want to discuss this legislation from a historical perspective. Then I will provide details that Congress has published with the Act, and there are many. Based on those details, I have taken the initiative to offer suggestions for administrators both at this institution and within the BOP, and I will share those suggestions with you.

As I said, I want to begin from a historical perspective. What I would like to do is take you all back to 1989. Back then, I don’t expect that anyone in this room—other than me—was thinking about the criminal justice system. Certainly none of you thought that the possibility of serving time in prison would have been a complication you would have to confront.

Yet in 1989, I was already in my second year of confinement. Back then I was confined inside the high walls of the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta. You may be surprised to learn that many of the prisoners in high security paid close attention to politics. The reason, of course, was that political leaders influenced the policies that governed the lives of people in prison.

As you may remember, George Herbert Walker Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the 1988 Presidential election; the first Bush took office from Ronald Reagan in 1989. The time that I want to remind you about was President Bush’s first address to the nation from the Oval office. Hundreds of prisoners sat inside the second-floor auditorium at USP Atlanta to watch President Bush’s televised discussion.

The purpose of President Bush’s speech was to warn Americans of the biggest threat facing America. He held up a bag of cocaine and said that the drugs he was holding had been purchased just a few blocks away from the White House. President Bush warned that it wasn’t only drugs that was threatening America, but an entire crime wave that threatened every citizen. He urged Congress to get tough on crime. Congress responded.

There is a long history of hysteria influencing legislation in this country and around the world. As recently as two weeks ago, I read an article in the USA Today newspaper indicating that in 1954, our nation faced a hysteria over comic books. Leaders in society were convinced that comic books threatened the values of our country; they were turning children into incorrigible juvenile delinquents. Legislators held hearings and put pressure on comic book artists and publishers. Soon there were rules that prohibited comic books from depicting law enforcement, courts, or any part of the establishment in a demeaning way. That may seem crazy in today’s world of violent video games and other content that has become so much a part of our society. Yet history shows that legislation and acceptance follows leadership. People have a tendency to act without thinking when leaders ask.

Look back further in world history. Some people in this room may be familiar with the Grand Inquisition, which resulted in tens of thousands losing their lives through hideous torture because those in power felt challenged by contrary beliefs. We can look at Salem witch trials that occurred much earlier in our country. Why? Because leaders felt threatened and needed a cause to unite the people, and sometimes leaders rely on fear and hatred to unite.

When President Bush held up that bag of cocaine in the Oval office for all Americans to see, he ignited a panic across our great land. Suddenly, Americans feared the great crime wave. Congress responded by passing legislation that showed how tough those leaders were on crime. The new laws did not only have an influence on people convicted of drug offenses. Every person in prison suffered.

Legislation that passed in 1984 had already abolished parole and decimated opportunities to earn good time. President Bush’s speech, however, persuaded Congress to do more. The Congress passed legislation that would prohibit prisoners from funding college educations with Pell grants. It took away funding programs to assist people upon release. The nation became much more punitive. No matter how tough legislators made laws and the conditions of confinement, American citizens were hungry for more.

The mood of the country then was somber, at least as related to those who had been convicted of breaking laws. Administrators of these prisons imposed the will of the people. No one wanted to risk being labeled “soft on crime” by arguing that people in prison needed programs to emerge successfully. The lust was for punishment, punishment, punishment. Society wanted its pound of flesh.

No one questioned what the costs of this lust for punishment would be, neither in human nor in financial terms. People did not ask whether the draconian approach to criminal justice was right. Legislators had passed the laws, and that settled all discussion on the matter.

Of course our country has a history of accepting laws, regardless of whether those laws are right. Everyone in this room knows that at one time our laws approved slavery as being right. In fact, our country’s original Constitution held that some people only counted as three-fifths of a human being. Yet many citizens were loathe to question or change such deplorable positions.

Other bad laws included the Alien and Sedition Act that President John Adams passed to quell dissent. Under those laws, anyone who expressed dissent from government leadership was vulnerable to prosecution and time in prison. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or other right-wing fanatics would not have been able to avoid the penitentiary if those laws remained on our books.

At various times in our history, Congress had passed laws that made it a crime to drink alcohol, or for women to vote. Those laws, I remind you, were rooted in public hysteria that was once launched by leadership. Voters accepted them without question. Such was the same response to George Bush’s call for tougher rather than smarter approaches to crime.

Well, gentlemen, we are no longer in 1989. America’s citizens are no longer willing to accept those simple-minded responses to criminal justice. In fact, some of America’s most influential scholars and leaders began calling for change a few years ago. In 2003, at a conference before the American Bar Association, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court gave a keynote address on the ineffective reliance on our nation’s prison system. He said that our resources were being misspent, our punishments were too severe, and that our sentences were too long.

In 2004, during his State of the Union speech, the current President Bush spoke about the need for legislation that would help released offenders re-enter society. A wave of studies were then published that urged legislators to change the way our system operated.

Two of the most recent studies that have been widely cited include the one titled Unlocking America, and another known as The Pew Report. Both of those studies were presented by some of America’s leading penologists. Some statistics that I extricated from those reports follow:

• In 1970, our country incarcerated fewer than 200,000 people.
• In 2007, we incarcerated more than 2.3 million people.
• Our nation processes more than 10 million people into jails and prisons each year.
• Americans serve sentences that are significantly longer than anywhere else in the world.
• Our nation pays more than $60 billion per year to confine our prisoners, more than $200 billion per year to fund our criminal justice system.

The Pew Report held that 1 in every 53 people in their 20s was behind bars. That same report held that 1 in every 36 Hispanic men over 18 was incarcerated; for black men that number climbed to 1 in every 15. Between the ages of 20 to 34, 1 in every 9 black men was in prison. Overall, 1 in every 99 U.S. adults was incarcerated. These numbers come at an extraordinary cost. In Oregon, for example, 11 cents of every dollar in the state’s general fund is spent on corrections. While prison funds have escalated, American investment in education has not kept pace. In fact, our nation’s lust to punish over the past 30 years has boosted budgets on prison spending far beyond that of any other programs.

Some may ask why, or how this spending grew so out of control. As I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, my observations suggest that tougher punishments had roots in claims from our leadership that America faced a crime wave. By holding up that bag of cocaine in the Oval office, and using his awesome influence to tell Americans that we needed to toughen up on crime, President Bush launched the War-on-Crime lobby. They argued for harsh mandatory punishments to incapacitate, deter, and punish. Broadcasters recognized that reporting on crime drew large audiences, and so crime reports led the news. Soon contractors and suppliers of these prisons began arguing for more government spending to fund the prison boom. Our nation’s leadership had spread misconceptions that drove a perfect storm for the imprisonment binge.

That growth in our prison system, however, came with consequences. People in prison couldn’t support their children. Prisons alienated offenders from their communities. Those who returned to society struggled to overcome the stigma of incarceration. Tough treatment resulted in a cycle of recidivism.

America is now taking notice of the ineffectiveness of our criminal justice system. Every day, media reports are showing that the approach of the past 20 years has cost too much, in terms of both financial dollars and human lives. The hysteria to confine is dead. Americans are now calling for a smarter approach to the criminal justice system, and the Second Chance Act of 2007 represents the first Bill of prison and sentence reform; I expect that we will see many more in the years to come.

From a personal perspective, I can tell you all that this is a huge change. As I have published in the various books that I have written, prison administrators have told me in the past that they had no interest in steps I was taking to prepare for a law-abiding life upon release. Their only concern was the security of the institution. This historic legislation, however, will change that mission. Now, Congress is demanding that prison administrators prepare offenders for re-entry. I am optimistic because Congress has published some categorical statements with this Act. In fact, the stated purpose of the Act is to “Break the cycle of recidivism.”

Further, the Act proposes “to rebuild ties between offenders and their families, while offenders are incarcerated… to promote stable families and communities.” To me, this means huge changes are to come.

From a political perspective, I also am encouraged by the promising candidacy of Barack Obama. My hopes are that he will win the White House, as I am convinced that he offers the most hope for a new style of leadership. With Obama, the chances for prison reform increase exponentially. In a speech he delivered in Philadelphia, Senator Obama spoke about the importance of prison ministries. He spoke about young men languishing in our prisons without hope or prospects for the future. He spoke about ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system. That is the type of leadership I want to govern our country, and I am convinced that Obama will do more to unite this nation than any President since Lincoln.

Those are the reasons that I stand before you with optimism today. Although the Second Chance Act of 2007 may not provide us with a get-out-of-jail-free card, or give us $200 when we pass “Go,” it is a start in the direction toward real prison reform. That gives me hope.

Personally, I am nearly finished with my sentence. But after 21 years in prison, I still feel a connection with every other man in confinement. I may not receive much benefit from the prison reform that I am predicting, but I feel as if I am brother with each of you. I know the struggles of living in separation from those I love. I know the struggles of preparing for meaningful lives. Yet I feel a great sense of hope that the people who are beginning long sentences today will see significant change within the next three years.

With the Second Chance Act, some of the immediate benefits include more access to halfway house, and the possibility of release to home confinement for elderly offenders. More important to me, however, was the expanded duties of prison administrators. Congress has recognized the importance of family ties. Specifically, the Act found evidence to suggest that inmates who are connected to their children and families were more likely to avoid incidents, and that released prisoners cited family support as the most important factors in helping them stay out of prison. Because Congress also found that families were an often underutilized resource in the re-entry process, my hopes are that administrators will institute more opportunities for those of us in prison to nurture closer family and community ties. In an effort to help administrators understand how they could expand programs to implement the will of Congress, I offered suggestions to the warden at Taft Camp and to administrators in Washington. To nurture closer family ties, I wrote, administrators ought to expand access to visiting. They should eliminate the 300-minute telephone restriction, or in the alternative, they should encourage inmates to earn supplemental phone and visiting privileges through good behavior and program participation. They should introduce the inmate e-mail program to all prisons. Inmates ought to earn access to furloughs through objective means, and eligible inmates ought to have the ability to attend academic or vocational programs on campus at local colleges. Further, inmates ought to be able to sit on a guidance committee through which they can make suggestions to administrators that would help inmates preserve and nurture community ties.

Rather than continuing to govern prisons in a manner that conditioned inmates to fail upon release, I am optimistic that the Second Chance Act of 2007 will push administrators to implement helpful programs. In fact, the legislation requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to report to Congress regularly; he must describe steps he is taking to reduce recidivism. That is an obligation that has not existed before, and it bodes well for every individual serving time in America. That is my take on this historic legislation. It is the reason that I am so optimistic for additional legislation on prison reform in years to come.

In 1987, our country was implementing much more punitive policies. More people were being locked into the system, and changes in good-time policies, along with the abolition of parole and longer sentences meant that fewer people were being released. New sentencing laws meant that offenders without histories of violence and who had been convicted of crimes against the public order with consenting adults could serve life terms. As a consequence of those changes, our prison population levels soared. After more than 20 years of such policies, we now incarcerate more than 1 in 100 Americans. Among minorities, the ratio is much higher. For black males between the ages of 18 and 34, the recently published Pew Report shows that 1 in 9 are incarcerated.

For the first time since my own term began, the media is publishing story after story about the absurdity and waste of these lengthy sentences. Change is coming, of that I am convinced. The Second Chance Act is only the beginning. If Obama wins the White House, I expect that prison reform will become a priority. By incarcerating so many offenders, many of whom have no history of violence, our country wastes incredible resources.

We should use our prison resources more wisely, and in years to come, I expect that we will. I am closing in on my release date, so I do not expect to benefit from these coming changes. Yet those who are beginning lengthy sentences in this new political climate can expect to see new opportunities to advance their release dates. Within three years, by 2011, I expect we will see significant reforms, perhaps even a return to parole. If not parole, then legislators may implement other opportunities for offenders to advance their release dates through merit.

Those who are coming into this system now ought to position themselves to receive the most benefit from these coming changes. They should refrain from behavior that can lead to disciplinary infractions, as prison records will play a huge role in qualifying for relief. Further, new prisoners should participate actively in every type of program that can further the argument that the individual is preparing for a law-abiding life upon release.

Besides earning every credential possible, I suggest that new prisoners keep a journal that documents progress. The tri-part strategy that has guided me through more than 20 years in prison required that I focus on educational development, building a strong network of support, and community contributions. That focus has worked for me, and I am convinced it can help incoming prisoners position themselves for the relief that ought to become available before 2011.