Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a ruling that will require the state of California to release thousands of prisoners before their sentences expire. I know that many citizens feel threatened by such a ruling. Those taxpayers have been influenced by the propaganda machine of the enormously powerful lobbyists who represent the so-called corrections system. Ironically, citizens have been deluded into believing that long-term imprisonment of all offenders is a good strategy for America. They ignore the unbiased statistics which show that the longer society locks a person in our system of corrections, the less capable that individual becomes to function in society upon release.

Leaders need to reform America’s prison system. Rather than measuring justice through the turning of calendar pages, we need a system that would encourage offenders to work toward earning freedom through merit. Rather than a system that extinguishes hope among the 2.4 million people locked inside cages, we need a system that inspires offenders to work toward reconciling with society. Prison reforms should launch programs that help individuals emerge successfully; they should not perpetuate cycles of failure.

One area that administrators may consider reforming would be the system of minimum-security prison camps. What is the point of these facilities? I understand that they serve the interests of lobbyists and the businesses that provide goods and services to the prison industry. Yet they do not serve a legitimate interest to taxpayers.

Much earlier in my prison term, I was confined in a medium-security prison where Warden Dennis Luther presided. At the time, Warden Luther had more tenure than any other warden in the Bureau of Prisons. I was studying independently toward a graduate degree at the time, and Warden Luther extended me the privilege of interviewing him for several hours. If he could, Warden Luther said that he would close all prison camps. He said they represented a waste of taxpayer resources and that they served no useful purpose.

Since 2003, when administrators dropped my security classification to minimum, I have served my time in minimum-security camps. No fences have confined me. While in the camp, administrators have assigned me to jobs that placed me in direct and unsupervised contact with society. If administrators have classified me as posing no threat to society, and they allow me the degree of trust to serve my sentence under the honor system, in a prison without walls or fences, then why shouldn’t I conclude the remainder of my term under the strict conditions of home confinement? Why shouldn’t I be working in a legitimate employment position where I would pay my taxes rather than wasting taxpayer resources in an open prison?

The American prison system is ripe for reform. It generates recidivism rates that exceed 60 percent, and taxpayers fund these cycles of failure with nearly $60 billion in public expenditures each year. One place to start prison reform would be to release those in minimum-security camps into community confinement programs that would require appropriate offenders who do not pose a threat to society to pay their own way. Such a reform may not serve the interests of lobbyists for corrections, but it would serve the interests of the American citizens.

The post Prison Camps Waste Taxpayer Resources appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Federal law provides wardens with the discretion to grant brief furloughs to prisoners once they have advanced to within two years of their scheduled release dates. Wardens who have presided over the prisons where I have been confined, however, were reluctant to exercise their discretion in granting furloughs to prisoners. Some refused to grant furloughs at all, while other were parsimonious in their willingness to provide prisoners with passes to reestablish community ties. Prison reforms should provide prisoners with objective paths they can pursue to earn their furlough privileges.

Not all people in prison are appropriate for furlough consideration. Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society and whose behavior shows that aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Wardens should use the furlough program as a tool to shape such adjustments.

Rather than dispensing furlough passes in a miserly fashion, or refusing to grant furloughs at all, wardens ought to encourage qualifying prisoners to apply for furlough use so they can prepare to emerge from confinement successfully. Prisoners who want to enroll in local community colleges or vocational schools ought to have the privilege of daily furloughs so they can earn certifications or credentials that will help them find employment upon release. Those who can receive employment or who can provide services to local communities ought to have access to regular furloughs. Those who have family support ought to earn furloughs regularly so they can play a more active role in keeping their families together.

Prison administrators abuse their discretion by discouraging and minimizing use of the furlough program. Prisoners who advance to within two years of their release dates, and who have behaved in ways to warrant minimum-security classifications, ought to have access to strengthen community ties through access to regular furloughs. Those prisoners are confined in open prison camps and administrators have classified them as being nonthreatening to society. Since they will live in American communities, taxpayers have an interest in ensuring that they are well prepared to function as law-abiding citizens. As such, prison reforms ought to mandate expansion of the furlough program to offer qualified inmates opportunities to earn credentials, certifications, employment, and to strengthen community ties. These are the types of prison reforms necessary to lower recidivism rates.

The post Prison Furloughs Can Lower Recidivism appeared first on Prison News Blog.

In my article Comparisons of Three Federal Prison Camps within The Bureau of Prisons, I described three separate prison camps where I have served time. Those camps include the camp at Florence, the camp at Lompoc, and the camp at Taft. There were significant differences between each. Yet if an individual adjusts well, he can succeed in either of the camps.

With regard to Eric’s question about judicial requests for specific camp placement, I do think the Bureau of Prisons takes a judicial recommendation into consideration. Yet the BOP is crowded, and sometimes administrators cannot accommodate the court by assigning an inmate to a specific camp. Yet the BOP has a policy of trying to keep offenders in camps that are closest to the individual’s recorded residence. I think the defendant should learn as much as possible about the various prison camps, and then he should certainly ask the judge to make a recommendation. In my experience of speaking with other prisoners, the BOP grants the judge’s request better than eight out of ten times, provided the security level is appropriate.

The key point to remember is that more than the specific camp, it is the security level that makes all the difference. Inmates in a camp, generally, are less volatile than inmates in higher security prisons. That is an excellent reason to pursue camp placement. For more information on prisons and the people they hold, I urge readers to check out the articles catalog and the daily content I provide at www.prisonnewsblog.com.

The post Should Prisoners Request Specific Prison Camp Placements? appeared first on Prison News Blog.