From Boston University Online Masters in Criminal Justice

Massachusetts has been dreadful in terms of how many people it gives a second chance to. In the past two years Deval Patrick's "parole folly" has meant revamping the board and replacing members after a knee jerk reaction to a parolee's crime; a refusal to stop stacking the board with members who are heavily law and order oriented rather than seriously involved with treatment. Most recently I wrote how the refusal to change parole board direction has resulted in less public safety and more expense in "Locked Up and Nowhere to Go."

Now a host of activists groups have signed on to a letter to Governor Patrick suggesting that the next member of the board should be someone who has the trainig and expertise to deal with the enormity of the drug and alcohol affictions of people who get involved in crime. WILL THE GOVERNOR RESPOND? Here is the letter and the organizations which have signed on so far. The letter was written by the Steering Committee of the Coalition for Effective Public Safety (CEPS).                                                                                                                      

"We are members of a coalition of individuals, agencies, and associations of Massachusetts residents that advocate for fairness in criminal justice proceedings, corrections and parole.  We are writing to advocate for the fairest possible process in filling the current Parole Board vacancy with an individual who is both committed to the objectives of parole and who has a background in substance misuse and alcohol addiction.

We understand that the statute governing appointments to the Parole Board, M.G.L. c.27, sec. 4, calls for persons to be appointed to the Board who have had at least five years of education and experience in either “parole, probation, corrections, law, law enforcement, psychology, psychiatry, sociology [or] social work.”  We are asking you to nominate a candidate who has had at least five years of experience in treating drug addiction and alcoholism. 

According to the Department of Correction, approximately 80% of the persons incarcerated in Massachusetts state prisons have issues with substance addiction.[1]/  Sheriffs estimate that the same figure is true for the house of correction population.[2]/  The vast majority of criminal behavior in the State is influenced by or somehow involves substance misuse. 

It is clear that the Commonwealth would be best served by having Parole Board members who are versed in the issues that face those in our prisons. When prisoners appear at their parole hearings, there are three areas on which the Board generally focuses in determining readiness for parole:  the prisoner’s understanding of the causal factors of the crime; what the prisoner has done during his or her incarceration to address or treat the causal factors; and what resources or supports the prisoner will need in the community to succeed.  Accordingly, in approximately 80% of the cases the Parole Board hears, expertise in substance misuse is necessary in making an informed and sensible decision. Our Parole Board, however, does not appear to have any  members who have  treated or worked in a professional capacity with persons suffering from drug addiction or alcoholism.  At present there are two former prosecutors on the Board (Chairman Josh Wall and Ina Howard-Hogan), one former defense attorney (Tonomey Coleman),  one former corrections administrator (Sheila Dupre), one former victim advocate (Lucy Soto-Abbe) and one former court clinician (psychologist Charlene Bonner).  Although Ms. Soto-Abbe has a degree in forensic psychology and may have studied substance misuse, it does not appear that she has experience in diagnosing, treating, or working with this population.  She worked in the Hampden District Attorney’s Office as a victim/witness advocate since graduating college until the time of her appointment to the Board.  Similarly, Dr. Bonner worked primarily as a court clinician and did not treat persons suffering from addiction to substances in her work as a psychologist.

An expert on substance misuse on the Board would not only contribute to more probative parole hearings, but such a Board member would be an invaluable asset in designing optimal  parole plans.  For example, when a person who is doing well on parole tests positive for alcohol or drug use, studies of evidence–based practices unequivocally state that for such technical violations the person should be treated in the community, not returned to prison.  In Massachusetts, however, the Board frequently returns such persons to prison.           

In addition, it is our understanding that a new qualification of five years of experience in business or public administration is being required to fill this particular vacancy. Such a requirement seems unnecessary and could well be a barrier to attracting qualified candidates for the position. We ask that well-qualified candidates not be excluded simply because they lack this experience and that the Governor’s office re-post for the position removing the requirement.  We also understand that resumes for the vacancy are being directed to Chairman Wall for initial review rather than to the Governor’s office. Such a practice raises questions about the impartiality of the process and runs the risk of inadequately considering the objective needs of the Parole Board.  We urge the Governor’s office to review all applicants’ resumes and to lead the hiring process. Finally, we ask the Governor’s office to ensure that the process of filling the vacancy is impartial and results in a candidate who can add a new and much needed dimension of expertise to the Board. 

Thank you for your consideration

Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
321 Walnut St. Box 473
Newton, MA 02460
Elizabeth A. Lunt, President
macdlweb@gmail.com

Prisoners’ Legal Services
10 Winthrop Sq. 3^rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Leslie Walker, Executive Director
617-482-2773
lwalker@plsma.org

Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Massachusetts Office
P.O. Box 54
Arlington, MA 02476
Barb Dougan, Project Director
617-543-0878
bdougan@famm.org

SPAN Inc.
105 Chauncy St. 6^th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Lyn Levy, Executive Director
617-423-0750
info@spaninc.org

Coalition for Effective Public Safety, CEPS
P.O Box 961401
Boston, MA 02196
508-254-2131

EPOCA, Ex-Prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement
5 Pleasant St.
Worcester, MA 01609
Steve O’Neil, Executive Director of Inter-State Organizing
508-410-7676

Real Cost of Prisons Project
5 Warfield Place
Northampton, MA 01060
Lois Ahrens, Director
info@realcostofprisons.org

Association for Behavioral Health
251 West Central St. Suite 21
Natick, MA 01760
Vic DiGravio, President/CEO
508-647-8385
vdigravio@ABHmass.org                                                                              

Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery
29 Winter St. 2^nd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Maryanne Frangules, Executive Director
617-423-6627
maryanne@moar-recovery.org

Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee
24 School St. 8^th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Phil Kassel, Executive Director
617-338-2345
MHLAC@mhlac.org

Criminal Justice Policy Coalition
15 Barbara St.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Andrew Zarro, Executive Director
617-807-0111

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
99 Chauncy St. Suite 500
Boston, MA 02111
Georgia Katsoulomitis, Executive Director
617-357-0700

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, Harvard Law School
1557 Mass Ave. Lewis Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Charles J. Ogletree Jr., Founding and Executive Director
617-495-8285
houstoninst@law.harvard.edu  

This week I have a post in Boston Magazine on what Massachusetts is now grappling with in the wake of a murder of a high school teacher by a fourteen-year-old boy. You can read that here.

I thought it also was important to post some of the most recent photos that were posted http://generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/uncompromising-photos-expose-juvenile-detention-in-america/

a blog detailing the horrible confinement juveniles face. See this

It was barely five months ago that I wrote for Boston Magazine: "By now, everyone has heard about the amazing sense of smell of bomb-sniffing dogs, which we saw on the front lines of the Boston Marathon bombings. But a new policy coming to state prisons that involves dogs trained to sniff out drugs could rattle some cages, and it should cause us to ask: Is Massachusetts turning down the wrong criminal justice path, aiming to fix a problem without getting at its core cause?"

Since then our state has plunged ahead, seemingly oblivious to the fact that while dogs are certainly useful as a way of sniffing out bombs and contraband, when I asked, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) could come up with no research to support this action. An international study conducted from Australia in 2008 on how contraband gets into prison raised concerns about the effectiveness of random dog searches. Without secrecy, the study says, searches are not as effective, and secrecy is nearly impossible. Searches slow down as soon as dogs are present, and instead of acting as a deterrent, the dogs act as signals that such searches are in process.

11,500 people who live in our Massachusetts state prisons depend on visits from their families to give them hope that, one day, they will have a second chance at a productive life. That means letters and visits can be lifelines for prisoners. “Successful family and community reunification,” is part of the mission of Corrections, according to a resolution of the American Corrections Association.

And the irony of this policy is it assumes drugs are being brought in primarily by vistors to state prisons, a response to a so-called "huge up-tick," per a DOC memo.The DOC's "Use of Nonaggressive Drug Detection Canines" — to assure four year olds that they should not be afraid? to say there is will be no fallout with sniffing visitors in the traps when they enter prison? — says there have been 177 instances in three years and ten months— slightly less than once a week. But Lois Ahrens, Executive Director of The Real Cost of Prisons Project (RCPP), who has mounted a campaign against the policy, says this in "no way accounts for the volume of drugs (and other contraband including cell phones and pizzas) in Massachusetts' prisons."

The DOC is currently recommending dog-sniffing of staff and guards, new on the front burner since I wrote my article in May. But ironically again, these sniffs will begin in November at random sites _Massachusetts has seventeen state facilities — and occur only during visiting hours on the  3-11 p.m.shift. This leaves sixteen hours every day guards are not being sniffed. How is that tackling the problem of guards, staff, attorneys and other DOC employees possibly bringing in contraband?

DOC Spokesperson Terrel Harris said in an email that the DOC found only “seven incidents of employees introducing drugs or contraband into the DOC.” His list was compiled from “a database search for ‘drugs’ and investigations for the ‘introduction of contraband’ and/or ‘criminal conduct while on duty’ for dates 1/1/11 through 3/21/13.”

This seems ridiculously low. There are easily hundreds of incidents nationwide of correctional officers bringing in drugs, cell phones and other contraband, readily searchable online. Nationwide arrests of federal prison guards—in part, for smuggling contraband—increased by 90 percent over the last decade. A Boston Globe editorial put it well: “It beggars belief to think all drugs in prisons come from visitors.” To solve this problem in Massachusetts, Ahrens said in an interview, “there needs to be a real internal investigation of DOC employees, staff, and guards.” Officials insist they have a zero-tolerance drug policy in prisons and that drug detection dogs have sniffed out drugs in letters and packages addressed to prisoners. In 2011 and 2012, the DOC says they confiscated 18 instances of drugs that came in through the mail.

Ahrens decries the idea that these "sniffs" of visitors are harmless. Currently, visitors are sent through a scanner, much like at an airport, and they’re often asked to take off articles of clothing such as shoes, belts, and the like. It’s not uncommon for an officer to inspect the bottom of a visitor’s feet, or to ask the visitor to open his mouth or to go through her hair. Andrea Cabral, Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) said in an interview that “Just the presence of the dog will keep people from bringing in drugs,” or so she hopes. But If the dog “alerts” to the smell of drugs on a visitor and sits, the visitor must consent to a “thorough search” by Department of Correction staff. If not, that person will be banned from entering any DOC facility. Accommodations will be made for those who have allergies or are “dog phobic,” but no one has mentioned what these accomodations are. There is the possibility, if drugs are found, of arrest on the spot.

Many family members of prisoners are not happy with this impending policy. A recent Globe article was highly critical of the plan, and social justice activists launched a letter and call-in campaign which you can find out more about on the RCPP facebook page. Ahrens feels the policy is “demeaning, degrading, and treats the visitor as a suspect, and dogs will make visiting even more cumbersome"—waits can be long. On the DOC website, the original video which showed the whole sniffing process has been shortened to show only a very friendly-looking golden retriever, obviously to make the process less intimidating and to justify the rationale.

A search of the visiting policies on DOC websites in nearby states showed no dog-sniffing policies mentioned in New York, Connecticut, Maine, or Rhode Island. New Hampshire considered dog detection but ultimately decided not to embrace the policy, said Jeff Lyons, Public Information Officer for their DOC, in a phone conversation. Vermont does allow drug-sniffing canines. But certainly, nationwide, there is no consensus. Some states such as California only allow visitors’ cars to be sniffed by dogs—considered less intrusive in an Oklahoma litigated case than sniffs of “bodies.”

Meanwhile, per the Globe and Jim Pingeon, attorney at Prisoners Legal Services (PLS), groups such as the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and PLS are discussing suing over this issue. They are currently looking for plaintiffs, especially children who are afraid of dogs, and interested persons can contact Ahrens at lois@realcostofprisons.org.

If Massachusetts wants to get serious on ridding its prisons of drugs, then it better take a holistic approach. Instead of just looking at the visitors, we need to consider the whole picture—a picture that also includes the very people tasked with keeping prisons running in the first place.

A recent study by The Wall Street Journal revealed that U.S. prisons are warehousing the mentally ill.

Please read my newest blog at — my take on the crisis facing our prisons as we fail to adequately treat those with mental illness. It begins ”