It is almost inconceivable. Unless you're a prison activist. Unless you have worked behind bars. Unless you are a woman who watched her cell mate come back bereft to the unit after giving birth in leg irons and chains around her wrists. Or unless you are someone who actually went through this yourself. It's a human rights issue and named so by organizations around the world. But 32 states in the U.S. continue this barbaric practice, including my home state of Massachusetts.

                 Photo posted on Black Talk Radio Network                    

Recently a major human rights report submitted in August by the ACLU, the International Human Rights Clinic at the Chicago Law School, and Chicago Legal Advocacy with Incarcerated Mothers recommended a federal law banning the practice, and that all states enact law to demand anti-shackling. Those states that have such laws should review them and update if necessary, and the U.S. should "conduct an empirical study to determine the scope of shackling in U.S. prisons and to understand why the practice of shackling pregnant women persists."

Good idea! It's crazy to imagine a woman might run while she is giving birth. And "flight risk" is one of the main things that causes prisons to enact these barbaric practices, said ACLU lawyer and prison rights advocate Amy Fettig who spoke at Framingham State University recently.

All experts on this subject say that shackling is harmful to the life of the child. According to Nation Inside, "shackling a woman by her wrists and ankles hampers her ability to move to alleviate the pain of her contractions. This increases stress on the woman’s body and may decrease the flow of oxygen to her fetus." They cite medical professionals such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Nurse-Midwives and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who have weighed in on this.

The recent human rights report above, entitled The Shackling of Incarcerated Women, also states that shackling violates the U.S. Constitution and international law because it is cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, it disproportionately impacts women of color. It spells out that restraints should never be used.

Vikki Law and Tina Reynolds, two experts in this area, gave an interview in 2012 on Birthing Inside which I found on Black Talk Radio Network . They said, "Five to six percent of women entering jails and prisons each year are pregnant. Many will spend the duration of their pregnancies behind bars, which means that even if they do not give birth while incarcerated, they must rely on the prison’s prenatal care, which is often inadequate and sometimes can jeopardize their pregnancies."

I saw this at Framingham Women's Prison when I taught there, heard the horror stories as women turned up in my classes to describe such treatment. It's difficult not to ask if such a tactic is really designed to protect the prison from a prisoner running away or if it is designed for sheer humiliation. The keeper once again shows power over the kept. Or to paraphrase William Butler Yeats in his famous poem, "The Second Coming," the falconer does not heed the falcon.

Many advocates across the country are working to change this practice, turn policy into actual law in some states and make laws that are meaningful in others. Law and Reynolds added in their comments that  "It’s important to remember that we cannot wait for prison administrators and legislators to see the light; we have to constantly remind them that shackling pregnant prisoners is not only a medical issue, but also a human rights abuse that will not be tolerated."

photo of EPOCA via.massvote

Is your Massachusetts license yours? Not if you’re convicted of any controlled substance crime.

This past January, 2013, Worcester Sen. Harriette L. Chandler and Boston Rep. Elizabeth Malia filed a joint bill in both the Massachusetts Senate and the House, “An act relative to motor vehicle license suspension.” It seems there’s finally an outcry against the Registry of Motor Vehicles’ (RMV) outdated law. However RMV is not the bad guy– the Legislature passed this law originally because Massachusetts would have lost federal funds without it.

Under current law, a person convicted of any drug offense – also called a “controlled substance” – automatically loses her or his driving privileges for six months up to five years. Not only that. To reinstate your license, the law says you must pay at least $500. Their driving record? Forget about it. The law includes non-driving license suspensions and warrants and could actually be purchased from the Massachusetts RMV for under $10 by prospective employers.

Last week, members of Ex-Prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement (EPOCA) joined legislators and their aides, sheriffs, community activists and others who are fighting for changes in the law. They want to stop what some see as a “CORI reform loophole” that can never be sealed, harming a person’s chances of employment even decades after the fact. A CORI (Criminal Offender Records Information) has historically been problematic for those coming out of prison and was reformed in Massachusetts in 2010. For example, employers and landlords are no longer allowed to ask, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” on their initial job applications.

EPOCA and others testified at the State House where the Joint Committee on Transportation held a hearing on this bill. EPOCA members handed out a Fact Sheet which showed they had support from the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Prisoners Legal Services, Community Resources for Justice and the Worcester Initiative for Supported Re-Entry. In an interview, Steve O’Neill, who for the past eight years has been Executive Director for Interstate Organizing at EPOCA, said that jobs have been lost and families affected because of this law.

Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis, a Worcester Republican was the first to testify and he said the bill was just plain common sense, a way to help people get back on their feet. Barb Dougan, Massachusetts Project Director for Families against Mandatory Minimums who also attended the hearing and submitted written testimony, said in an interview, “Just because you have had a drug offense, you shouldn’t lose your license. It’s counterproductive. It’s really hard for people to leave prison and get reintegrated if they can’t drive.”

Already nine state senators and forty-one reps have voiced approval says the EPOCA Fact Sheet. Let’s hope this bill makes it into law.

It was barely six months ago when I wrote about the battle to bring back Pell Grants for prisoner education programs across the country. At the time, I applauded the work many were doing with little money to underscore a well-known fact: the more education one has, the less likely that person is to be involved in the criminal justice system or to recidivate if they have been involved. Pell grants still haven't made it back as a way to fund college education in prison but that doesn't mean they won't. Education keeps people out of prison and the clearer that becomes, the more likely we are to get others to see we save money by educating prisoners.

photo from www.audaciousideas.org

Last week, a report from the Rand Corporation — apparently "the largest-ever meta-analysis of correctional educational studies"-  found scientifically what we all have been saying for years. It's good to have these facts, however: According to Rand, prisoners who "receive general education and vocational training are significantly less likely to return to prison after release and are more likely to find employment than peers who do not receive such opportunities."

The cost is also a plus for prisons and prisoners: a $1 investment in prison education "reduces incarceration costs by $4 to $5 during the first three years post-release."

Most importantly is this new piece of data: those who participate in correctional education programs have 43 percent less chance of returning to prison than those who do not. Not insignificantly, employment after release was 13 percent higher among those who participated in either academic (or vocational education programs) than those who did not.

Several years ago I visited a prison in England and discovered how much they valued education behind bars. They were allowing and encouraging prisoners on their way out to apply to colleges while still incarcerated so they'd have some security when they got out. One prison I visited also brought in those searching for workers at different jobs to watch prisoners perform in a production. After seeing the performance, those job counselors interviewed the men and many were offered jobs upon release. I thought this was one of the most supportive and creative ways I had seen behind bars — anywhere — to help people get on their feet.

These studies that we do– Rand's being the latest and perhaps the most comprehensive to date — are great, but only if prisons and correctional officials actually listen to the results. It's good to hear our Attorney General, Eric Holder, saying “These findings reinforce the need to become smarter on crime by expanding proven strategies for keeping our communities safe, and ensuring that those who have paid their debts to society have the chance to become productive citizens."

Now let's bring back Pell Grants and make college accessible and affordable for all– even and especially those behind bars who are proving they are more likely to stay out of crime if given books, pens and teachers.

Here we are in Croatia, one of the most beautiful coastlines I have ever seen, and I am thinking about crime and punishment. There is such calm and kindness here even after the brutal war that occurred in 1991-3 and extended for a few years more, killing so many and sending the former Yugoslavia reeling. Now Croatia is a place suffering economically but certainly safe. I've heard over 95% of Croatians say they would have no problem walking anywhere in the country at night.

Croatia has about 2,611 prisoners for a population of 4,500,000 whereas my state of Massachusetts has over 21,000 in state, jail and county facilities. –Oh, and we have about 6.6 million folks in the Bay state but our incarceration rate is 7 times as much as Croatia's. Sadly, Massachusetts is not the liberal bastion is appears to be in terms of imprisonment.

Incarceration does not assure safety. According to the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) U.S. states that do not increase their use of incarceration as much as others experience greater drops in crime.

Some other fun facts:

• The U.S. incarcerates the most people in the world and we prosecute people 446 times more than Croatia.
• There are 516 times more car thefts in the U.S. than in Croatia
• A youth is 391 times more likely to commit murder in the U.S. than in Croatia.

Since communities that experience excessive incarceration also experience less safety, it isn't surprising to find this fact: too much incarceration may actually "diminish the ability of residents to protect themselves" says the JPI because removing so many people from a community can affect the "social cohesion" that holds them together. People bring real human capital to helping communities stay safe and if we allow these communities to be destroyed by over-incarceration, aren't we encouraging some the decimation in our neighborhoods?

The only stat where we actually better Croatia is in length of sentence and in Croatia, if someone is found guilty of a crime, he or she is sentenced to an average of 71 years. The length of sentences in Croatia are actually 146 times greater than in the U.S. I'd like to think that's because Croatia puts people in prison who should really be in prison instead of the thousands and thousands of low level drug offenders we incarcerate without blinking an eye. Supposedly Eric Holder wants to curtail such practices but Congress will have to comply.

Meanwhile, I will enjoy my holiday with a sample of the safety and beauty below which will give you an idea of the coastline. And when I come home, I'll post pics in here which I cannot do at the moment. Overusing incarceration helps no one and certainly doesn't keep us safer.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&tbm=isch&q=croatian+beaches&revid=683948888&sa=X&ei=73sPUqmDOqj-4QTh1YBI&ved=0CDUQ1QIoAQ&biw=1024&bih=644#biv=i%7C0%3Bd%7CnGXZp5Ucr8x-EM%3A

An interesting article in the NYTimes last week made me think about marriage and incarceration and the inevitable link to how we send people to prison for years due to the so-called "war on drugs."

Charles Blow, NYTimes columnist, quoted public health expert Ernest Drucker's well-known 2011 book, A Plague of Prisons with the following stats:

■ “The risk of divorce is high among men going to prison, reaching 50 percent within a few years after incarceration.”

■ “The marriage rate for men incarcerated in prisons and jails is lower than the American average. For blacks and Hispanics, it is lower still.”

■ “Unmarried couples in which the father has been incarcerated are 37 percent less likely to be married one year after the child’s birth than similar couples in which the father has never been incarcerated."

And guess why so many black and Hispanic men are in prison? You got it, the so-called "drug war." Or as Blow calls it "the disastrous drug war," or "a war on marijuana waged primarily against young black men, even though they use the drug at nearly the same rate as whites." With television and the media, "reefer" has been glamorized to "reefer madness," and indeed the sentencing of reefer is madness.

The drug war has brutalized so many with lengthy sentences. How can these sentences not affect marriage and families? Take for example Stephanie Nodd who according to her page on Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)'s website served 21years of a 30-year sentence in a federal prison in Florida for a crack cocaine conspiracy she had been involved in for just one month. FAMM was able to influence the Sentencing Commission to make new guidelines and Stephanie was released.

But unlike Stephanie, so many prisoners are saddled with unjust sentences for crimes involving drugs and they languish behind bars without hope or they get out, like Stephanie did but after serving years. Years. Decades. And like Stephanie, many aren't the drug dealers we portray on TV.

Mass incarceration certainly destroys families and Blow also points out how those who've been arrested for drugs can't get financial aid, i.e. can't afford to go to college without taking out loans at very high rates, and also have more debt. This affects black students more than Latino and white students: 81% vs. 67% or 64%. And another guess what. The more educated you are, the less likely you are to be involved in crime, go to prison and stay out once you're out.

Incarceration also causes more debt to those on their way to marriage or to existing families. Think of the phone bills, the transportation, the lost income. How people stay together if one partner is imprisoned is almost more amazing than how they break up. Add to that the stress of the unjust sentences from the so-called "drug war," and bingo, marriage is handicapped.

As Blow points out "One can’t bemoan the breakdown of the family without at least acknowledging the structural and systematic forces working against its cohesion." He means the black family. I'll add to that any family facing an unjust drug sentence in a society that supposedly supports marriage.