Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Cruel California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Keep Elderly Prisoners Locked Up Longer

Posted by Heidi Strupp, New America Media at 12:40 PM on October 29, 2008.


Prop. 9 asks taxpayers to pay to incarcerate those who cost the most to confine yet pose the least threat to public safety.
elderlyprisoner

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Helen Loheac is 85 years old and has serious health problems which require that she go to a hospital three times weekly for dialysis because her kidneys are failing. Loheac is also in prison with a 15-year sentence for her alleged involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder, an offense where no one was killed or harmed. Although she is just 5 feet tall, weighs 90 pounds and is gravely ill, Loheac is shackled, waist chained and transported by two armed guards when she goes for dialysis. She is often confused and frightened and the prison environment is very difficult for her. Although she poses no threat to anyone, Helen was recently denied parole.

This Nov. 4, Californians will vote on Proposition 9, a measure that could create even more hardship for Helen Loheac and others like her. If Prop. 9 is passed, Helen could be denied the opportunity to re-petition for release until she turns 100. She is among 10,000 low-risk frail elders now in prison who may be denied hope of release, even as they grow older and sicker and require more costly care. Prop. 9 asks California taxpayers to foot the bill to incarcerate a group of prisoners who cost the most to confine yet pose the least threat to public safety.

Interestingly, Prop. 9 was funded by billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III, who is under federal indictment for fraud, conspiracy and drug charges. In a way, Prop. 9 would perpetrate another fraud on Californians by siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the general fund into the already bloated state prison budget. Specifically, it would restrict prisoners' access to regular parole hearings, prohibit the state from releasing prisoners early to ease overcrowding, deny ex-prisoners accused of violating parole a right to an attorney, allow an unlimited number of victims to testify at a prisoner's parole hearing without having to answer questions from the prisoner's attorney, and could limit prisoners' access to rehabilitative programs (such as visitation, educational and vocational services) especially as funds increasingly go towards prison construction costs. Some Prop. 9 provisions duplicate a crime victim's bill already approved by voters in 1982.

By voting 'No' on Prop. 9, Californians can send a strong message that in a period of extreme budget crisis we are tired of shoveling billions into the state's notoriously troubled prison system at the expense of our schools and social service programs. Corrections now account for about 10 percent of the state's spending, which is almost as much as spending for higher education.

Voting "No" says that we believe that low-risk prisoners who've served decades in prison and cost the state millions should be released. Voting "No" on Prop. 9 leaves open the door to allow for desperately needed reforms to a prison system characterized by gross overcrowding, a failed parole system and rampant violations of prisoners' rights. It is a declaration that 30 years of tough-on-crime policies have not fulfilled the promise of true public safety.

Our current prison crisis can largely be blamed on similarly harsh policies like Prop. 184, known as the "Three Strikes and You're Out" law, which was passed in 1994. Meaningful public safety results when our schools are thriving, when our seniors are cared for and cherished, and when everyone knows the comfort of a home. Public safety begins when we decide to create laws based not on our ugliest fears, but our greatest hopes.

Digg!

Tagged as: california, prisons, criminal justice system, three strikes and you're , proposition 9

Heidi Strupp is advocacy coordinator at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. She co-authored Dignity Denied: The Price of Imprisoning Older Women in California, a report that summarizes the unique challenges faced by people as they age in prison.


Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
TVA Responsible for Yet Another Toxic Coal-Related Spill
So, now is it time for clean energy?
Post by Tara Lohan. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It Should be Obvious...
Posted by: Xynyx on Oct 29, 2008 1:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prisons, the BUSINESS of incarceration, the Republican perspective on crime, etc., are all about the strict father frame on punishment. They have nothing to do with justice or rehabilitation. There is no compassion there... and, YES, there should be. All of these things (except for what Republicans think) should be useful to us, but with assholes in the drivers' seats, they are nothing more than sites and opportunities for the expression of raw brutality. This is one of the many things that must be corrected after we boot these nuts from power.

Come to think of it, I can't think of ANYTHING that they do right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Would Jesus Say?
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland on Oct 29, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the actions of Focus on the Family, The Dobsonites and the Latter Day Saints you would think that they would be trying to get the people to Vote "No" (against) this amendment! Hopefully the people of California can see through this as just another way for the Repulicans to make money off of the backs of the people! The "prison" industry is BIG MONEY for the Republican Party!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Would Jesus Say? Posted by: rinthy
» RE: What Would Jesus Say? Posted by: rinthy
prison is part of the feudal mentality and somebody's making money out of selling shackles
Posted by: Suzon on Oct 30, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feudalism is a military system of government whereby those at the top grab (and keep grabbing) the land and money and those at the bottom do all the work.

Prison itself was a well-intended idea with unconscionable consequences. The Quakers thought that locking a criminal in a room with a Bible would transform him into a better person. Flogging would be less cruel than what we do to "criminals" today.

When will we start locking up the bankers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

X-POLYGAMIST WIFE in ARIZONA
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Oct 30, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If an FLDS woman in Colorado City, Arizona doesn't cow tow to the patriarchy, her mind controlled relatives, including her mother and husband, commit her to a mental facility in Flagstaff.

I'm not surprised to hear this brand of abuse is happening in other places. Colorado City, Arizona is a microcosm of what's going on all over this country.

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there No one who will help this woman?
Posted by: grethart on Oct 30, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why must she go through this? Is there no one....no public defender, no pro bono attorney that will assist her? Is there no social agency who will help with this?

Chains and shackles? This is cruel and unusual punishment.

Absolutely horrible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Three strikes and you're overcrowded
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 30, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "three strikes" law originally was to commit to life in prison perps who committed three violent crimes or crimes involving a weapon. Instead, what we got was three strikes for three felonies of any kind, with the second and third crimes possibly being raised to felonies from misdemeanors because of the first. As a result, there are convicts serving life sentences for pilfering a slice of pizza on their third strike. Add to this the number of prisoners convicted of simple drug possession for use, and its no effort to understand why California's prison system is bursting at the seams. And just how BIG and PROFITABLE the prison business has become (after all, when you're paid by the state, your payment is guaranteed).

Obviously, if we can remove non-violent, aged prisoners from the system, and divert non-violent, non-selling drug addicts to treatment programs (as is done in Europe), we could reduce prison populations by at least 50% immediately, leaving room to house the truly bad guys. California's Proposition 5 seeks to do this for drug addicts.

Of course, that would mean reduced profits for the gargantuan California prison industry, which is why law enforcement is in favor of Prop. 9 and against Prop. 5.

Sadly, once again, just follow the money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where would they go?
Posted by: sicntired on Oct 31, 2008 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of these men have spent the best part of their lives in prison and would be lost out on the street.They get quality care in prison and would probably die on the outside without medical care.People want to do the right thing but this is best left alone.If an old fellow is able to find care on the outside there should be no objection to their release.Otherwise,they are with the only friends they know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where would they go? Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN