Jimmy Dennis and Pennsylvania's Grave Miscarriage of Justice

Jimmy Dennis has been on Pennsylvania's death row for two decades, and a federal judge calls it a "grave miscarriage of justice" by the Commonwealth.

Dennis was convicted of murder for the October 1991 fatal shooting of Chedell Ray Williams, 17, a student at Olney High School, at a SEPTA stop over a pair of $450 earrings. He was sent to death row in 1992.

Granting Dennis' habeas petition, Judge Anita Brody threw out his conviction and death sentence, and ordered the state to retry him within 180 days or set him free.

In a scathing and damning 46-page opinion, the judge concluded that Dennis "was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to die for a crime in all probability he did not commit." Brody noted that Dennis had no criminal history, other than a single conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

His defense counsel provided a paltry defense, and didn't interview a single eyewitness -- including a witness who pointed the finger at Dennis, and whose felony assault charges against his pregnant girlfriend in another case were miraculously dropped. And a girl who was with the victim said she knew the killers and their nicknames.

The prosecution failed to disclose evidence pointing to his innocence, including statements implicating three other men in the murder, and evidence undermining the reliability of the police investigation.

"Dennis' conviction was based solely on shaky eyewitness identifications from three witnesses, the testimony of another man who said he saw Dennis with a gun the night of the murder, and a description of clothing seized from the house of Dennis' father that the police subsequently lost before police photographed or catalogued it," the judge said.

According to Judge Brody, the prosecution of Jimmy Dennis was based "on scant evidence at best." As a result, the Commonwealth covered up evidence that pointed to someone other than Dennis. "It ignored Dennis' own explanation for where he was at the time of the murder. ... It allowed a witness who saw Dennis on that bus to give incorrect testimony about what time that interaction occurred. Police never recovered a weapon, never found the car that witnesses described, and never found the two accomplices," she added.

The jury deliberated fewer than five hours, with only over three hours for the presentation of evidence in the penalty phase of the trial.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, who has not decided whether he will appeal, said he was disappointed in Judge Brody's "acceptance of slanted factual allegations" and "a newly concocted alibi defense."

Death row exonerations are far more common than one would think. Jimmy Dennis would become the 143rd innocent person in the U.S. released from death row since 1973, and the seventh in Pennsylvania. With 1,348 people executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, one innocent person has been freed for every nine that have been executed. The stakes are so high -- literally life and death -- and yet the error rate is so high as well. Certainly a factory would be shut down if every ninth or 10th product coming off the assembly line was defective. And we're not including the countless innocent people who may still languish on death row, or even worse, were already executed.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of Witness to Innocence, the only national organization of exonerated death row survivors in the U.S. On October 8, in WTI's home base of Philadelphia, Sister Helen Prejean and Danny Glover will help the organization celebrate a decade of leading the charge against the death penalty. And the death penalty is costly, arbitrary, unjust and unevenly applied, with prosecutors exercising broad discretion to seek death, with accountability only to the voters.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Philadelphia County has the third largest death row population in the nation. Yet, it ranks lowest in the state in paying attorneys who represent death row inmates. According to a new report from DPIC ("The 2% Death Penalty: How a Minority of Counties produce Most Death Cases At Enormous Costs to All"), a small percentage of counties in the U.S. -- only 2 percent -- account for a majority of America's death row population and recent death sentences.

Only 15 percent of the counties have provided all state executions since 1976, and the 3,125 inmates on death row come from a mere 20 percent of the counties.

Further, those counties with the most death penalty usage -- such as Philadelphia -- suffer the most reversals and abuses. For example, Maricopa County, Ariz., which had four times the number of pending death penalty cases per capita as Los Angeles or Houston, recently had its district attorney disbarred for misconduct. And when a particular New Orleans prosecutor was in charge, four death row prisoners were exonerated due to misconduct in the D.A.'s office, resulting in repudiation from four U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Meanwhile, more Jimmy Dennises are created when bad lawyering, human error and malfeasance prevail, all in the name of rushing people to their deaths. The exonerated death row survivors of Witness to Innocence have called on the Philadelphia D.A. to issue a moratorium on new death penalty prosecutions. After all, you can release an innocent man or woman from prison, but not from the grave.

Why is Anthony Fletcher on Pennsylvania's Death Row?

There was no movie made about Anthony Fletcher, but there should be one.

Although we don't know for certain how many innocent people sit on Pennsylvania's death row, we do know that six innocent men have exonerated in the Keystone state over the past 30 years.  Those who are condemned to death in Pennsylvania are disproportionately from Philadelphia, and overwhelmingly black and Latino, with the highest proportion of racial minorities of any death row population in the U.S.

One of those Philadelphians is Anthony Fletcher, prisoner #CA1706, who has been on death row for two decades.  Fletcher should be a free man today.  And if there is justice, he will be a free man.

An honorably discharged Army vet who had learned to box in Germany and became a lightweight prizefighter, Anthony "Two Guns" Fletcher came from a boxing family.  His uncles were fighters, and his mother Lucille was the first African-American female boxing judge in Philadelphia.  Anthony was the sparring partner for Sugar Ray Leonard in preparation for his win over Marvin Hagler, and made a name for himself by beating such greats as Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini, Harry Arroyo, Johnny Bumphus, Jimmy Paul and Livingstone Bramble.  But a detached retina and a bout with Bell's Palsy slowed down his career.

Now Fletcher is in the fight of his life, a fight to prove his innocence, and a fight against an out-of-control justice system.  And for years in Fletcher's hometown of Philly, under the reign of the infamous district attorney Lynne Abraham, that system kept tallies on expendable black men, aiming to win rather than seeking true justice.

Fletcher, then 37, was sentenced to death in 1993 for the robbery and murder of Vaughn Christopher.  Christopher, 26, a crack addict, suffered two gunshot wounds.  Fletcher does not deny that he was at the scene, but maintains he was railroaded.  The devil is in the details, and those details point to a grave injustice.

Based on the account by Fletcher and people close to the case, Christopher had robbed Fletcher at gunpoint for $50.  Weeks later, Fletcher saw Christopher from a distance while driving in his car, confronted him regarding the stolen money and punched him.  Vaughn pulled out a gun from under his shirt.  Fletcher quickly placed his hands on Vaughn's forearm in an act of self-defense.  The gun discharged, two bullets struck Vaughn in the thigh and abdomen and he fell to the ground.    

Christopher's injuries were not life-threatening.  Yet he bled for hours in the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, and died because his mother, a Jehovah's Witness, refused a blood transfusion.

The D.A. said it was a homicide, and sought the death penalty for Fletcher.  Lynne Abraham, who was known as "America's Deadliest D.A." for her overzealous use of the death penalty, did not pass up the opportunity in what was at best a case of self-defense, and as worst a simple assault if not an accident.

Fletcher maintains this was payback, given that Abraham wanted Fletcher to testify at a murder trial, in which a member of the Junior Black Mafia was tried for firing into Fletcher's car and killing his cohort.  Anthony--who ducked to save his life and says he never saw the shooter-- attended the trial but changed his mind about testifying.  

The prosecution painted Fletcher as a coldblooded drug dealer who murdered Christopher over a drug debt.  Their case rested on the eyewitness testimony of Natalie Renee Grant, a self-professed addict who had a long criminal record.  She testified that the incident stemmed from a drug deal and that Fletcher murdered Christopher execution-style and fled the scene.  Anthony's bungling defense failed to challenge Grant's unsubstantiated hearsay testimony.  Meanwhile, Grant--who faced with prostitution and theft charges--was given probation in exchange for her testimony.

Fletcher's witnesses were barred from testifying.

No gunpowder test was performed on Christopher's clothes, which the police misplaced, and his weapon was never admitted as evidence to prove it contained Anthony's fingerprints.  Surely, had there been fingerprints, the prosecution would have used such evidence against him.

There were other problems with the case.  For example, Fletcher and his supporters maintain the prosecution used as evidence falsified hospital records and an autopsy report containing photos of two African American men purported to be Vaughn Christopher.

In addition, the prosecutor claimed Anthony's nickname was "Two Guns' because he carried two guns on the street, a fallacious claim his defense lawyer failed to challenge.  The defense also declined to allow his client to take the stand.

Further, the prosecution claimed Fletcher shot Christopher once in the thigh and once in the back, which does not square with the autopsy report.  And Hydrow Park, the Chief Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy, did not testify because the D.A. said he was unavailable and failed to notify him of the trial date.

Park's underling Ian Hood-- who was unlicensed in Pennsylvania and disciplined by the state board for pretending he was a licensed medical doctor- took the stand instead.   Hood, who testified there was no physical struggle despite the bruise on Christopher's chest, recanted his testimony in 2003.

Meanwhile, Common Pleas Judge John Milton Younge vacated Anthony's sentence in 2004 and ordered a new trial, citing as prejudicial the failure of Dr. Park to testify, Dr. Hood's erroneous testimony-- which was contradicted by the autopsy report that proves Fletcher's innocence-and ineffective defense counsel.  But the retrial never occurred, as Judge Younge pursued a Superior Court seat and the court failed to find a replacement judge.  The D.A. appealed the decision, and four years later, the state Supreme Court ruled against Anthony Fletcher.  

Allegations of missing and fabricated evidence, sketchy witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct and crappy lawyering.  Don't forget racial overtones.  These are some of the essential ingredients of the death penalty.  And this is what put Anthony Fletcher and others on death row in Philly and elsewhere around the country.    

What would be gained if Terry Williams is executed?

There's an execution planned in Pennsylvania, the first one in thirteen years.  Gov. Tom Corbett signed a death warrant for Terrance "Terry" Williams.  Barring intervention from the Governor, the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, or the Philadelphia District Attorney, Williams will be executed on October 3. 

But the execution should not go forward.

Two things stand out about the case of Terry Williams: First, he suffered a traumatic childhood of sexual and physical abuse, and ultimately killed two of his abusers.  Second, a broad coalition of organizations, religious leaders, advocates and others-- including the widow of one of his victims and several of the jurors who convicted him-- are calling for clemency for Terry.

First raped at the age of six by an older boy in the neighborhood, and coming home crying and with a bloodied backside, Terry Williams just couldn't win from day one.  His childhood was one of poverty, neglect and violence.  Terry was brutally abused by his mother with fists, switches, belts and extension cords, and beaten by his alcoholic stepfather, who would smash through the boy's door to administer the beatings. 

Throughout his youth, Williams was passed around by sexual predators, exploited as a sexual object by middle aged adult men who gained access to their teen prey with money, food and clothes.  A middle school teacher betrayed his trust and repeatedly raped him.  While in juvenile detention for a burglary, Terry was gang raped by two older boys. 

And there was no one to protect Terry.  No one stepped in to help this traumatized boy deal with the anger, shame, confusion, paranoia and self-hatred he experienced from years of manipulation and abuse.  As a result of receiving no counseling or mental health treatment, Terry resorted to self-mutilation by banging his head against the wall, cutting himself and making himself bleed.  Further, he attempted suicide in an effort to make the pain go away, and self-medicated in the form of alcohol and drug abuse.

But in the end, Williams lashed out at two sources of his pain, personified: Herbert Hamilton and Amos Norwood.  Using their status to lure teenage boys, these two middle aged men-- a sports booster and a church leader, respectively-- sexually abused Terry.  At 17, Terry killed Hamilton.  And six months later, barely 18, he killed Norwood the day after Norwood raped him, for which Williams was given a death sentence.   

However, the jurors were unaware of the history of sexual abuse.  "I was not aware that the victim in that case had been having sex with Terrance other teenage boys," said one of five jurors now supporting life for Williams.  "I also was not aware that Terrance had been abused by other men.  That would have been a factor in my decision."

In addition, the jurors were not instructed that a life sentence in Pennsylvania means life without parole.  Pennsylvania is the only state that does not require such an instruction in first- and second-degree murder cases.  A number of jurors say they would have voted for life rather than death.  "The reason that I opted for the death sentence was because I was under the impression that if we sentenced Terrance Williams to life in prison then he could get out on parole," said another juror.  "If I had known that a life sentence meant life without parole, I personally would have votes for a life sentence, and I think other people probably would have voted for life too."

Mamie Norwood, the widow of the victim in Terry's capital case, wants clemency as well.  She said that she forgave him several years ago after a process of prayer and self-reflection.  "I do not wish to see Terry Williams executed.  His execution would go against my Christian faith and my belief system.  He is worthy of forgiveness and I am at peace with my decision to forgive him and have been for many years.  I wish to see his life spared," she said.

Norwood and these jurors are not alone in seeking clemency for Terry Williams.  Now, 35 child advocates, 36 former judges and prosecutors, 48 law professors, 49 mental health professionals and dozens of religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Philadelphia, have publicly called for a commutation of his death sentence.  They join the European Union and numerous organizations such as Amnesty International, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, Support Center for Child Advocates, and the Pennsylvania Prison Society.  Moreover, thousands of people have signed a viral online petition at Change.org demanding clemency. 

"With our years of experience in reviewing claims of rape and other sexual violence, we speak out clearly that a crime was committed against Terry, nothing less," wrote the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. "Under no construction of American law or societal norms, is the sexual exploitation of a 13 year old boy by a 50 year old man a relationship, homosexual or otherwise. It is rape and any suggestion to the contrary is offensive."

Meanwhile, a bipartisan state Senate commission wrote a letter to Gov. Corbett calling for a postponement of all executions. 

Remorseful and a different person, Terry Williams' life is on the line--literally.  What could possibly be gained by his execution?  A star athlete and a freshman at Cheyney University when he was convicted, Terry suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and it got the best of him.  We will never know what he could have been, but we do know that he was an exploited victim of violence, leaving a devastating impact on his emotional and psychological development.   Executing him will only continue a vicious cycle of violence.

Pennsylvania Voter ID: It’s Always Something

A challenge to Pennsylvania’s infamous new voter ID law is headed to the state Supreme Court.  Unless the courts block the new law before November 6, all voters in the Keystone state will have to present an acceptable, state-approved photo ID when they go to the polls on Election Day.

For those Pennsylvanians who do not have the necessary identification, obtaining one has its challenges and hurdles.

Based on the state’s own data, 758,000 Pennsylvanians lack the proper identification—9.2 percent of the state’s voting population. In Philadelphia, 186,830 people— 18 percent of the city’s voting population—don’t have the ID. 

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), to obtain a photo identification card, the person must go to a driver license center with a completed application and a social security card.  The applicant also must either have a certificate of U.S. citizenship or naturalization, a U.S. passport or a birth certificate with a raised seal, and two proofs of residency such as a lease, mortgage, utility bill, W-2 or tax form.  Once the application is processed, the person’s photo is taken and the ID card is issued. 

Those who have no such proof may bring their roommate as one proof of residency.  Students at least 18 years old may supply a dorm room assignment, credit card bill, pay stub or bank statement as proof of residency. The homeless can use their shelter address, but must visit the driver’s license center accompanied by an employee of the shelter.  That employee must have a shelter-issued photo identification card and a letter on shelter letterhead stating that the homeless person is staying at the shelter.

However, if the voter does not drive, does not have a birth certificate with a raised seal and was born in Pennsylvania, he or she can apply for a special voter card.

Applicants must present their name, address, social security number and proof of residency, and complete and sign a form stating they are registered to vote but lack the required ID.  The DMV office then verifies the applicant’s birth with the Department of Health, and issues an ID for $10.  If the office cannot verify the applicant’s birth, it will issue the non-driver ID if the Department of State verifies the applicant is registered to vote.  This process takes up to 10 business days.

Civil rights and civil liberties groups criticize the voter ID application process for the barriers it presents for some voters, and its discriminatory impact on certain groups who are more likely to vote Democratic.  They claim the voter ID requirement resembles the poll tax, literacy test and other tactics employed in the Jim Crow South to suppress and disenfranchise the black vote. 

Meanwhile, conservative Republicans who support the voter ID law point to the need to protect the integrity of elections and combat voter fraud, although Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration cannot identify a single case where someone voted by impersonating someone else.  Further, Pennsylvania state Rep. Mike Turzai—the Republican leader in the Pennsylvania House— said the voter ID law will help Mitt Romney win the state on Election Day.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania—one of the organizations leading the challenge to the law in court—argues that an estimated 37 percent of Pennsylvania voters think there is no voter ID law or are unaware of it.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of those who lack a valid ID card believe they have a valid form of ID.  According to the ACLU, demographic groups such as women, Latinos, the elderly, the poor, and younger voters are less likely to possess an acceptable ID.

The law poses a catch-22 for voters who need an ID to get an ID.  For elderly African-American voters, who perhaps were born to midwives in the Jim Crow South and later moved to Pennsylvania, a birth certificate never existed, was destroyed, or contained errors.  A number of the Pennsylvanians who are challenging the law are elderly African Americans who live in Philadelphia, the largest city in the Keystone state.

Gloria Cuttino, 61, lives in Philadelphia and was born in Summerville, South Carolina.  For over a year, Ms. Cuttino has attempted to secure a birth certificate from South Carolina, but was told the state has no record of her birth.  She would have to pay $100 to search census records, and hire an attorney to petition the court for a delayed birth certificate.

Dorothy Barksdale, 86, was born to a midwife in rural Virginia.  Virginia has no record of Ms. Barksdale’s birth, and while she has voted in Pennsylvania for years and worked as a poll worker, her voting rights are in danger because she does not have a driver’s license.  Similarly, Grover Freeland, 72, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain his birth certificate from New York.  He does not have a driver’s license and has not driven in years, but the veterans card issued by the federal government is not acceptable under the Pennsylvania law.        

Viviette Applewhite, 93, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the law, rode two buses to a DMV office to receive a temporary ID card, after years of being denied an ID.  Applewhite’s Social Security card was stolen a number of years ago, and since she was adopted at a young age, the name on her birth certificate does not match the name on other documents.      

Another barrier facing many Pennsylvanians is distance.    

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, nearly 2.3 million voting age citizens in Pennsylvania—24 percent of Pennsylvania voters— live 10 miles or more from the nearest government office issuing the ID.

In July, the Brennan Center issued a report highlighting the challenges facing hundreds of thousands of poor Americans in obtaining the proper voter identification.  Pennsylvania is one of ten states with the most restrictive laws requiring citizens to produce a government issued ID in order to vote.       

Further, of the 10 states highlighted in the study, Pennsylvania has the highest percentage of voting age people without access to a car—10.4 percent, or 985,414 voters.  Of those citizens without access to a vehicle, 135,544—13.8 percent of all voters—live over 10 miles from a state ID center. 

The 10 states cited by Brennan make up 127 of the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the presidency.  With 20 electoral votes, Pennsylvania favors President Obama in most polls.  Yet, if thousands of legitimate voters are unable to obtain a valid photo ID in time for the election, this could influence the race in Pennsylvania and the national election.

Will YOUR vote count? State's polls lack uniform standards

By Kathryn Boockvar and David A. Love

The Patriot-News (Harrisburg, PA), September 28, 2008

ON NOV. 4, will the vote of every Pennsylvanian be counted? Sadly, unless changes are made before Election Day, the answer is no. 

The main culprit is a lack of uniform standards in Pennsylvania. 

For example, there are currently no uniform standards governing when emergency backup paper ballots should be issued to voters. As a result, during the Pennsylvania primary, when voting machines broke down, some voters were provided with emergency paper ballots, others were told by poll workers to go home and come back later, and still others had to wait for hours until the machines were repaired. 

The procedures varied from polling place to polling place, and from county to county. This failure to treat each of our votes equally, and failure to ensure that each of us gets to vote and have our vote counted without undue burden, violates our state and federal constitutional rights. 

Another example is the lack of uniform and comprehensive poll worker training and support. Poll workers have been called the "champions of democracy." They are the last defense between a well-run democracy and an unstable, ineffective political system, and they deserve respect, support and appreciation for their service. Yet, instead, the biggest question mark in Pennsylvania's voting system may not be what has changed since 2004, but the one thing that has not --inadequate poll worker training and support. 

The sheer magnitude of vital Election Day responsibilities requires intensive training. Pennsylvania law requires that county boards of election "instruct election officers in their duties" and inspect the conduct of elections, "to the end that primaries and elections may be honestly, efficiently, and uniformly conducted." Poll workers are the direct links between election officials and voters, and their actions and inactions can make the difference between a vote counted and a vote rejected. 

Yet despite this, Pennsylvania counties rarely require that all election officials be trained regularly -- most commonly, only new poll workers are asked to attend training. And when they don't? Nothing. In most if not all counties, there is no penalty for skipping training, and no system to assess whether poll workers are qualified and able to perform their duties. As a result, countless untrained poll workers work every Election Day. This is contrary to Pennsylvania law, which states that "No judge or inspector shall serve at any primary or election ... unless he shall have been found qualified to perform his duties ..." 

Of course, it is the voter who suffers. According to the Fels Institute of Government, in 2006 the Keystone State had the nation's highest number of complaints about poll workers and election staff, the second highest number of complaints about coercion or intimidation, and the third highest number of complaints about requests for identification. Election Day complaints that were caused or worsened by poor poll worker training or support have included equipment operation problems, failure to distribute emergency ballots, late opening of polling places, language barriers, improper demands for voter identification, improper provisional ballot administration, intimidating polling place behavior, and ineffective polling place design and procedures. 

Of even greater concern, these problems have tended to occur disproportionately in poorer neighborhoods and in communities of color. 

All these problems cause longer lines, frustration and disenfranchisement, which not only burden voters, but also make Election Day much more difficult for the poll workers, who are already working an incredibly long day for little pay. 

Looking ahead to November, it is expected that Pennsylvania's surge in voter registrations this year and anticipated surge in turnout, combined with these problems, will mean longer lines, longer wait times, and more machine breakdowns and errors at polling places throughout the commonwealth. 

The solution to avoiding these problems is clear: the secretary of state, as chief election official of the commonwealth, must play a stronger role in mandating that all counties provide their citizens with equal access to the voting booth, and equal opportunity to vote and have their vote counted. Included in this: 

* Emergency paper ballots must be offered uniformly to voters when machines break down, and must be treated and counted as regular ballots. 

* Comprehensive poll worker training and support, with clear, uniform qualifications and assessment, must be mandated for all poll workers. Funding should be increased to allow adequate compensation for training. 

* State and local governments and other organizations should play a stronger role in recruiting poll workers, with modernized and energized recruiting messages, increased compensation, and other non-compensation incentives for becoming part of this vital process. 

If these things do not happen, then we might find ourselves with another Florida or Ohio disaster on our hands in the Keystone State. 

Voting is one of our most cherished fundamental rights as citizens. If we cannot guarantee an equal right to vote in the birthplace of American democracy, and ensure that all our votes are counted here, then where can we? 

KATHRYN BOOCKVAR is the senior attorney and DAVID A. LOVE is the voter protection advocate for Pennsylvania for the Advancement Project, a Washington, D.C.-based civil rights organization.

Is the Road to Prison Reform Paved with Good Intentions?

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
October 11, 2007

The nationwide problem of prison overcrowding provides a perfect opportunity for society to examine real prison reform. Exorbitant prison spending threatens to cripple state budgets, as lawmakers in many parts of the country allocate more funding to lock up their citizens than to educate them and provide them with essential services.

With over 2.2 million people incarcerated in its federal, state and local institutions, no other country imprisons as many of its people per capita - or in absolute numbers for that matter - as the United States. As a result of failed policies driven by the politics of fear and racial scapegoating - the war on drugs, tough-on-crime measures, and draconian sentencing guidelines — America's prisons are an emerging national crisis. After spending years forsaking the concept of rehabilitation in our criminal justice system, in favor of retribution for its own sake, we know that the system is overburdened and overwhelmed. And many have concluded that the old ways are not serving us well.

In California, the three-strikes rule and a powerful corrections officers' union have created a burgeoning prison population. Over 172,000 prisoners are housed in 33 facilities designed for only 100,000, costing the taxpayers more than $8 billion annually. Inmates do not receive adequate healthcare, and recidivism is high. A three-federal judge panel will determine if the California prison system requires a population cap, releasing thousands of inmates and alleviating the deplorable overcrowding.

Meanwhile, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recently announced a new policy that would free thousands of nonviolent parolees who are unlikely to re-offend. The program would remove certain parolees from supervision after six months rather than the usual three years. And ex-convicts who are no longer under the supervision of the system cannot be sent back to prison for violation of parole.

And similarly, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is proposing alternative sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders, including early release, drug treatment, and recidivism prevention programs. This, as the Keystone State faces a crisis of prison overcrowding, with a legacy of tough sentencing and life without parole that has broken up families and ravaged poor communities, yet has done nothing to address the troubling homicide rate in cities such as Philadelphia.

As the least regarded among society, prisoners are not a high priority among lawmakers and those who promulgate public policy. And many believe that prisoners deserve any punishment they receive above and beyond their prison sentence. But in order to halt the revolving door of recidivism that plagues our prison system, society must pay attention to the civil rights and quality of life of prisoners and strive to rehabilitate them.

The purging of religious and spiritual materials from prison libraries on the grounds that blocking inmates' access to such books will stem the spread of terrorism - as reported in the New York Times on September 10, 2007 - is misguided and unconstitutional. That the federal government wants to fund medical experimentation on prisoners — following a report last year by the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, which recommended a return to such practices — is unethical, unconscionable and barbaric.

Although they are deprived of their liberty, prisoners are entitled to the same basic constitutional rights we all share. However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), enacted by Congress ostensibly to put an end to frivolous prison litigation, has crippled inmates' ability to seek redress and protect their rights in the federal courts. The PLRA requires:

• an exhaustion of administrative remedies
• restricts the courts' authority to provide relief when prisons violate the law
• requires that prisoners suffer a physical injury in order to recover for mental or emotional injuries
• imposes a severe cap on attorneys' fees

The PLRA is a roadblock for valid claims of prisoner abuse, and must be repealed.

And when prisoners are released, they are subjected to punishment above and beyond their original sentence. Ex-cons lose their right to vote in some states, cannot obtain licenses for certain professions, and are denied financial aid for college because they have a felony conviction. It is difficult for these individuals - predominantly of color and mostly poor, unskilled and uneducated - to rebuild their lives and support their families when society stands in their way.

America is at a crossroads on the issue of prison reform. Locking our problems away has not made society whole. The failed "law and order" stance must give way to a smarter and more thoughtful approach that examines and tackles the interrelated problems of poverty, low education, joblessness and crime. We cannot continue on a path that does not address the root causes of America's ills, fails to reduce crime, and bankrupts us - not only economically, but spiritually and socially - in the process.

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love

State Should Take Leadership Role In Prison Reform

Jackie Lee Thompson after his 1969 arrest at age 15, and in 2004 at age 49 (Elmira Star-Gazette)

By David A. Love

Published in the Legal Intelligencer

Monday, March 26, 2007

Pennsylvania is a leader in prisons, ranking second nationally in per capita growth in prison spending. Prisons cost Pennsylvania taxpayers more each year, but with little to show for it. Now is the time to seek alternatives to this drain on the state’s resources.

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, the number of inmates incarcerated in Pennsylvania's prisons will increase 17 percent— from 42,345 in 2005 to 51,596 by 2011. Meanwhile, the commonwealth spends $33,814 per prisoner per year, far more than the national average of $23,876.

Prisons are the third largest expenditure in the state budget, behind education and welfare. If current trends continue, it will surpass education spending.

Mandatory minimum sentences and harsh sentences for nonviolent drug offenders have created prison overcrowding. Recently, prisoners represented by the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project (PILP) and David Rudovsky successfully sued the City of Philadelphia in federal court over the deplorable, unconstitutional conditions in the city's jails, including unsanitary facilities, a lack of personal hygiene items and detainees forced to sleep on concrete floors.

The state’s prison boom breeds inequities. An Associated Press investigation in 2000 revealed that blacks in Pennsylvania are more likely to receive prison sentences, or longer ones, than white defendants accused of the same crimes. Further, the black incarceration rate is 14 times that of whites, the greatest racial disparity in the nation. African Americans, 10 percent of Pennsylvania's population, are 56 percent of the inmates. This is shameful.

And as the female prison population steadily grows, the abuse and rape of female prisoners by male corrections officers with unsupervised access is an ongoing problem.

Pennsylvania's capricious parole system impedes efforts to incorporate rehabilitated prisoners into society. Parole is an illusion for most prisoners, particularly those serving a life sentence. The 1997 amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution require that a recommendation for a pardon or commutation by the board of pardons be unanimous before it may be considered by the governor. The law serves no penological interest, and only keeps more rehabilitated people behind bars, separated from their families and communities. A coalition of organizations, including PILP under executive director Angus Love, the Pennsylvania Prison Society and others, are challenging the law in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The dysfunction of Pennsylvania's parole system came to light when Governor Rendell recently commuted the life sentence of Michael Howard Anderson, 53, who has served 36 years for the 1971 stabbing death of William Edwards. On the day of the murder, Anderson found a butcher knife on the ground as he boarded a bus headed for a concert at the Spectrum. When a fight broke out during the bus ride, Raynard Gregory grabbed the knife from a fallen Anderson and stabbed Edwards. Meanwhile, Gregory spent only seven years behind bars.

Other deserving prisoners seek a commutation. Keith Smith, 52, has spent 32 years in prison. He has had much time to reflect on his role as accomplice to a 1974 robbery that resulted in a shooting death— he was the lookout, never entered the store and did not pull the trigger. One of his co-defendants was retried and released in 1978, while the other committed suicide in prison in 1980.

Smith is a perfect example of the promise of rehabilitation in a society that often turns its back on the concept. Smith formed an anti-violence program for youth, produced an educational video, raises money for charities, and provides Thanksgiving turkeys for needy families. Society does not benefit from his continued incarceration. Indeed, violence-torn, poverty-stricken Philadelphia needs the help of reformed men such as Keith Smith to tackle the city's troubles.

Jackie Lee Thompson, 51, was convicted on first degree murder at age 15. He was a foster child in rural Tioga County whose mother died when he was 10. On the advice of his court-appointed counsel, Thompson confessed to his role in the shooting and drowning death of a 15-year old girl. The judge told him that with good behavior and a trade, he could be paroled in a few years. Of the two other teens involved, one was tried as a juvenile, while the other was released and never tried.

Thompson has been a model prisoner. He received his G.E.D. and an associate's degree in business management, and teaches advanced computer classes. Among the most staunch proponents of Thompson's release are the family members of the victim, who testified before the Board of Pardons on his behalf.

While Anderson had received the required unanimous recommendation by the board, Thompson and Smith received the approval of only four of the five board members.

As unfair and arbitrary laws at the state level stand in the way of prison reform, draconian federal statutes limit prisoners' access to the federal courts to seek redress.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), enacted ostensibly to stem a tide of frivolous prison lawsuits— such as an inmate who sued over receiving chunky-style rather than creamy peanut butter—has crippled inmates' ability to protect their constitutional rights. The PLRA restricts the federal courts' authority to provide equitable relief when prisons violate the law; imposes a severe cap on attorneys' fees; penalizes indigent prisoners; requires exhaustion of administrative remedies, and requires that prisoners suffer a physical injury in order to recover for mental or emotional injuries.

Consequently, the PLRA blocks valid federal claims of prisoner mistreatment and abuse. The ABA recently urged Congress to repeal or amend its provisions. In light of the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison—the ringleader once abused inmates as a guard at SCI-Greene –prisoners' rights should concern everyone. Pennsylvania must seek bold, effective alternatives to its prison machine. The prison boom separates families and destroys communities, diverts crucial resources, and does not alleviate crime. According to the Sentencing Project, at least 22 states have enacted reforms to their sentencing, probation and parole policies, focusing on alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, expanded drug treatment, and reducing recidivism. Pennsylvania must lead the way in prison reform before it is too late.

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love