Maxwell Is Getting Special Privileges Denied To Other Prisoners

Ghislaine Maxwell was the person who recruited girls (many of whom were underage) for Jeffrey Epstein's sex parties for his rich friends.  She was rightly convicted and sent to federal prison for her actions. But after refusing to name Donald Trump as having engaged in that illegal conduct, it seems she is getting special privileges that she is not entitled to get (including a transfer to a more minimum security prison that sex offenders are not supposed to be allowed in).

The following is from an article by Ken Dilanian at MSNBC.com:

Ghislaine Maxwell, the Jeffrey Epstein confidante and convicted child sex trafficker, is being waited on “hand and foot” by the staff at her minimum security prison camp while she prepares a request that President Donald Trump commute her sentence, according to whistleblower revelations made public on Monday by House Democrats.

“The deference and servility to Ms. Maxwell have reached such preposterous levels that one of the top officials at the facility has complained that he is ‘sick of having to be Maxwell’s bitch,’” according to a letter to Trump from Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

In August, Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for helping Epstein prey sexually on children and young women, had an unusual interview with the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, who once was Trump’s personal defense attorney. She told Blanche she never saw Trump behaving inappropriately.

After the interview, she was transferred from a low security prison in Florida to a minimum security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has not explained the transfer, which MSNBC and other outlets reported deviated from a policy that generally forbids sex offenders from serving in prison camps.

Days after her arrival, she said in emails to friends and relatives that she was much happier at the less restrictive facility.

Now Judiciary Democrats say they have obtained documents and whistleblower information that Maxwell is receiving special favors at the prison camp — benefits unavailable to other inmates.

Raskin’s letter said Maxwell has received customized meals personally delivered to her cell, after-hours time in a private exercise area and access to a service puppy.

Raskin said Maxwell was also afforded private meetings with visitors arranged by the warden, complete with snacks. The guests were allowed to bring computers, which Raskin described as “an unprecedented action” that risked Maxwell having “unmonitored communications with the outside world.”

When the phone lines went down for other inmates at the camp, Raskin said, Maxwell had friends and relatives call prison employees, who then could help her speak to them.

“These luxuries and amenities … mark Ms. Maxwell more as a guest at a Trump hotel than a federal prisoner and child sex offender,” Raskin wrote.

While prison officials “cater to her every need,” Raskin wrote, Maxwell has also been preparing a written request that Trump commute her sentence.

“The Warden herself is directly helping Ms. Maxwell copy, print, and send documents related to this application,” Raskin wrote.

Raskin said Democrats have been told that “any inmate or staff who questions or blows the whistle on the institution’s grotesque pampering of a serial sexual abuser and human trafficker at taxpayer expense is being punished and retaliated against” by the warden, Tanisha Hall.

Trump Administration Said They Were Violent Criminals - Where Is The Proof?

The Trump administration deported 238 immigrants to a maximum prison in El Salvador. A couple of days ago, they sent 10 more to that prison. Administration officials said they were violent criminals - the worst of the worst.

As President Bukele of El Salvador visited the White House, HHS Secretary Kristi Norm thanked him for taking these "worst" criminals that the U.S. didn't have room for. What a ridiculous statement!

The United States has more people in prison per capita than any other country in the entire world. I'm sure we could have found room for 248 more. The problem was not having enough room. It was violating both the Constitution and the rule of law.

These immigrants (and any other visitor to this country) have the same rights under our Constitution as citizens do. One of these important rights is "due process" - the right to a hearing or trial before the government takes punitive action against you.

If these deportees had been given a hearing (which was their right), the government would have had to prove they were undocumented. They could have done that probably, and then had the right to deport them to the country of their origin.

But they were not deported to the country of their origin (Venezuela). They were sent to El Salvador - and even worse, they were sent to a maximum security prison - possibly for the rest of their lives (or until the U.S. stopped paying El Salvador to incarcerate them).

That was a violation of the rule of law. The government of the United States cannot put anyone in prison with giving them a trial and providing proof that they have violated the law. No proof was offered and no trial was held. Mere statements by government officials are NOT proof!

The truth is that the government likely had no proof. At least 75% of these deportees had no criminal record - and the government offered no proof that any of them had violated U.S. law.

If these men were violent gang members and undocumented, then I would have no problem with their deportation. But it must be done correctly and within the law. When anyone is denied due process and imprisoned without proof in a trial, it puts everyone in danger - even citizens.

Rights must apply to everyone or they are assured for no one. 

Public Is Split On Whether To Send Trump To Prison Or Not

The chart above is from the AP / NORC Poll -- done between June 20th and 24th of a nationwide sample of 1,088 adults, with a 4 point margin of error. 

Could Trump Run For President From Prison? YES!

Most Americans think Donald Trump committed a crime (either by stealing top secret documents, or trying to subvert the 2020 election result). And a substantial number believe he will be convicted of a crime. Since an overwhelming number of Republicans still support Trump, it brings up a question -- could Trump still run for the presidency if convicted and sent to prison? The answer is yes! It has happened before -- in the 1920 presidential election. 

Socialist Eugene V. Debs was in prison for opposing America's entry into World War I. He was allowed to submit a 500 word campaign article each week to the press (even though most newspapers of the day refused to print it). He still got almost a million votes.

In these modern times, Trump would have a much easier time. He would have access to social media, where he could get his message out to his millions of follower. And he would likely even get TV time and coverage in the press.

It would be unusual, but it could happen. And with Trump's ego, there is little doubt that he would continue his presidential quest even if imprisoned. And there is little doubt the Republican Party would let him do it, since they are afraid of angering his supporters (many of whom might stay at home on Election Day if they don't have their favorite demagogue to vote for). That would be disastrous for down-ballot Republicans.

Will Trump be convicted and sent to prison? Will it happen before Election Day? We'll just have to wait and see, but it could happen.
 

Trump Was The Mastermind Of The Attack On Democracy

 

Republican officials won't admit that they know who orchestrated the attack on our democracy. And the timid media seems to be going along with that -- talking about there being no proof of who did it. Hogwash! They all know who did it, and so does every American.

The criminal who organized the attack on our Capitol (and the many attacks on our democracy in the courts) is Donald Trump. 

Trump was the person who came up with the "Big Lie" on which all the attacks on democracy are predicated. He was the one to continually spread that lie (that he actually won the election but had it stolen from him by massive fraud). He was the one to ask his supporters to come to the Capitol on January 6th, and he was the one that sent the crowd to attack the Capitol Building. He was the one that directed attorneys to file dozens of lawsuits to overturn the result of a valid election. And the memos to create fake electors came from his office.

Could any of this have happened without Trump's knowledge and consent? No. All you have to do is look at Trump's past history to determine that. Trump has always been a micro-manager. In Trump's business history, nothing happened that Trump did not know about and approve. Anyone who has ever worked for him can tell you that.

And he did not change his stripes when he entered the White House. Nothing happened during his administration that he did not know about and approved. Anyone who disagreed with him quickly found they were out of a job (and vilified by him).

Why would the attack on our democracy be any different from his past history in business and political office? It's not. Trump micro-managed the attack on democracy just like he micro-managed his business and his presidency.

Donald Trump organized and set into motion the most serious attack on American democracy since the Civil War. He is a criminal and a traitor. He needs to be punished (and that should include a prison sentence)!

U.S. Still Imprisons A Higher Percentage Than Anyone Else

According to the Pew Research Center, the amount of citizens imprisoned in the U.S. has dropped -- from 1,000 citizens per 100,000 to 810 per 100,000. That is a good thing, but it still is too large. The United States puts a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other country -- currently about 2.1 million.

There is no reason for this to happen, except that the United States tries to solve social problems with its law enforcement (like drug use). But this does not solve those problems. It just exacerbates them, and makes a laughingstock of U.S. claims to be a free nation.

People are the same all over the world, and U.S. citizens are no more criminal than the citizens of other nations. It is to our shame that we lock up so many of our citizens. We must change that. 

U.S. Has Highest Prison Incarceration Rate In The World

The United States just finished celebrating Independence Day -- the day when Americans revel in their "freedom". But that "freedom" is questionable. The chart above (made with information provided by the Prison Policy Initiative) shows that this "free" nation has more of its people in prison than any other nation in the entire world.

I just picked some of the world's nations to include in my chart, and if you want to see the entire list (with their rates of incarceration), you can go to prisonpolicy.org. The nation with the lowest incarceration rate is the Central African Republic (16 per 100,000). The nation with the highest incarceration rate is the United States (693 per 100,00). That's significantly higher than second-place Turkmenistan (583 per 100,00).

Why does the United States incarcerate so much more of its population than other countries? Are Americans a more lawless people than those living in other nations? Of course not. The United States has decided to try and solve its social problems by throwing people in prison. An example of this is the people sent to prison for the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana.

How can we call ourselves a free country when we incarcerate such a large percentage of our population? No other true democracy has anywhere close to the rate of the United States -- and sadly, even no nation generally regarded as a police state has a rate as high as the United States.

Land of the free?

Is Juvenile Justice Better In Texas (Or Just An Illusion) ?

(The image above is from the website of adeca.alabama.gov.)

The following is from a new article on juvenile justice in Texas in The Texas Observer:

Since a 2007 sex abuse scandal at a state-run youth lockup in West Texas, state lawmakers have entirely remade Texas’ juvenile justice system, shuttering many of the state’s prison-like juvenile facilities and keeping many more kids under supervision close to home.

Today, a new report from the non-profit Council of State Governments, a team led by Texas criminal justice expert Tony Fabelo and researchers from Texas A&M, provides a sort of book-end to those reforms, affirming that Texas’ reforms over the last eight years have not only kept thousands of kids out of state-run lockups, but also offered better treatment to help them avoid another arrest.

At a press conference at the Texas Supreme Court Thursday morning, Mike Thompson, director of the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center, suggested Texas’ political leaders could indulge in a little self-congratulation. “You said kids would do better closer to home. You said the state would save money. You said the state would be safer.” On all those counts, Thompson said, Texas was right. The study, he said, also affirms Texas’ place as a national leader in juvenile justice reform, an instructive example for other states.

Among the report’s encouraging findings:

• In 2007, before Texas lawmakers began these reforms, 4,305 youths were locked up in state-run facilities. Today, less than 1,000 kids are locked up in state facilities.
• The state also cut its spending on state-run juvenile lockups by $179 million, and closed eight of its lockups. Over the same period, researchers found, statewide juvenile arrests fell by one third.
• Per capita spending at county probation departments increased from $4,337 to $7,304 from 2005 to 2012—counties, in other words, had more money to spend on each child in the local justice system.

Those all reflect trends that have been pretty well-publicized here in the last few years. . .

Researchers also found that local probation departments hadn’t gotten much more effective than they were in 2007. The departments are chronically underfunded, and supported mostly with county funding. Researchers studied hundreds of treatment programs employed at the county level, and suggested that counties weren’t always connecting the right child with the right treatment—a mismatch, they said, that “can also increase the likelihood a youth will come into contact with the justice system.”

Sounds great doesn't it? But has that "reform" really made things better for kids coming in contact with the criminal justice system in Texas? Or is it just lipstick on a really ugly pig? Let's take a more critical look at the numbers quoted above.

Note that it says juvenile arrests have declined by one-third -- and the local probation departments are not doing any better than they were doing in 2007 (before the reforms). That means those incarcerated in a juvenile facility should have dropped by one-third also (from 4,305 a year to about 2,870 a year). But it dropped to about 1,000 a year. What is happening to that other 1,870 kids each year?

Are those kids just being turned back out on the street? I doubt it. The justice system in Texas isn't prone to just turn people loose. I think that 1,870 is being sent somewhere other than the juvenile justice system -- to an adult prison. I believe the district attorneys in Texas have become disenchanted with the juvenile justice system and are simply bypassing it for older kids (16 and 17 year olds).

On the surface, the sharp drop in the number of kids incarcerated in the juvenile system seems to be a positive thing. But if that is happening, even partially, because more kids are being sent to an adult prison, then that is not a good thing.

While writing this post, I tried to find some numbers on how many teenagers are being sent to Texas prisons -- but I was unsuccessful. Before we celebrate the effectiveness of Texas' juvenile justice reforms, it would be a good idea if a study was done on that. We might find the reforms are not as effective as thought.

Killing Innocent People Is Unconscionable

There is a new report out from the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) a joint project of the University of Michigan and Northwestern University law schools -- and it's a rather frightening indictment of our justice system. According to the NRE, since 1989 there have been over 2,000 cases nationwide where a person has been exonerated (found to be innocent) after being convicted of a felony crime and sent to prison (which comes out to about 87 people a year -- that we know about). Many of these people had served many years in prison before being exonerated.

That in itself would be bad enough, but it gets much worse. At least 101 of those innocent people had been sentenced to death and spent their time on death row. That's right, in just the last 23 years this nation has sent a minimum of 101 people to death row to be executed (or about 4.4 people each and every year).

That's just the number that we know about, and have been released. How many innocent people are still on death row, waiting to be unjustly executed? And even worse, how many innocent people have already been executed? We'll probably never know that number, but we know it does happen. We have recently learned about two innocent people in Texas alone that were unjustly executed -- Cameron Todd Willingham and Carlos DeLuna.

I'm not saying everyone on death row should be released -- far from it. Many of them are vicious and dangerous people, and they should never be allowed to walk free again. But should we really be in the business of executing human beings, especially in light of the knowledge we have about the imperfections of our justice system? Wouldn't it be enough to keep them locked up? After all, an execution is the one thing in our justice system that can't be undone.

Sending innocent people to prison is very wrong. Killing them is unconscionable.

(NOTE -- The picture above was taken from the Facebook page of the Texas Moratorium Network.)

Supreme Court Orders Release Of Thousands Of Prisoners

The United States Supreme Court announced a decision yesterday that will probably make a lot of people unhappy. In a 5-4 decision they upheld a ruling from a lower court that the state of California must release thousands of state prisoners (even though their sentences may not be completed). California's prison system has a capacity to house about 110,000 prisoners but has been holding thousands more than that (currently the prison population is about 142,000).

The court ruled that California prisons had "fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements" and the overcrowding had resulted in "needless suffering and death". The four most right-wing justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) voted against the ruling, and Scalia warned that "terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order".

Scalia may be right, especially if the wrong prisoners are chosen to be released. But the Supreme Court really had no choice. They were just voting to uphold previous Supreme Court decisions that said any governmental authority that incarcerates people has a responsibility to house those people in a safe and minimally decent environment -- anything less is unconstitutional "cruel and unusual" punishment. With its huge overcrowding, California had violated that constitutional standard.

California is not the only state that is currently housing many thousands of prisoners. Texas currently has more prisoners than California (or any other state). But Texas has chosen a different path. They have spent enormous amounts of money to build many prisons to house the huge number of inmates, and they have done that at the expense of children, the poor, and the elderly. Texas funds it schools and social programs at levels significantly lower than almost all other states so they will have the money to house and feed the many thousands of prisoners.

Even in the current session of the legislature where they are having to make up for a $27 billion biennial budget shortfall, the prison system got funded while social programs and education received huge and drastic cuts in state funding. Frankly, both the Texas and California ways of handling their huge prison populations are unacceptable. California's overcrowding is unconstitutional and Texas' underfunding of necessary programs will just create future problems.

The simple fact of the matter is that the United States as a whole incarcerates far too many of its citizens -- more than any other country in the world. This is true whether talking about the total number of prisoners (over 2.2 million) or the number of prisons per 100,000 people (about 738 -- which is about 131 more prisoners per capita than second place Russia). Politicians in this country seem to think they can solve social problems by incarcerating people.

There are two major reasons for the huge American prison population. First, the United States has chosen to handle its crime problem (which is really no worse than that of many other developed nations) by giving harsh and lengthy prison sentences. Second, the United Staes has chosen to handle simple drug possession and use (which again, is no worse than in other countries) as a crime rather than as the medical problem that it really is.

I'm sure there are those that would like to build even more prisons and incarcerate more people, but that is not the solution. We have already shown the world that incarcerating large amounts of people for long periods of time won't solve the problems of either crime or drug use (or any other social problems). It is time to find real solutions. A good place to start would be to change laws to create more reasonable prison sentences and to legalize drug use and possession (and fight its use through education and treatment).

These kind of common sense solutions would not only drastically reduce prison overcrowding, but would free up large amounts of money to provide assistance to children, the poor, the elderly, and the jobless -- the Americans most hurt by the recession and government budget cuts.

Mississippi Has Set A Horrible Precedent

Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour, has received a lot of good press recently for commuting the life sentences of two sisters, Jamie and Gladys Scott (who had been convicted in 1994 of setting up a victim for an armed robbery that netted $11).   One of the sisters needed a kidney transplant, and the other had offered her kidney for the transplant.   Barbour said,   "The Mississippi Department of Corrections believes the sisters no longer pose a threat to society.   Their incarceration is no longer necessary for public safety or rehabilitation, and Jamie Scott's medical condition creates a substantial cost to the State of Mississippi."

Let me be clear here -- I do not oppose the commutation of the women's prison sentences.   There were many who believed the sentence had been too harsh to begin with, and the women had already served 16 years of that sentence.   If the sisters did not pose a threat to society, and there was no need of further "rehabilitation", then the governor did the right thing by commuting their sentences and freeing them.

And it is also within the powers of the governor to release them to save the state substantial medical bills, even if that seems a rather hard-hearted reason.   It is even within the governor's right to commute the sentences for political reasons -- to repair some political damage he caused himself by downplaying the role of the White Citizen's Councils in fighting against Civil Rights in the 1960s.

But there is something about the governor's action in commuting these sentences that I find very troubling.   He made a it requirement that one of the sisters give up her kidney -- the commutation would not have happened without it (and they could be re-incarcerated if the donation failed to take place).

Now I don't doubt that the sister was happy and very willing to donate a kidney to her sister.   It is her right to do so (or not to do it).   But she should not have been forced to do so with the threat of a continuing incarceration.   By making it a requirement, in effect, the governor sold a commutation -- and the price was one kidney.   This sets a very bad precedent.

Is it now a policy of the State of Mississippi that a prisoner can purchase his release by selling (donating) a kidney, or some other body part?   It is not outside the realm of possibility that a future ethically-challenged governor (not uncommon for politicians of both parties) could repeat this action to get a kidney (or other body part) from a prisoner for a friend, family member or high-profile person.   After all, the precedent has now been set.

The governor had reasons to commute these sentences if that's what he wanted to do, but it was just wrong for him to demand the payment of a kidney for the release.   And I'm shocked that few people have noticed the ethical and moral problems of the governor's decision.

Prison is for punishment and rehabilitation.   It is not, and should never be, a source of organ donations.

A Dangerous Profession

Hundreds of thousands of young people in the United States and across the globe picture themselves as someday becoming famous journalists. They see the profession as rather glamourous, and hope to be the next Woodward, Bernstein, Murrow or Cronkite -- covering great achievements like the moon landing, exposing injustices like abuse of the farmworkers or bringing down a government by bringing to light its corrupt practices.

A very few of them might actually accomplish this, provided they have the stamina to work the long hours, the ability to recognize and write a great story, the courage to fight corporate ownership and the ability to live on a less than stellar salary for many years. But while those may be roadblocks to the desired fame, there is an even darker side to journalism.

That darker side is that a journalist that seeks to write or report the truth, instead of being rewarded with fame and fortune, may actually be subjected to exile, imprisonment or even death (and some just disappear). There are many governments, organizations and people who don't want the truth revealed, and are capable of doing vile things to suppress it.

This is not just true in developing nations or with tyrannical regimes, but all over the world including the United States (you may remember the murder of radio broadcaster Alan Berg a few years ago by white supremacists). Even here in the United States, which is supposedly a free country with a free press, it is not all that uncommon to find journalists jailed for something like refusing to reveal a confidential source (without which they could not properly do their job).

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which tries to keep abuses of journalists in the public eye to help protect them, 136 journalists were imprisoned worldwide in 2009. Here are the eleven worst violators:

China.....24

Iran.....23

Cuba.....22

Eritrea.....19

Burma.....9

Uzbekistan.....7

Azerbaijan.....6

Ethiopia.....4

Egypt.....3

Tunisia.....2

Yemen.....2

Fifteen other nations have imprisoned at least one journalist for trying to do his/her job, including a freelance journalist in Iraq, Ibrahim Jassam, who is being held by the United States military. The Iraqi Central Criminal Court has ruled there was no evidence to hold him and ordered his release, but the U.S. military has refused to do so. They continue to hold him in prison without evidence and without charges.

And while we're on this subject, bloggers and other internet writers of news or politics shouldn't be too smug or too sure of their own security. Over half of those currently in prison are "internet journalists".

But in a way, those imprisoned are the lucky ones -- because they are at least still alive. In 2009, at least 71 journalists were killed in the line of duty -- the most since CPJ began keeping track in 1992. In fact, 801 journalists have been killed since 1992, and the profession seems to be getting more dangerous -- not less. Here are the 20 deadliest countries for journalists:

Iraq.....141

Philippines.....68

Algeria.....60

Russia.....52

Columbia.....42

Somalia.....32

Pakistan.....26

India.....26

Afghanistan.....21

Turkey.....20

Bosnia.....19

Mexico.....19

Sri Lanka.....18

Tajikistan.....17

Rwanda.....16

Brazil.....16

Sierra Leone.....16

Bangladesh.....12

Israel & Occupied Territory.....10

Angola.....9

We should never forget the many journalists who have given their freedom and their lives, and the journalists who continue to risk their freedom and their lives, to bring the truth to the world. They are not just heroes, but absolutely necessary if we are to progress toward a better, more free and more humane world.

While knowing the truth is necessary for freedom, reporting that truth is now, and always has been, a very dangerous profession.

(The picture above is of Ernie Pyle, one of America's greatest war correspondents. He was killed on Okinawa in 1945.)

Kerik Sentenced To 4 Years In Prison

How the mighty one has fallen. Bernard Kerik was once called one of the best police chiefs in this country and was called a hero after 9/11 (although I think it was the men who he commanded that were the real heroes and Kerik was just trying to trade off their heroism).

But regardless of whether it was his own heroism or his men's heroism, Kerik nearly used that to catapult himself into an important national office. George Bush bought into the hype and in 2004 he nominated Kerik to become the head of the Homeland Security Department.

It looked like he would actually head that department, but Democrats created a firestorm of protest, delaying the nomination and finally forcing it to be withdrawn. And that's a good thing because Kerik has turned out to be far from a hero. He's just another criminal.

Last November, he pled guilty to eight felonies, including tax fraud and lying to the White House while they were vetting him for the job at Homeland Security. He will remain free (with an electronic ankle bracelet) until May 17th when he must report to a federal prison (which is yet to be designated).

Kerik must also pay $188,000 in restitution and also pay income taxes and penalties on six years of tax returns. He has know about the restitution and taxes with penalties since last November, but has yet to pay a single penny.

The federal court guidelines recommended 27 to 33 months in prison, but the federal judge exceeded that and sentenced Kerik to 48 months, saying the guidelines didn't consider "the almost operatic proportions of this case". He went on to chastise Kerik by saying, "The fact that Mr. Kerik would use that event (9/11) for personal gain and aggrandizement is a dark place in the soul for me."

Kerik had pleaded for a short sentence, saying he had "become a better person". Maybe so, but I don't think that should even be considered until he finishes serving that four year sentence -- which he richly deserves.

Spector Doesn't Like Prison !

Here's a shocking bit of news. It seems that convicted murderer Phil Spector doesn't like prison. I have to wonder, did he think he was supposed to like it? Does he think all the other prisoners consider prison to be a vacation, and they're really having a good time?

Spector wrote to his friend Steve Escobar saying he wants his attorneys to get him to "a better prison with people more like myself in it during the appeal process instead of all these lowlife scumbags, gangsters and Manson types....They’d kill you here for a 39-cent bag of soup!”

Oh my! They've put a lowlife scumbag murderer in the same prison with other "lowlife scumbags". The horror! I think Spector needs to grow up and realize a couple of things.

1. He is a murderer. He belongs in a maximum security prison with other people who've committed similar crimes. If he can't do the time, he shouldn't have done the crime (which was to shoot an unarmed and defenseless woman in the face).

2. He's not supposed to like prison. He was sent there to be punished, just like the other "lowlife scumbags" in prison with him. If he liked it, it wouldn't be punishment.

This creep thought he was a badass when he threatened unarmed people with a gun for years on the outside. It doesn't surprise me that he's really just a pathetic wimp.

"Squeaky" Fromme To Be Released

It looks like Fort Worth is about to lose one of its most high-profile prisoners. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has announced that Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, now 60 years old, will be released from the federal prison at Carswell on August 16. She has been incarcerated since 1975, and in the Fort Worth facility since 1987. The picture above is of Fromme in 2000.

At the time of the Tate-La Bianca murders in Los Angeles, Fromme was a member of the Charles Manson clan that lived Spahn Ranch. She was not involved in those murders, but she did demonstrate at the trial with other members of the "family", asking for Manson's release.

In 1975, she was apprehended after pointing a gun at President Gerald Ford in San Francisco. There was no bullet in the chamber, but the gun's clip was loaded. Fromme said she just wanted to "talk" with the president about Manson and the environment. I think she learned that day that was not the way to do it. The Secret Service quickly disarmed and arrested her, and a federal court sentenced her to life in prison.

At the time she was sentenced, life in a federal prison meant that parole was possible after 30 years. She is to finally be released after spending 34 years in prison (most of it in maximum security).

I'm pretty comfortable with her being released after serving 34 years. She has not actually hurt anyone. If she had really wanted to shoot President Ford, she could have done it. She had a loaded gun and a perfect opportunity. I think she has probably served enough time.

It will be interesting to see what she does with what remains of her life.

Wesley Snipes Gets 3 Years In Prison

Yesterday, Wesley Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison. He had been convicted of three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns. The judge gave him the maximum sentence, saying he felt it was important to deter "tax avoidance".

Snipes had made at least $38 million since 1999, but did not even bother to file a return or pay any taxes. He told the court, "I am very sorry for my mistakes and errors. This will never happen again."

He repeatedly tried to give the court three checks totaling $5 million, but the court refused to take them. An IRS agent took the checks during a court break. The prosecutor called it a "grandstand move" and said it was only a portion of the taxes owed.

I like Wesley Snipes. I think he's a good actor and I enjoyed his movies. But I can't bring myself to feel sorry for him. This was not a mistake made in a good faith effort to pay his taxes. He just decided he didn't think he should have to pay any taxes.

This is inexcusable, especially when you consider the millions of workers who make far less but manage to pay their taxes. Snipes should consider himself lucky he wasn't convicted of more serious charges and given a much longer sentence.

Now the government needs to go after other tax avoiders, including rich white guys who hide their money off-shore to avoid taxes.

More Embarrassing Stats From Census Bureau

The Census Bureau released statistics yesterday on numbers of people living in prisons and college dorms in 2006. To be blunt, these new stats are an embarrassment for the United States.

It seems that there are three times as many Afro-Americans living in a prison cell as there are living in a college dorm. The numbers for Hispanics are almost as bad. There are 2.7 Hispanics living in prison for every one living in a college dorm. It's different for whites. More than twice as many whites live in dorms as prisons.

It has not always been that way. In 1980, the number of Afro-Americans living in dorms was equal to the number living in prisons, and more Hispanics lived in dorms than prisons. What happened?

Urban League president Marc Morial said, "It's one of the great social and economic tragedies of our time. It points to the signature failure in our education system and how we've been raising our children."

He's right. We have been doing a poor job of educating Afro-American and Hispanic children in this country. But we have done a poor job of educating these children for a long time. Other forces have added to this problem since 1980 -- stagnant wages for the working class, rising costs of a college education, the new prohibition (war on drugs), and continuing racism.

While the rich have gotten much richer since the Republicans came to power in the 1980's, they are the only people who are better off. Wages have stagnated for the middle and working classes so badly that they now have less buying power than they did in the 1970's. The "trickle down" theory embraced by the Republicans simply did not work for anyone outside the upper class.

Couple this with the fact that college costs have risen enormously, and it's easy to see why many in the middle and working classes can no longer afford to send their children to live in a college dorm. In fact, many can't even afford to offer their children a commuter college education.

The "war on drugs" has also been ramped up since 1980, and due to the continuing racism in our society, has been aimed primarily at the minority community (even though there is no proof that they use drugs any more than whites). Add this to the reality that when arrested for drug possession minorities are more likely to be sent to prison than whites, and you can begin to see how we got into this mess.

We can fix the problem, but it won't be easy. We must:

A. Restructure our tax system so the rich pay their fair share and the burden no longer falls mainly on the middle class.

B. Pay workers a decent and livable wage, and make sure that wage rises at least as much as the rate of inflation.

C. End prohibition, and tax drug sales to provide treatment instead of incarceration for users.

D. Rein in college costs and provide more government help for low and middle income students.

E. Do a better job of educating minority and low-income students.

F. Renew the fight against racism on all levels, including the racism that still exists in our societal institutions.

We must change what we are doing and restore the American Dream to all our citizens. Our future depends on it.