Arizona Rep. Cecil Ash Answers My Questions About Sentencing Reform: Part 3

Posted by Vladimir Gagic on September 01, 2011

This is the final part in a three part interview with Arizona Representative Cecil Ash concerning the very important topic of reforming the Arizona penal system and changing how sentencing is done in Arizona. Those who wish to help may contact Rep. Ash at his legislative office at 602-926-3160 (cash@azlag.gov), or through his webpage at www.cecilash.com

Part One of my interview is available here.

Part Two of my interview is available here.

9) Realistically, what specific sentencing reforms do you believe Arizona will enact in the next few years?

Rep. Ash: You ask what reforms do I believe we will enact? It's hard to say which reforms a majority will be persuaded to pass. But these are some that I am hopeful for.

(1) I hope that we give judges more discretion in their sentencing. Right now, prosecutors frequently tie judges' hands to prevent them from issuing sentences judges believe are appropriate. It would be a significant improvement if judges had the option of choosing between consecutive and concurrent sentences, rather than having consecutive sentences mandated by the legislature.

(2) I believe we can provide for a medical parole of those whose physical condition renders them no longer a threat to public safety. These inmates constitute a great burden on the staff and resources of the Department of Corrections.

(3) I believe we can provide more options for the county and courts in drug cases to allow for deferred prosecution in conjunction with rehabilitation efforts that will reduce the defendants that actually go to prison and get a felony on their record.

(4) I believe we can make some changes to the sex registry so we are tracking the felons who actually pose a threat to the community, rather than those who, for example, engaged in consensual sexual encounters. Right now, there's little distinction.

10) Finally, why should the average, law abiding Arizonan embrace the reforms you are proposing? How will sentencing reform benefit them and their families?

Rep. Ash: To the average person who has little or no contact with criminals, it may be difficult to see the benefits on a micro level. But on a macro level, there are great savings to be had. People complain that we are investing too little in education and health care. You never hear the complaint that we are investing too little in our Department of Corrections -- after all, nobody thinks about it, "out of sight, out of mind." But in truth, many of these inmates have families on welfare and AHCCCS. We are spending over 11% of our state budget on Corrections. There are more productive ways to spend our money. 

Beyond that, there is a moral imperative here: you are taking away one of life's most precious gifts -- someone's liberty. There is a moral responsibility when you do that to make sure that it's justified, both in terms of the nature of the punishment and length of the confinement. Someone has said, "We send people to prison as punishment; we don't send people to prison to be punished." That's what the despots do. That is not America.

Thank you Rep. Ash for not only taking the time to answer my questions, but also concerning yourself with this just cause.

Rep. Ash: You're welcome. I keep thinking that sometime I should quit the legislature and enjoy retirement. However, everyday I am reminded that there are inmates sitting in prison who shouldn't be there. It's a perversity that we are punishing people and taking away their freedom for crimes that in many cases involved no serious physical harm and no serious financial loss to anyone.

I hope your community will support this effort. Everyone of your readers has a senator and two representatives who should hear from him or her that they believe it's time to address these issues.

Those who wish to help may contact me at my legislative office at 602-926-3160 (cash@azlag.gov), or through my webpage at www.cecilash.com  

Thanks.

Arizona Rep. Cecil Ash Answers My Questions About Sentencing Reform: Part 2

Posted by Vladimir Gagic on August 30, 2011

This is part two in a three part interview with Arizona Representative Cecil Ash concerning the very important topic of reforming the Arizona penal system and changing how sentencing is done in Arizona. Those who wish to help may contact Rep. Ash at his legislative office at 602-926-3160 (cash@azlag.gov), or through his webpage at www.cecilash.com 

Part One of my interview is available here. 

5) I know that part of your reasoning is based on the success of the Arizona's Safe Communities Act and the Pew's Public Safety Performance Project, but how do we rule out the reported drop in crime simply as a result of either looser enforcement or a population drop resulting from the poor job market? In other words, how do we make sure the benefits of Arizona's Safe Communities Act, and any proposed sentencing reforms, are real and not just nominal?

Rep. Ash: The success of the "Safe Communities Act" in Arizona has been measured and documented. It's produced 28% less revocations to prison over the last two years. But prison reform (or sentencing reform -- if you will) is occurring around the country with similar results in other jurisdictions.

The successes of the reforms have been apparent in many jurisdictions. They have saved money and reduced recidivism. Thirteen states just shut down prison facilities that are no longer needed. We are not going into uncharted territory; we are merely going into uncharted territory for Arizona.

6) What is your opinion of the private prison industry?

Rep. Ash: I don't blame anyone for trying to earn a dollar. And what other states do with their inmates is not my concern. But for Arizona, I believe private prisons are the wrong approach. No one will argue that the incarceration of criminals is not a legitimate function of government. The reason is that, like many government functions, it’s engaged in out of necessity, not for profit. But private prisons have not been shown to be either cheaper or safer than state-run facilities. In most industries you have the control of the market place so that the best goods or services are offered in the most economical fashion. So for example, a private school that can offer a good product at a fair price will be successful.

However, it is the consumers of the product that are making the decision to buy. With private prisons, however, the consumers of the product (the inmates) have no say in the purchase decision, which is made by the governor and the legislature. Inmates can't take their business and go elsewhere. The primary goal of a state institution should be public safety and reducing recidivism through rehabilitation. The primary goal of a private prison is profit. These cross-purposes make them suspect. Are they feeding prisoners adequately? Are they providing quality educational or behavior modification programs? Or are they just warehousing the inmates as commodities? Another concern is that private prisons have structured their contracts to take only those prisoners who are not problematic, either health-wise or risk-wise. The state screens the prisoners, classifies them, handles any disciplinary problems, and provides medical services.

In my opinion, in the long run it is a losing proposition for the state, and we should work harder to reduce our prison population rather than making our prisoners commodities.

7) Do you believe that there are lobbies (private prison industry, law enforcement organizations, attorneys, etc..) with an economic interest in keeping more Arizonans in custody whether or not that makes the public safer? Could that be a reason why the Arizona Republic said the reforms you proposed have "gotten nowhere this session"?

Rep. Ash: Of course, that's possible, but I have not seen it. Naturally, there are lobbyists for the private prison industry. That's to be expected. In my experience they are no different than lobbyists for any other industry. Nor have I seen any evidence of attorneys, law enforcement organizations or politicians who are advocating for private prisons for reasons other than a philosophical belief that they provide an alternative way of financing prisons.

Obviously, I don't know anyone's personal motivations other than my own. The small amount of donations made to their proponents has not seemed to me to be unusual.

8) Would you support legislation, similar to Minnesota's House File 3670 "The Post-traumatic Stress Bill", which would require judges to consider a veteran's combat history and PTSD in mitigation?

Rep. Ash: I have not studied the Minnesota bill, however, we have already within the last year or 18 months established "Veteran's Courts" as an acknowledgement that the considerations are different for those who have voluntarily subjected themselves to combat, or who have been trained to be combatants, than for typical criminals. I believe this is appropriate.

Our troops see some pretty nasty things. They are trained to do some bad things. That's war. We understand a lot more now than we did before. Unfortunately, there are those sitting in prisons now that were veterans of the Vietnam era who did not have the benefit of veterans' courts. For them there was no intervention. It would be nice to correct some of those cases.

In addition, we have a significant number of mental health cases in our jails and prisons. These, too, are there because of conditions not necessarily under their control. In both cases, supervised treatment may be more appropriate than punishment.

(Part Three here of my interview)

Arizona Rep. Cecil Ash Answers My Questions About Sentencing Reform: Part 1

Posted by Vladimir Gagic on August 27, 2011

This is part one in a three part interview with Arizona Representative Cecil Ash concerning the very important topic of reforming the Arizona penal system and changing how sentencing is done in Arizona.   Those who wish to help may contact Rep. Ash at his legislative office at 602-926-3160 (cash@azlag.gov), or through his webpage at www.cecilash.com

Rep. Ash is a Republican from Arizona's 18th Legislative District. He is from Mesa, Arizona, and before becoming a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, he was an attorney practicing in real estate and criminal law. As a Maricopa County Public Defender from 1990 to 1995, Rep. Ash defended numerous major felonies, including defending first degree murder cases.

I first noticed Rep. Ash in an article in the Arizona Republic (Arizona prisoner reforms working, study says) in which he stated he introduced "evidence based reform" legislation. I thought it was particularly interesting that a Republican from Mesa would advocate legislation designed to reduce penal consequences. Rep. Ash has kindly agreed to this interview in which he will explain exactly what evidence based reform means and why the public should embrace it.

1) Rep. Ash, thank you for agreeing to this interview. What motivated you to propose sentencing reform legislation and introduce legislation in the Arizona House? I can't imagine that this topic is politically popular, or is it popular among your constituents?

Rep. Ash: You're correct. It's not necessarily popular with constituents. I ran for office to balance the budget. But as I was sitting on the judiciary committee hearing bills, I began to remember my experiences as a public defender. I remember having clients who posed no threat to the public who were harshly sentenced to long prison terms, and I thought, at this time of budgetary constraint, maybe we should re-examine who we're incarcerating, and for how long. It has been several years since the implementation of our current criminal code, and it's time to assess how successful it's been.

2) Do you believe that too many Arizonans, and Americans in general, are in prison?

Rep. Ash: The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country -- by far. It has 5% of the world's population, and 23% of the world's prisoners. One in every 33 citizens is under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system (either in prison, jail, on probation or parole). One in every 100 persons is actually incarcerated. Washington State has roughly 6.5 million people, about the same as Arizona. Yet Washington has only 18,000 inmates, whereas Arizona has 40,000+ inmates. Massachusetts has 6.3 million residents, and has only a little over 11,000 inmates. Clearly, we have a disproportionate number of inmates vis-á-vis our population.

3) What exactly does evidence based reform mean? Does it simply mean shorter prison sentences and probation terms across the board for all crimes?

Rep. Ash: No. It means having data-driven policies. It means looking at what social science has accomplished in terms of changing behavior. For example, formerly, a person under probation supervision might miss an appointment, and the probation officer would say, "Don't do that again." The next time, they would say, "Now, you're really going to get in trouble." After somewhere between eight and 15 violations, they would run out of patience and "violate" the probationers, sending them to prison.

What social science has taught us is that if the first time a probationer fails to show up you send him to jail for the weekend, he's not likely to fail to show up again. In other words, using intermediate sanctions is more successful than allowing multiple screw-ups and then imposing a very harsh consequence. In addition, we've learned that there are a number of social constructs that can predict aberrant behavior.

By applying risk assessments early on in the process, we can better predict what sanctions work best with various individuals. The evidence comes from studies that have been made, or from the experiences of other jurisdictions that have run successful programs.

But a more important corollary question is "On what evidence is the existing system based?" Who decided and how were the current sentences established? Who decided, for example, that someone who possesses child pornography should receive a felony and serve 10 years in prison for each picture, rather than a misdemeanor and a large fine and probation as in some other states? When people question the evidence that we are using, I want them to present the evidence for justifying the status quo.

4) For the average Arizonan, is evidence based reform something that will make them safer even if it means possibly shorter sentences for some crimes? What I mean by that is even if sentencing reform has a net economic benefit for the state as a whole, is there a danger that Arizonans will be less safe than they are now?

Rep. Ash: First of all, no one who constitutes a serious danger to the public is likely to be eligible for the suggested reforms. However, an evidence-based program will result in further decreases in crime. Lengthy incarceration can be a training ground for new and more sophisticated criminals. The longer someone is incarcerated, the more difficulty he will have re-adjusting to society. One formerly successful businessman who was incarcerated for drug use told me that he had learned five new ways to steal an identify while serving his time. Another inmate said he went in with an associate’s degree in crime, and came out with a doctorate.

Right now inmates have little incentive to either better themselves or to improve their conduct. Formerly, we offered incentives for good behavior, or for successful educational or behavioral modification programs that gave inmates the hope that if they worked hard and changed their behavior, they might get out earlier. Those incentives no longer exist. An incentivized release program would not only make our prisons safer, but would decrease the number of inmates, and allow additional resources to be used for further educational and rehabilitation opportunities. It's been said that "education is the cheapest form of crime prevention" --both for the inmate, and for those of us involved in policy decisions.

(see part two of interview)  

Why Does Child Sexual Abuse Happen?

Posted by Allison Gamble on August 17, 2011

According to the National Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, about 80,000 cases of child sexual abuse are reported each year in the United States, and it is presumed that many more occur but are unreported. In court forensic psychology findings are important to determine if abuse has occurred. Knowing about why children are vulnerable to sexual abuse, the types of people who become abusers, and the outlook for victims of abuse can help in healing.

The public consensus is that most sexual crimes happen by strangers. This is actually a misconception perpetrated by the media; most offenders are either family or have some relationship with the immediate family. Also the belief that child sex offenders are likely to re-offend is also a misconception; there is a very low percentage of re-offenders and it is 25 percent lower than all other criminals.

Sexual abuse can be committed by kids and adults and because of variation in what constitutes as sexual abuse there can be a good number of false positives. While there is a high percentage of abusers who were abused as children themselves, that on its own does not predict the future. Men are almost always the offenders when it comes to child sexual abuse.

The type of person who sexually abuses children typically has a need to control another person in both body and mind. Most abusers know what they are doing is wrong but come up with denial mechanisms. Some adults find it easy to exploit a child's fears of getting into trouble or of being unloved by the people he or she cares about. As a result, abusers are able to continue victimizing a child as long as the child does not tell anyone about the abuse.

Some abusers tell the child that they will be punished for telling, or they may threaten to harm their victim's family if the child says anything to another adult. Older children may believe that their abuser is teaching them about sex or that they are in a romantic relationship with their abuser. The fact that abusers usually tell children anything to keep them quiet shows that they know the abuse is wrong.

People who were sexually abused as children sometimes become depressed and have difficulty having healthy, trusting relationships with family members and friends. Some turn to drugs for relief or become sexually active at an early age. Victims of abuse are often seen as damaged but with support from friends and family and with counseling or therapy, they can have a happy and healthy life.

Child sexual abuse is rarely an easy thing for victims and their families to work through. Abusers necessarily confuse and manipulate their victims. If abuse continues for an extended period of time, the victim can develop psychological and behavioral problems. Knowing how and why these problems developed can help families of abuse victims support their loved ones.

Bonding Out of an Arizona Jail: Gary Dunham of Alliance Bail Bond Answers my Questions

Posted by Vladimir Gagic on April 13, 2011

Gary F. Dunham Jr.is the principal of Alliance Bail Bonds LLC in Mesa, Arizona.  He has kindly agreed to answer the following questions, which I get asked all the time, about bonding out of custody from an Arizona jail.

If a family member is out the state and cannot come to Arizona, can you help them bond a friend or family member out of an Arizona Jail?  

If someone is out of state and cannot come to Arizona, they are able to post a bond via telephone and fax/email using either a credit/debit card, wire transfer or a piece of property. If someone calls us collect from the jail, we are able to gather the information they provide to us, contact their family/friends for them and arrange a bail bond. Once arranged, then we can post a bond to get the defendant released from custody.

If the judge orders “cash only” bond, what does that mean? 

Cash Only means that the jail will accept only "Cash Money" as a form of payment to secure a defendant's release from custody. Not a paper bond. "Cash or Bond" means that the jail will accept either a "Paper Bond" or "Cash Money" as a form of payment to secure a defendant's release from custody. Both can be considered appearance bonds unless the "Cash Only" designation is for unpaid fines, in which case the "Cash Money" paid to secure the defendant’s release from custody is likely to be applied to the unpaid fine amount by the court. 

How does the bail bonds process work? In other words, let’s say someone has a $30,000 secured bond, and a family members wants to get him out but they do not have $30,000 on hand, what would should they do? 

The first thing to do is to contact a reputable Bail Bond Company to arrange the bond.  In this example of a $30,000.00 bond the required in accordance with the law is to secure collateral (Something that has a value of $30,000.00 or more) that the Bond Company could hold in their possession or attach a lien to.  The Bond Company will also charge as their fee for posting the bond 10% of the bond plus expenses. ($3,000.00 + expenses) Expenses vary and are mostly related to costs of lien attachments, notarization of documents and time of day the bond is posted, although Bond Companies fees can vary. 

A lot of people assume that if a bond is secured, they can get out by only paying 10% of the bond amount and no other property or cash is require. Is that correct? 

That is a common misconception. If you contract with a Bail Bond Company the fee govened by law is 10% of the bond + expenses. But collateral is required on all bonds posted in the State of Arizona.

Do you handle all the court paperwork once someone hires your company as far as filing with the court? 

Yes, we produce all the court required documents necessary to secure the release from custody of a criminal defendant after we are contracted with.


Continue Reading

Solomon Kanu Interview Concerning Arizona Immigration and Criminal Law

Posted by Vladimir Gagic on April 11, 2011

Mr. Solomon Kanu is a well-established immigration and criminal defense lawyer in Phoenix, Az.  He has graciously agreed to an interview regarding the overlap between criminal law and immigration law. 

Mr. Kanu:

1) If someone is charged with a misdemeanor, for example a DUI or assault, and they are not a US citizen, should they be concerned about ICE or possible deportation?

Oh yes. Even long term permanent residents can be put in Removal proceedings because of some criminal conviction that is as simple as DUI. Many times when a non-citizen is booked into a jail, ICE is notified and they can place an Immigration detainer (hold) on the defendant making it imperative that even if he or she bonds out of the jail, ICE picks them up. It is important to consult with an immigration lawyer with criminal defense knowledge or have your criminal defense lawyer retain an immigration lawyer for you right away.

2) What if someone is not a US citizen and they are convicted of a felony, will they automatically be deported?

No. It depends on the offense and other factors of the conviction. Even then, there are several forms of relief that may be available.

3) What should a person who is facing criminal charges, for example, they are in custody in the county jail, do if an ICE agent asks to speak with them?  Can they invoke Miranda rights and refuse to talk to an ICE agent?  Is there anything in immigration proceedings similar to a suspect's Miranda rights in a criminal matter? Does someone have the absolute right to consult with an attorney during an ICE investigation as they would in a criminal investigation?

They can refuse to speak and ask that their lawyer be present in any interview with ICE. Whatever information they give then remains a permanent record in their immigration file.

4) When should a person be concerned about his immigration status?  If ICE has put a hold on someone while they are in custody for a criminal matter, can they bond out? And what does the immigration court consider when determining release conditions?    

A person should be concerned about their immigration status before they get into any trouble at all. If they are in jail already and ICE puts a hold it means that bonding out is to be released to ICE. It is sometimes risky because they may not be able to attend the next court hearing with the criminal court if they are detained in the Immigration Detention Centers in Eloy, Florence etc.

5) How has Arizona's recent law on immigration, SB 1070, changed how you practice law?

I don’t think it has changed anything.

6) If you could tell a person who is facing criminal charges and is not a US citizen one thing, what would that be?

Do not take any chances or take any pleas until you have been advised of the possible immigration consequences of the offense/conviction.

Continue Reading