[statecom-discuss] Fwd: No Fees on Offenders

[Betty H. Zisk]

Here is finally a position with which I can agree wnoleheartedly. Perhaps
because I know the inmates' dependence on outside support and the poor
families trying to support them against all odds. I speak from two yr's
experience having ccordinated the Alternatives to Violence program in
Norfolk, before Weld shut it down; and alas a four year relationship
following that, with a man serving a life sentence at Norfolk (okay you
didnt know this about me). I essentially supported him to the tune of more
than $100 a month during those yrs because his family couldnt. (Yes I still
care--but relationship ended when the threat of strip searches for me became
all pervasive.)  This fee is an outrage because it is levied on those
families who are quite poor to begin with.

I realize that prisoners rights arent a sexy or urgent topic right now.
After all, they are behind bars for a reason, etc etc. A few organizations
like the Legal Services group and the AFSC are behind this cause (on very
minimal basis because of budget constraints.)I support those efforts from a
budget stretched thin on so many efforts.

I wld like to suggest, in the mildest possible way, that we try very hard to
stick to local or regional issues when we take a stand. I would like to
suggest as well that when our national GPUS has taken a stand on foreign
policy we support them rather than taking our own stand--unless for urgent
reasons we disagree with them.Maybe Elie and Jamie could print a summary of
GPUS stands to help us along.

I find plenty to criticize in Mass politics (and I am sure Grace can add
chapter and verse.) I could name about five issues that I think deserve a
lot of our attention: the lousy health care program that Romney proposed is
one; prisoners rights (and the terrible conditions at MCI Walpole in max
security) is another. Lack of affordable housing statewide is a third. And I
guess my fourth and fifth would have to do with ecology--for example
overfishing and the resultant deaths (two boats lost lately) because of the
pressure to get it fast, regardless of safety. And (#5) the continuing
pollution of our outmoded plants. I realize all of these are tame issues in
comparison with stopping the war or issues about Palestine. But please note
that they are all local. We seem to have forgotten that.

Please I dont want to demean anyone working on other issues. But I urgently
suggest that we start with local issues. And I urge the AdCom to take a
stand on prisoners rights just for starters.

I am slowly getting back into shape. I will be glad to help wth drafting a
few statements if that will help--I just cant attend mtgs right now. With
respect--for all that Statecomm has done, and all of the mediating efforts
that people like Grace and Jill have tried. I love the GRP and I dont want
to leave it. I hope and pray that we can keep on track. And this isnt meant
to stifle opinions. I was a proudcarryng member of ACLU long before Mike
Dukakis was hesitant about admitting his membership. Poor Mike. I am glad I
never ran for office) Betts Zisk (the longest statement you will ever hear
from me).

-----Original Message-----
From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:10 PM
To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
Subject: [statecom-discuss] Fwd: No Fees on Offenders


Wow, the things that happen that ouodn't hear about because you go away!
See below and then google "Patrick safety fees" if you want to read the
press
coverage at the time...

I don't know how much people are following developments with the new
adminstration but Patrick has pretty consistently proposed regressive
taxes - this is
certainly yet another one.

And what is the appeal of another fee on those who get convicted?
Overwhelming low-income folks, overwhelmingly people of color?   Given that
white
collar crime is rarely prosecuted, this just continues the criminal justice
system's bias.

but what I really find staggering is that the only appeal I see here is the
right wing tough-on-crime = people of color as criminals subtext.   didn't
we
just hear all this outrage when Healey used that angle to try to win an
election?   But it's okay as the basis of tax/fee policy?

Love, grace