Helping change Criminal Justice SystemRe: [statecom-discuss] Fwd: No Fees on Offenders

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Interesting, Betts - I filed legislation to follow through on my camapgin 
issues - especially in areas that seemed to crying out for resolution where 
others were not - one was about six bills addressing different aspects of the 
criminal (in)justice system.   Those added to a number of other good bills being 
proposed and a couple more I am trying to get done through the budget process or 
adminstratively could create a systemic shift.

If you are willing to write press on these and maybe help with fact sheet 
devleopment or outreach.networking plans that would be spectacular- let me konw 
what youare up for-

and anyone else out there with some energy - this could be a VERY impactful 
focus - Love, grace
In a message dated 2/2/07 3:11:25 PM, zisk at bu.edu writes:


> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
>