[WestMALocals] Fwd: Inmates Illegally Detained at Ludlow Prison

[Owen Broadhurst]

Message below was forwarded me by one Mr. Michael James, apparently of
Springfield. Mr. James describes himself as an independent journalist. What
he has uncovered, if true, seems scandalous. Has anyone on these lists more
info?

OB

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael James <michaelofmd at yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: Inmates Illegally Detained at Ludlow Prison



 Dear Concerned Citizens,

I am a free lance investigative reporter about corruption in the criminal
justice system.

Here attached you will find a copy of the article that I wrote last week.
It is entitled "1,600 Inmates Detained Illegally at Ludlow Prison Each
Year".

If you have any questions, then please feel free to contact me via this
email address.

Sincerely,

Michael James
Springfield MA

 =====


*1,600 Inmates Illegally Detained*

*At Ludlow Prison Each Year*
*By * Michael James *Investigative Reporter* *Springfield MA* *June 2006*

      Each year approximately 1,600 inmates at the Hampden County
Correctional Center (HCCC) in Ludlow Massachusetts have been detained
illegally beyond their proper date of release from incarceration.  This
illegal and unnecessary detention of inmates is the result of at a prison
administrator's deliberate refusal to credit to inmates the reduction in
their sentence to which they were entitled by law.
*Earned-Good-Time Awards*

      Inmates at the HCCC may earn a small reduction in their sentence by
participating appropriately in education, treatment or work programs.  For
each education, treatment or work program in which an inmate participates,
he or she can earn a reduction in his sentence of 2.5 days each month.
This reduction is called 129D earned-good-time.  Thus, an inmate who
participates appropriately in an education, treatment or work program can
earn up to a maximum of 7.5 days of earned-good time for each month.  This
practice for 129D earned-good-time program is authorized law to provide
inmates with an important incentive to participate in rehabilitative
programs: they can obtain their liberty more quickly.   The practice of
awarding earned-good-time also benefits the prison administrators and the
public at large by reducing the number of persons in prison and by reducing
the associated costs incarceration.   Thus, this program is beneficial to
all parties.
*Original 2003 Policy*

      When the Violence Prevention Program was created at the Hampden County
Correctional Center in August 2003, inmates participated in six classes over
a two-month period.  Thus, inmates who participated appropriately in these
classes were awarded 2.5 days of earned-good-time for each of the two months
of appropriate participation in this program (or total of five days of
earned-good-time for the two months).   During 2003 and much of 2004,
approximately 1,200 inmates received 2.5 days earned-good-time off of their
sentence for each of the two months of appropriate participation in the
Violence Prevention Program.
*Arbitrary Change In Policy*

      In 2004 Guy Prairie ( a retired drill instructor from the military )
was appointed by Sheriff Michael Ashe to be the new supervisor of the
Violence Prevention Program at the HCCC.   Almost immediately Mr. Prairie
ordered his reluctant staff to award to inmates only half of the 129
earned-good-time that had been awarded since the beginning of the Violence
Prevention Program.  Mr. Prairie demanded that his staff provide no more
than 2.5 days of earned good and only to those inmates who actually
completed the program in its entirety.  Mr. Prairie made this change in
policy and practice arbitrarily and without direct reference to the specific
law for 129D earned-good-time awards.  There is no evidence that he
consulted with the HCCC superintendents about this change in policy before
its implementation.  Further, there is no documentation that Guy Prairie
ever received written authorization from the superintendents for
implementation of this new policy for the reduction of earned-good-time
awards.
*Cruel Consequences To Inmates and Families*

      This reduction in the total amount of earned-good-time has had serious
consequences for inmates, for their families, for prison administrators and
for taxpayers.  Since early 2004, the reduction in earned-good-time awards
has affected approximately 1,600 inmates each year.    Collectively, these
1,600 inmates lost 3,195 days of earned-good-time that they would have
received had they participated in the same program in 2003 and early 2004.
The estimated cost of incarcerating each inmate for one day is $ 70
dollars.  Thus, this new reduction in earn-good-time awards has cost the
taxpayers approximately $ 223,650 dollars each year in additional expenses
of incarceration.

      This money could have been better spent to create many additional
rehabilitation programs.  The additional rehabilitation programs would have
allowed other inmates to obtain more earned-good-time awards and the
taxpayers to save even more money in incarceration costs.    Thus, the true
total cost of this illegal decision is much higher than the initial estimate
of $ 223,650 dollars each year.

      Further, this reduction in earned-good-time has cost the families of
these inmates to remain separated longer and needlessly from their loved
ones.   Employers must wait longer for their talented employees to be
released from prison and to return to gainful and productive employment.
Naturally the inmates were disappointed in this reduction in 129D
earned-good-time awards but they were powerless to prevent it.
*Unfair Situations*

      This reduction in earned-time-awards creates situations that are
obviously unfair.  There have many situations in which inmates participated
appropriately to the best of their ability in most of the Violence
Prevention Program classes.  However, many of these inmates are obstructed
from completing the Violence Prevention Program due to circumstances beyond
their control.  Many inmates have been transferred to a minimum-security
facility such as the Pre-Release Center before they could complete the sixth
and final class of the Violence Prevention Program.  Other inmates missed
out on the final classes of the Violence Prevention Program when they
suddenly were required to work in the kitchen or to perform some other work
obligation at times that conflict with their schedule for the Violence
Prevention Program.   These inmates then lose all of the earned-good-time
awards that they might have received because they did not complete the
program in its entirety (as required by Mr. Prairie's new policy).
*Cold-Hearted Intentions*

      Several of the Violence Prevention Program staff persons informally
expressed concerns or objections to this change of policy.  However, they
may be subject to disciplinary action or dismissal if they fail to follow
Mr. Prairie's directive.  One Violence Prevention Program staff person has
asked to remain anonymous in this report to ensure his job security.  He
reported:  "Mr. Prairie simply wanted to get tough with inmates by denying
them earned-good-time awards.  He wanted to show his supervisors, Basil
Tsagaris and Thomas Rovelli, that he was anti-inmate in his philosophical
orientation as a prison administrator.  Guy Prairie did not want to be
perceived by his supervisors as an 'inmate lover' who gives out
earned-good-time awards with excessive generosity."

*Illegal Policy*

      This reduction in earned-good-time awards is illegal because it is not
consistent with the word or intent of the law by which earned-good-time
awards had been authorized.  There is no provision in the law that
authorizes a prison administrator arbitrarily to reduce earned-good-time
awards simply so that he could ingratiate himself in the good favor of his
supervisors who want to get tough with inmates.
*Hypocrisy Revealed*

      The reduction in earned-good-time awards represents more than an
illegal and inappropriate abuse of power by a prison administrator.  This
reduction reveals the hypocrisy of prison administrators who claim publicly
that they want to reduce both the number of inmates in prison and the
associated costs of incarceration.  By this illegal reduction of 129D
earned-good-time awards, Guy Prairie and other prison administrators
demonstrate that in truth they are eager to keep prison costs high and to
keep inmates in prison and apart from their families as long as possible.
In doing so, they ensure the growth of the prison industry and their own job
security, at great expense to taxpayers and inmates alike.


-- 
Owen R. Broadhurst
Candidate for State Representative
Third Hampden District
http://www.owenbroadhurst.org