Criminal Justice

Criminals in federal prisons have an incentive to behave while in prison.  For good behavior they get “good conduct” credits, which reduce the time they actually serve on their sentences.   Maryland awards good conduct credits, too, but not for good conduct.   Our state uses good conduct credits to get criminals out of prison early, even when they behave badly.
 

I appreciate the thoughtful responses to The Drug Addiction Sham on this website. "Steve" provides insight into those who can benefit from drug treatment and the kind of treatment they need. "Jenna" confirms from her experience what the article tried to illustrate: treatment beds are taken from those who could benefit from them and given to those who don’t.

The unknown author who raises numerous questions about the criminal justice system has obvious experience with planning and accountability. We have no criminal justice plan, with goals and tools to measure success. The system lurches along, each agency doing its thing, with piecemeal programs that sound good but may not be working. Well-meaning but uninformed officials do their best in a system so overloaded that rather than planning and measuring, everyone’s just got their finger in the dyke. And despite their best efforts, the dyke is leaking badly.

The anonymous comment "What’s your point?" puzzles me since I have said it repeatedly, but I welcome the chance to say it again. The system fails to distinguish between violent offenders who need incarceration and offenders who need alternatives, such as drug treatment. The author suggests that I "think prison is the solution to drug addiction for everyone, not just violent folks." Far from it. See, for example, What Baltimore Wants, The Swiss Experiment, and What I Really Believe.

Baltimore and the state of Maryland must sit down and create a master criminal justice plan that includes an assessment of resources and a determination of how best to use those resources depending upon the crime, the offender, and the volume. The plan needs to recognize risk factors, including arrest patterns. It must address early intervention programs, alternatives to incarceration, prison for those who need to be incarcerated and post-prison planning for when they come out. The plan must establish goals and ways to measure success, and it can’t be tanked just because new politicians are elected who want to raise their profiles with "their" programs that last the length of an election cycle.

The alternative is what we have now.

Did anyone catch Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Sylvester Cox doing his homeboy routine in court the other week? The Baltimore Sun quoted him as saying to an accused drug dealer who had dropped out of St. Mary’s College in southern Maryland, "Ain’t a lot of people look like you get an opportunity down at St. Mary’s College."

Perhaps Cox, an African-American who attended the prestigious Gilman secondary school in Baltimore, believes this use of language gives him street credibility with defendants. But why would he perpetuate the they-won’t-let-me-get-anywhere-because-I-am-black mentality in front of a courtroom full of black defendants? When he himself is an example of what an individual who looks like them can accomplish?

Cox no doubt was trying to say that the defendant, who had a partial scholarship to the school, was blowing an opportunity, and he was right. But he began with the premise that the defendant was born with the deck stacked against him because of his race, which too many young people translate into "I can’t." If we are really going to reach youth who lack hope, we shouldn’t begin by affirming that lack of hope. No hope means no reason to buy into what education offers.

And we especially shouldn’t undermine hope with barriers that don’t exist. I logged on to the St. Mary’s website and there was a photo of Kadala, a black Baltimorean and political science and Spanish major who is president of his class. Next to him was Calvin, a high school honors student from Frederick and pre-med major. And Nezia, a young Baltimore woman originally from East Africa who wants to be a news anchor. Just to be sure that St. Mary’s wasn’t taking its three black students and sticking them on their website, I called their public information office to confirm that their black enrollment is 16%.

Compare that to some other public universities in Maryland: UM College Park, 13%; UMBC, 16.7%; Salisbury, 18%; Towson, 12%, and UM Baltimore, 18%. (Johns Hopkins, a private university located smack in the middle of Baltimore, is at 6%.) Doesn’t sound like St. Mary’s is some elitist college to me. And from their website it looks like they want more black students to come.

Instead of the black-kids-have-few-opportunities message how about this: for anyone willing to work hard at their studies, opportunity awaits.

Of course, we do have to make sure our city students don’t get hit with passing gunfire, first. A judge’s credibility may have more do with how he handles violent offenders—including drug dealers who are part of the violent culture—than in his choice of grammar.

When I appeared on Marc Steiner’s program recently the first caller to the show stated that I didn’t “understand” what it was like to be a black male in Baltimore, and that I should call for “public education.”
 
So I was particularly interested to hear Mayor Sheila Dixon, a black Baltimorean,   talking about violent juvenile offenders last Wednesday at a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council meeting.  She described a chilling video she had seen of a 17-year-old-male shooting another 17-year-old who was ordering food in a store while two female juveniles laughed.   And she didn’t call for public education.
 
“We have to begin at all levels to make things tougher [for these individuals],” she said.  “We keep going in this cycle.”  While acknowledging the need for youth programs to forestall violence like this, Dixon was clearly through with “understanding.”
 
It isn’t just Baltimore that hasn’t yet made things tougher for the right criminals.   Let’s take three cases from the counties where judges took obvious sociopaths and treated them like non-violent drug addicts, wasting precious treatment slots on persons who belonged in prison.
 
Justin Bolden built himself quite a rap sheet in Harford County when he turned 18 in 2002.   Assaults, handguns, fleeing from police, auto thefts, resisting arrest and trespassing—the classic arrest pattern of a budding violent criminal

Then in December of 2003 came the crime his rap sheet predicted.  Bolden and some buddies got themselves a shotgun and drove around looking for people to rob.   One of those buddies blasted a young man named Antonio Allen for refusing give up his money.  Bolden plea bargained his role in the murder to attempted robbery and got 5 years in prison, with 10 more years suspended. 
 
Bolden then asked Judge William O. Carr to take him out of prison and send him instead to a drug treatment program.   After an evaluation by the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) Carr signed an order (called an 8-505 order) committing Bolden to DHMH for drug treatment.   While waiting for a bed Bolden committed two assaults in prison and twice also possessed a weapon.   Nevertheless, he was released to the Gaudenzia drug program in February of 2007 and put on probation. 

A year later Bolden was arrested for assault and made bail, followed by an arrest for kidnapping and armed robbery, again posting bail.  (Sound familiar?)  Judge Carr finally issued a warrant for violating probation and sheriffs tried to serve it on May 20, 2008.   According to the sheriff’s office, Bolden had 15 grams of cocaine on him.  (Even overloaded Baltimore prosecutors require less than half that amount to charge defendants with drug-dealing.)   Bolden fought with deputies as he tried to swallow the drugs and died from cocaine intoxication complicated by an airway obstruction.
      
Over in Anne Arundel County, Judge Nancy Davis-Loomis was letting another violent criminal out of prison a month after Bolden got out.    Aaron Hatt’s rap sheet boasted arrests from five different Maryland counties and included armed robbery (which was handled in juvenile court), numerous assaults, a felony drug arrest, and multiple domestic violence incidents.  After going to prison on a four-year sentence for burglary, Hatt, who is now 29, asked Judge Davis-Loomis for an 8-505 order.   Even though the prosecutor pointed out Hatt’s prison record, which included four assaults on staff members, Davis-Loomis ordered his release to drug treatment.   While at the Second Genesis program he stole from other patients, was disrespectful to staff, and finally walked off altogether.  He is now doing four years for violating probation. 

Finally, we have Charles Ravenscroft, age 28, also of Anne Arundel County.   Let’s just jump straight to when he got 18 months for theft in 2002.  He tried to get out of that sentence while in prison by blaming his troubles on drug addiction.  “[I] Render myself powerless to Drugs without Help.  Beleive me your Honor I truely want help.”   Judge Robert Heller wasn’t buying and left him in prison. 
 
When Ravenscroft was released to probation he then refused to go to the drug treatment he had truly wanted while locked up.   Meanwhile, besides beating his pregnant girlfriend, he was burglarizing the home of his girlfriend’s father, for which he got a new 8-year sentence in December, 2004.

Ravenscroft then accumulated several violent prison infractions and was sent to a prison in Virginia to get a fresh start, only to have Virginia send him back for violent behavior.  He assaulted a correctional officer and got one year in Washington County, and was put in maximum security for, in part, his involvement in the stabbing of an inmate.  Ravenscroft wrote to Judge Pamela North describing his criminal conduct as a “scream For Help” for his drug problem.  Judge North bit.  She signed an 8-505 order committing Ravenscroft to DHMH for drug treatment.  He was released from prison on September 28, 2008.  

Three violent men, repeatedly unable to conform their conduct to the law in or out of prison, treated by judges as drug addicts who with treatment could be released back to the community.   One committed more crimes and is dead, the other is back in prison, and the third is wait and see.
 
In the cases of Bolden and Ravenscroft the judges didn’t know about their prison infractions.  Joe Cassily, Harford County State’s Attorney, said his office opposed Bolden’s release but needed to “tighten up the ship” in getting prison information to judges.  Kristin Fleckenstein, spokeswoman for the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney’s Office, said her office uses a form to request DOC records for inmates who request 8-505 hearings.  The prosecutor who handled Ravenscroft’s hearing apparently didn’t use it.
 
I will come back to these three criminals in another article because their prison records illustrate the utter stupidity of Maryland’s prison system of “good time” credits.   But as for the judges, I tried to talk to all three for insight into their thinking.   Were they missing any information that might have helped them in their decisions? For example, did they not know about the prior arrest records?  Did they think they think they were irrelevant, or illegal for them to consider?  Do they rely primarily upon the evaluation done by DHMH? Does DHMH do any evaluation of a criminal’s dangerousness?
 
But the judges aren’t talking.  Judge North politely declined to talk to me, and Carr and Davis-Loomis just ignored me.  So these questions go unanswered, the issues they raise go unaddressed, and judges pull violent criminals out of prison and put them in programs that bear little if any relation to their conduct.   

Baltimore has company.

The little blurb tucked away on page 10 of the December 1st Baltimore Sun screamed at me like a front page headline:  “Swiss heroin program made permanent.”

When the Baltimore Sun reported that Charles Y. McGaney, one of the accused murderers of former city councilman Ken Harris, had received “time served” on a prior handgun case, my antennas went up.  According to the prosecutor and judge, his sentence was “appropriate, considering McGaney's age and the facts of the case.”  I thought Baltimore County prosecutors had lost their minds.   Young men + guns  =  Trouble.   You don’t let them back on the street without supervision.

Kudos to Peter Hermann for tracking down the facts and learning that McGaney really got time served because the state’s witness moved out of state.  County prosecutors got what they could.

But Hermann, after the usual journalistic indictment of “missed opportunities, sloppy work, bureaucratic foul-ups, uncaring victims and uncooperative witnesses,” let city prosecutors off the hook.  I get tired of reading generalized sentences like Hermann’s, or articles that describe criminals who “slipped through” the system or the cracks before they commit a truly heinous crime.   In order to slip through there first must be an effort to catch them, much like fishing with a big net.  Most fish will be caught if the net is strong and well-designed, though some will inevitably slip through. 

But in the case of Baltimore City, there’s no net at all.  Criminals don’t slip through the city system, they swim through. 

Besides his county gun arrest, McGaney was also arrested in the city for possessing 10 gel caps of heroin, an amount that is consistent with drug dealing.   Prosecutors knew that he was pending the county handgun case at the time the drug case came to trial.   Young men + guns + drug-dealing  =  Big Trouble. 

McGaney had also been arrested for trespassing, loitering, disorderly conduct and was on probation for malicious destruction of property.  Reporters and criminal justice officials seem to treat charges like these as too minor to talk about.  But this pattern of arrests is significant, pointing to an idle young man hanging on the streets and, together with his more serious arrests, paints a dangerous picture.

So city prosecutors dropped the drug case on the first court date because the laboratory report was, according to Hermann, “not available.”  Exactly what plan did they make for when it did become available?  Did Hermann ask?

I did, and Joe Sviatko, a spokesman for State’s Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy, ignored me.  But the fact is that Jessamy has no plan to focus on individuals like McGaney.  (She’s happy to hand cases off to the feds, but they can’t take everyone.)  McGaney’s was just another city case that got dropped, an easy dismissal on a crowded docket.  Gosh, who knew he would end up being charged with killing Harris?

No one knew, of course.  And in fairness, no one can claim that Jessamy is to blame for the Harris murder.  But neither did she lift a finger to slow down or change the trajectory of an individual who was developing the same kind of resume as known city murderers.  Rather than take the extra steps needed to make cases like McGaney’s stick, she has instead wasted resources given to her by the state and city to focus on violent criminals.

However, she does focus heavily on one thing:  her image.  And nothing illustrates this better than her choice of representative to the city “Gunstat” meetings, spokeswoman Margaret T. Burns. 

Gunstat is a multi-agency group that focuses on gun-related crimes, the initiative of Sheryl Goldstein from the Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice.  It has the potential to hold agencies accountable for case outcomes and for focusing efforts on the appropriate criminals.  But rather than assign a prosecutor to head up her Gunstat efforts, an attorney with technical knowledge of the law and experience in criminal prosecution, Jessamy sends her press aide.  It is Burns who sits at the table asking questions, and Burns who makes presentations to other Gunstat members.  Real prosecutors only make appearances at Burns’ direction.

After interviewing Goldstein I had felt hopeful about Gunstat’s potential and began attending meetings to get a sense of its effectiveness.    When I showed up for my third meeting Burns brought a city official in to kick me out.   And well she should have.  After all, if image is her thing, she couldn’t have anyone there who actually recognized how clueless she was.   

But Burns was too late.  I had already witnessed her in action, responding to questions about robbery conviction rates and juvenile arrests.  Stumbling and bumbling her way through her explanations, Burns caused one observer to remark that he had no idea what she was talking about.  I did.  She was making excuses, lame and phony.   She could provide no insight into a longstanding problem regarding juvenile arrests that could be fixed in a pair of seconds if Jessamy had anybody competent running her office.  Burns was an embarrassment to herself and to Jessamy.

But Jessamy chose her for the job, and the mayor and police commissioner have no choice but to go along, lest Jessamy pack her tent and go home.   Consequently, Gunstat will get no real accountability from the prosecutor’s office, exactly the reason why Jessamy sends Burns. 

But the media doesn’t have to go along.   Reporters should enlighten the public, not allow press aides to get away with sorry explanations like “lab report not available.”  They should end the “woe-is-the-system” post-trauma rhetoric and stop publishing the same articles that get written after every painful murder (see example below) and after every murder suspect with a record gets arrested.   They need to be specific and proactive instead, following up on issues and holding public officials accountable by name and with facts.   It’s the only way for journalists to make any kind of a difference.  

Déjà Vu All Over Again

When Ken Harris was murdered, I searched past articles to compare what was written about his murder to what was written about the murder of seven members of the Dawson family by a drug-dealer’s firebomb in 2002.  There was the same pain and outrage, vigils and prayers, political posturing and criticism of the police.  And there was similar rhetoric, too.  The we-can’t-let-this-ever-happen-again kind of rhetoric.

One eloquent op-ed piece about the Harris murder was written by Baltimore lawyer Raymond Daniel Burke, a frequent contributor to the Sun.  Here is an excerpt from his piece published September 29, 2008:

When the victim is someone who rose up from the mean streets of our city to graduate from college and become a city councilman, and then a serious candidate for City Council president, a part of all of us dies with him.  Because he was an example—and that example represented hope.... 

The story of his life speaks to possibility.  It confirms that it is not inevitable that the economically poor be intellectually and spiritually impoverished as well.  It dispels the notion that city life means accepting feckless lack of interest in our public schools and open warfare in our streets…

[T]he public debate is filled with diatribes against troubled city youths and their frightening lack of respect for human life, as well as lamentations over how poverty and out-of-wedlock births breed violence.  But if we do not go further, and embrace the critical thinking necessary to change the state of our communities, we risk abandoning hope and succumbing to acceptance of the unacceptable as the norm.  We risk no longer being able to provide the venue in which vibrant and energetic lives can flourish.  We risk making it less possible to produce a Ken Harris.  And we will find ourselves watching hope slip away.

And here is what he wrote on June 9,  2002 about the murder of a city high school honor student who had gone on to college and was home on break:

Most of us do not know Rio-Jarell Tatum, but a part of something vital to all of us died with him on Memorial Day weekend.  The 19-year-old Penn State freshman was nothing less than our hope for our city’s future.

It is not necessary that the economically poor be intellectually and spiritually impoverished as well.  It is not a given that inner city life means we must accept disinterest in our schools and warfare in our streets…

But we also carry in the backs of our minds the knowledge of our failures – a public school system that is regarded as a non-option for those with the means to go elsewhere, horrific housing conditions in dilapidated neighborhoods and a drug epidemic that begets a crime wave that makes murder commonplace...

We need to act on these simple truths with all the energy we have devoted to downtown redevelopment.  We cannot afford to chalk up another murder to the way things are.  We must determine how things must be.  Otherwise we risk the killing of our hope.

So I e-mailed Burke pointing out the sameness in the articles and asking him whether he thought anything had changed in the six years between the two murders.  I asked what he had in mind when he called on us to “act” and to do the “critical thinking” necessary for change.  And I asked what he himself has done since 2002 that exemplifies what he had in mind. 

I got an automated response that he wasn’t in the office that day.  And then I got nothing. 

For all I know, he spends every spare moment working with or on behalf of inner city youth.   If that’s the case, I’d rather hear about how that is going and what effect he is having.   And if not, if his writing is just a call to some vague we-must-do-something action, I say enough.   Keep the beautiful words on the shelf.   We need to know what we can do, not just feel, about the violence in our midst.  We need to hear the specifics of plans of action that could really help to stop the killing.   Action, not words, will make the difference.

Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Emerging Media. You are welcome to make comments to this article using the form below. If you would like to submit a rebuttal to this article, please send your article to cem@centerforemergingmedia.org. CEM regrets that we cannot publish all articles but we will give each submission full consideration.

Count me among those who view Barack Obama’s election as a thrilling triumph for America.   But since my topic is criminal justice, and this piece is on the bad news about Baltimore’s violent crime, I have to mention a potential dark lining to the silver cloud.  

     The reason for Baltimore’s drastically decreased homicide rate in two words:  Rod Rosenstein.   

Nancy S. Forster, the State Public Defender, dropped a little bombshell at the Baltimore Criminal Coordinating Council meeting earlier this month.  Due to budget cutbacks, she grimly said, she no longer has the money to pay for lawyers to represent all the defendants who are eligible for free services.    While she and Governor Martin O’Malley were discussing a solution, for now she would reject some defendants even if they couldn’t afford an attorney.   Defense attorney Margaret Mead told me that this has the potential “to bring the entire system to a screeching halt.”

It reminded me of Forster’s predecessor, Stephen E. Harris, who once used the same tactic.  If you don’t give me more money, I won’t represent defendants.   He and Elizabeth L. Julian, District Public Defender for Baltimore, claimed that their city caseloads were too high and in March, 2002 began turning away new clients.   Governor Parris Glendening quickly gave them more lawyers.  How could he not?  Poor people are constitutionally entitled to lawyers, aren’t they?

Except that at the very time Harris was turning away those clients, he was representing defendants who were not entitled to free lawyers.  These were defendants who had just been arrested, hadn’t posted bail, and were going to their first bail review within a day or two of arrest.  Instead of making this clear to lawmakers and asking whether he should redeploy his resources, Harris played his trump card.  

Forster’s following suit, this time with cases in which more than one person is charged with committing a crime.  The Public Defender’s Office can’t represent all the co-defendants because they may have conflicting interests (one co-defendant may want to blame the other, for example.)  In the past the Public Defender has represented one co-defendant and paid for private lawyers to represent the others, but that is what Forster says she will no longer do.     

Yet her office is still representing people at bail reviews.  In Maryland defendants are not entitled to attorneys at their first bail review hearing.  (A lawsuit has been filed challenging that fact, and is on appeal after losing in the trial court.)  Nevertheless, the Public Defender provides bail representation to defendants in Baltimore and has done so for years.

City bail representation evolved out of Mayor Martin O’Malley’s Early Disposition Court, which the Legislature first funded in 2000.  The Public Defender asked for and received a whopping 28 attorneys to run the program (compared to the State’s Attorney’s six).   When the program failed and was revamped I asked Grace E. Reusing, Deputy District Public Defender for Baltimore, how they justified their funding when they needed no more than five attorneys to staff the revised court.  She claimed that they had been told to use the funds both for Early Disposition Court and for bail reviews. 

After Forster made her announcement, I asked her about the current state of bail representation.  She said that in addition to Baltimore her attorneys represented defendants at bail review in Harford and Montgomery counties, both of which paid her office for the services.   The State paid for Baltimore’s bail program through the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.  I asked specifically about the amount of money and number of attorneys involved and she said she would have to check into it.

I then got an e-mail from her spokesman, Kimberlee Schultz that said,  “…we are in the midst of a personnel crisis (due to severe underfunding).  Therefore, it is difficult to do the work necessary to maintain our core mission, so we just do not have the resources right now to respond to all your questions.  You have the option of filing a Freedom of Information Act request.”

Funny, I tried that option once before when writing a report about the Early Disposition Court, and Harris and Julian blew it off (in violation of the law, I might add.)   I then called the legislative analyst who had worked on the project for the House of Delegates for information and got no response, learning later that she had subsequently left to work for the Public Defender.   

A competent financial/personnel officer could or should have had the figures close at hand.   Forster had not been the State Public Defender when bail review representation began and I was willing to believe that she hadn’t thought about the issue when trying to resolve her budget concerns.   But I know a stonewall when I see it, having smacked into one before. 

Before the State, city and counties scramble to find more money in tough budget times so that the Public Defender can meet her “core mission,” they ought to first stop funding activities outside of that mission.   One report put the Public Defender’s funding for Early Disposition Court (which is now used mostly for bail review representation) at nearly $1.7 million.  That’s in 2000 dollars, before the big raises that ex-public defender Kendall Ehrlich got for them as First Lady.   Think how many defendants could be represented in today’s dollars.   

I don’t oppose free representation at bail review as a theory (though I will have more to say on its effective and efficient use of taxpayer funds later.)   But unless and until it is a legal right, Forster has a duty to be forthright about her agency’s funding and use of resources, especially in times of painful deficits.  Instead, she is using defendants who have an absolute right to her services as pawns in a power play for more funding.  This time, the governor needs to take a hard look at her claims before robbing Peter to pay Nancy. 

Another Source of Savings

Maryland could divert another $70,000 to hiring private lawyers for co-defendants by ending the Public Defender’s funding for the War Room, a program that was supposed to focus law enforcement efforts on repeat violent offenders.  This was another Ehrlich gift, funding for an agency that had nothing to do with the War Room and demonstrated no need for additional resources.   Last year the State took back half the funding because the Public Defender didn’t even spend the money. 

Kristen M. Mahoney, Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention which administers the funding, recognizes that the Public Defender is “missionless” when it comes to the War Room.  To her credit she has asked Julian whether she wants to scrap this year’s funding and divert it to paying private attorneys for co-defendants (though I don’t know why it should be up to the Public Defender.)  Mahoney is waiting on Julian’s answer,

 While $70,000 pales in comparison to that spent on bail review, quite a few poor co-defendants could get lawyers out of it.  The State Public Defender ought to be looking at all of her non-essential funding before turning away the clients who represent their “core mission.”

If anything illustrates the unwillingness of government to reform the criminal justice system, it’s last Friday’s headline in the Baltimore Sun.