Back in February, the House of Representatives, by a 360-59 margin, passed H.R. 5628, the “First Step” Act – an acronym for the “Formerly Incarcerated Re-enter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act.” With bipartisan co-sponsors, Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the bill had cleared the House Judiciary Committee by a 25-5
Four days after the White House prison reform summit (See “White House Summit Pushes for Action on the “First Step” Act” on christopherzoukis.com for more information), and 10 days after clearing the House Judiciary Committee on a 25-5 vote, the “First Step” Act (H.R. 5628) easily passed the House of Representative on a 360-59 vote.
The House Judiciary Committee on May 9 approved, by a 25-5 margin, the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act (H.R. 5682), known for short as the “First Step” Act. Sponsored by Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the measure is a pared-down revision of the Prison Reform and Corrections Act
In July 2017, congress introduced the Prison Reform and Redemption Act – H.R.3356 — 115th Congress (2017-2018). Intended as a bill to guide the Department of Justice in the creation and use of a Post-Sentencing Risk and Needs Assessment System for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The assessment system looks closely at several factors: a
In a unanimous and lengthy opinion, the Vermont Supreme Court dismissed a charge of unauthorized practice of law brought against a jailhouse lawyer. Martin Serendipity Morales, a prisoner who identifies as female, was being held at the Marble Valley Regional Correctional Center when she was charged with a felony by Bennington County prosecutors. Her crime?
According to the study reported in this video, California’s Realignment Initiative is resulting in more auto thefts throughout the state. The study does not suggest building more prisons to house California’s criminals. Instead, the study’s authors propose finding alternative methods to reduce crime.
By Christopher Petrella and Alex Friedmann
David Harvey, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the City University of New York, writes that “capitalism never resolves its problems; it simply rearranges them geographically.” The same can be said of California’s almost three-year-old Public Safety Realignment initiative – legislation designed to reduce the Golden State’s prison population, in part, by transferring thousands of prisoners from state facilities to county jails.
Sadly, Realignment has merely shifted the very forms of human suffering it was originally intended to relieve. This – the paradox of modern penal reform – adds a crucial dimension to discussions about who, why and how we punish offenders. Clearly, shifting a criminal justice crisis isn’t the same as solving one.
The Realignment Initiative
Since at least 2011, the State of California has been the epicenter of contemporary prison reform in the United States. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics has noted that 70% of the total decrease in state prison populations from 2010 to 2011 was a direct result of California’s Public Safety Realignment initiative.
On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an order by a three-judge federal court requiring the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years to alleviate overcrowding that resulted in unconstitutional medical and mental health care. [See: PLN, June 2011, p.1]. California Governor Jerry Brown had called the court’s order “a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed.”
By Christopher Zoukis
In American prisons, inmates are held to specific codes of conduct. In the Federal Bureau of Prisons, if prisoners violate these codes of conduct, they are subject to disciplinary proceedings which can result in the loss of telephone, visitation, commissary, and email privileges, loss of good conduct time, confinement to solitary confinement, or even a disciplinary transfer to an institution of higher security. With enough disciplinary infractions, a prisoner’s quality of life can deteriorate, and in a hurry.
This article contains seven steps to a successful prison disciplinary outcome. By following these seven steps, which I regularly advise my incarcerated clients through https://federalcriminaldefenseattorney.com/ of, inmates can give themselves the best chance of a positive outcome when faced with accusations of disciplinary infractions.
Step One: Remain Silent
When issued an incident report, prisoners should remain silent. Quiet. There is no mitigation to be had. Any admissions will just be used as additional incriminating evidence, which will then be reported — correctly or not — as being an admission of guilt. At this stage in the game, everything becomes an uphill battle since the record will reflect that the inmate admitted to the charges. By remaining silent, inmates accused of violating prison codes of conduct can greatly improve their chances of successfully defending themselves against allegations of misconduct.
Step Two: Present Documentary Evidence
In the Federal Bureau of Prisons, inmates accused of misconduct have the right to present documentary evidence on their behalf. They should, and assertively so. Anything that can be used to challenge the official account of wrongdoing should be presented. This could consist of security camera recordings, telephone recordings, guard log books, a commissary receipt, property logs, letters, official memorandums, or any other shred of evidence that can cast doubt as to the incident report’s validity.
We have profiled every prison within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Learn about each prison’s location, security level, educational and recreational offerings, and much more.
The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. In some jurisdictions, this may be considered attorney advertising. Merely reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Our firm affiliates with local counsel licensed in their respective jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis. These local counsels are independent and are not employees of the firm. Please remember that when we reference our firm’s experience, this generally includes the combined expertise of both the firm and its frequently used local counsel.
The Law Office of Grant Smaldone is headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina. This is the only fully staffed office. References to any other city or state in any materials or anywhere on this website do not mean or otherwise indicate that the firm maintains an office in that location or has lawyers physically located in that city or state. The attorneys at the firm are licensed to practice law in only the jurisdictions listed in their biographies.
Every case is different, and any prior results mentioned on this website do not guarantee or suggest a similar result in other matters. There is no guarantee or assurance of success for any client.
The Law Office of Grant Smaldone limits its practice to South Carolina state and cases involving federal law and procedure.
