Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 17, 2011 3:30am-4:00am PDT

3:30 am
by issue and that is the place to start, especially in the bay area and san francisco, where the public would be more receptive to reform and hearing from public defenders on a given issue. >> anyone else? with that, i want to thank all of you and association has a media mmittee, and they're going to be looking at the issue, but we need a lot of people to get involved. four or five months ago, tom donald approached me. he is a director and directs commercials. he had a proposition that he would create a professionally produced public service announcement about public defenders, and how could i possibly say no to that very generous proposition? so i'm going to ask tom to say a few words about how he got the idea for this public service announcement. i think you will agree when you
3:31 am
see it, it is unique. that you have not seen anything like this on television. tom. [applause] >> i'm not an attorney. i'm a director and a film maker. i actually have a ball cap to prove it. [laughter] so i will put it on. we all learned this from steven spielberg, who popularized the use of baseball caps. jeff is right. i have been a longtime fan of jets for a long time. first, i want to thank him for the opportunity to make this peace. people in my position often talk about giving back, and it is usually worth about the price of the words, and nothing more. in this case, i have known jeff for a long time, and i know the good work that he does, and i really wanted to make the contribution that i could. we talked for a long time about themes for this commercial, and we decided -- kind of mutually, i think -- that the resumption of innocence -- i heard the
3:32 am
panelists in both panels talk about this repeatedly -- is really about the highest ground that his office to take in a broadcast television commercial. but beyond that -- i have forgotten her name -- very articulate young lady -- we were talking about post-racial america and how all of us collectively and singularly, the people on television and media, would like to believe that is in fact the case, and yet we all know -- i think everyone in his room at least can recognize that is not the case. really, this commercial is the marriage of those two ideas, the marriage of the concept -- that the concept, but the bedrock principle in our code of justice, which is the presumption of innocence, and the recognition if you well that we have a long way to go to combat stereotypes, prejudice, and outright bias, not only in the judicial system, but in our american society, and that is what resulted from the coming
3:33 am
together of those two ideas you will see on the screen. [applause] how do you like it so far? kind of compelling, isn't it? [laughter] ♪
3:34 am
>> show me your hands. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> wasn't that great? just the incredible job that tom and his crew did. we are going to be making his public service announcement available to public defenders all over the state and all over the country. we are going to be rolling it out in the next couple of weeks, so you can watch it on your to. we have lunch for you in the next room over. the eligibility of hispanic room is on the same level. simply walk over in that direction, and we'll be back here right at -- 1:15 or 1:30?
3:35 am
right at 1:30. so we see that we have one>> go, and welcome back. hope everybody had a nice lunch break. it is now my pleasure to introduce a managing attorney of the public defender's office reentry unit. she is in charge of overseeing the work that we do in helping clients and former clients get back on their feet and lead productive lives. part of her job is overseeing the program was started 10 years ago that helps individuals clear their criminal records. the clean slate program. [applause] >> good afternoon, and welcome back. i am with the public defender's
3:36 am
office, and i do oversee the clean slate program. but for those of you who do not know, it was san francisco's original reentry program that was started over a decade ago. at the time, we were helping a few hundred people each year, and today, we fell over 2000 people -- we held over two dozen people clean up their criminal records. our goal is to help people have a dignified return from the criminal justice system. -- we help over 2000 people clean up their criminal records. the panel today is entitled "paving the road to reentry: clean slate and state law and criminal record reform." the discussion comes at a time when there is an unprecedented amount of people incarcerated. these individuals are returning from prison at the rate of 600,000 per year. in california, that rate is
3:37 am
115,000 per year. in california, over 1 million people have a conviction record, and one in five individuals have an arrest or criminal conviction. so we have to ask ourselves -- is criminal record reform an urgent priority for california? and if so, what is being done? and how can we go further? let's hear what our distinguished panel has to say. our first panelist is dr. steven richardson, a renowned author and professor of criminal justice at the university of wisconsin oshkosh. i have to say that dr. richards probably will not authorize this, but i am going to make a plug for the book he has written. i want to say he has written the book "convict criminology."
3:38 am
another book called "behind bars." and "beyond bars." so check it out on amazon. we also have with us the policy co-director of the national employment law project. and eliza hirsch is the supervising attorney in the clean slate pride is at the east bay community law center. welcome, panelists. i want to tell the audience that while we are having this session, if you have questions, feel free to write them down, and the ushers will get them some you. at the end of the discussion, we will have a question and answer session. dr. richards, it is my understanding you have some personal experience in this area. i would ask you to share your experiences with us and tell us about the barriers that exist for people who have a criminal record.
3:39 am
>> i'm a convicted felon. i'm an ex-con. and i'm a professor. i'm the leader of the convert criminology group. if you just go to google and google convict criminology, you will find our website. our group was actually started many years ago by professor john irwin, who was at a san francisco state university for 30 years. john recently passed away. john, even after he retired in 1995, for nearly 15 years helps me to organize the convicts criminology group. there is now 30 of us. we are all ex cons, ph.d., and professors at different universities. because i'm a convicted felon, i should say i went to federal prison for nine years. >> [inaudible]
3:40 am
i came to a public forum, which included a lot of attorneys, to try to rectify these matters. >> [inaudible] >> i am here. i will be outside for five minutes with this information. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> continue, dr. richard s. -- dr. richards. >> [inaudible]
3:41 am
>> we love the excitement. this is all intentional. >> i'm happy to be in san francisco, and that kind of brings me to the point i want to say. this morning, we were in the courtroom, and we have lawyers, public defenders talking about legal cases, talking about the roles they play. what i think has been lost here, and maybe even this gentleman kind of raised it, is what happens to these defendants? what happens when they go back into the court, into the lock up after they have pled guilty? about 95% of them plead guilty. you know that they are being forced to plead guilty. you all know it. it is like there is a gun to their head. i call it the terror of
3:42 am
arithmetic. they are being threatened with 100 years, 50 years, 20 years -- you know what that does to them. they go back to their jail cells. those numbers bounce around in there had. after a week or a month or six months or a year, a year-and-a- half, they plead guilty. and you know as public defenders, one of your main jobs is to make them plead guilty. and i know you do not want to hear that, and i know that you think you're doing the right thing for your clients, and a lot of that is because you do not want to know the rest of the story, which is what happens to them later. for example, myself, i was a student at the university of wisconsin. i had no criminal record. i got arrested in a marijuana conspiracy case. no possession, no sale. i was threatened with 150 years. 150 years. i'm from madison, wisconsin, which is a town not unlike san
3:43 am
francisco. they cannot put me on trial in madison in wisconsin, so they took me to the south of carolina, and they put me on trial in strom thurmond federal courthouse in charleston, south carolina. across the street was the confederate cemetery. from the courthouse, they flew two flags -- the u.s. flag and the confederate battle flag, which was the state flag of south carolina. from the court room, i could look out the window and seaport sumter in the distance -- see fort sumter. they put me on a case with no marijuana. they invented imaginary marijuana. they said i was charged with conspiring to contribute 10 tons of colombian marijuana. i pled not guilty. i had a jury trial. i was found guilty on one
3:44 am
account, acquitted on nine. i had an appellate case and the supreme court case. i was then facing 15 years. since may to nine. when i went to federal prison, i did time in eight different states in nine different federal prisons, including four penitentiaries -- that is a maximum security. including the united states penitentiary at marion, the first super federal max. that is on a marijuana convention. -- conviction. i spent most of my time in solitary confinement. you do not know this, but if you plead not duty and you get a jury trial and then you have an appellate case, you go directly to solitary confinement. were you do not have access to the law library. you do not have access to your attorneys. i spent most of my time in federal prison in solitary
3:45 am
confinement because i had an appellate case. if you do not know this. when i came out of federal prison, i went to graduate school, directly into graduate school. my first semester in grad school as a master student, i remember the chair of the department asked me if i could teach criminology. i said, "sure." [laughter] the first day i taught class at the university of wisconsin, i had 500 students and an entire front row were milwaukee police officers. i told them that i just got a federal prison. they looked at me, and i said, "we are going to have a good time." [laughter] hey, it is real. that is what i want to do for you today, make it real. what you see is only a piece of the story, what happens in that courtroom. what happens later is when they go to prison. >> could you tell us some of the
3:46 am
barriers you faced from the transition from prison into the community? >> when you get a prison, now, there is no date money. they all walked out in many states in their prison uniforms, with a number across their chests. it is really a miracle they do not get shot as escapees. they are coming home to the community with no winter clothes, no eyeglasses. they have had no medical attention in years. they are usually silver and not on drugs. usually, not always. -- they are usually sold -- sober. the idea is in prison they dry out. in prison, they are just warehouses. there is no prison programming anymore. there's no college programs -- there is one in san clinton here, thanks to the people of your community, but that is one of the few in the country, the one you have at san quentin.
3:47 am
so all they could get is a ged in general. they come out with no date money, no clothes. none of them have jobs when they get out. and they come home to what? when they have been locked up 5, 10, 20 years, they go home, and their families do not even want them home. >> what impact does somebody's criminal history have on this transition from the system into the community? >> in seven states, you can never vote again. most states, you cannot vote while you are on paper. because of the criminal background record checks that are now ubiquitous, incredibly, a, you have a hard time ending an apartment, getting a car loan, getting any kind of job. i'm a convicted felon, and it would not hire me and walmart. i could not work the cash register at burger king. most occupations and recessions are close to you because you are a convicted felon --
3:48 am
occupations and jobs. when you see homeless people outside, most of them have felony convictions, mostly bullshit felonies, the little felonies. that is why they cannot get jobs. that is why they are panhandling and sleeping in doorways. their numbers are just going to multiplied next year, the year after, 10 years from now. >> let me ask, would you agree there are significant areas for people who have criminal history records? >> i would agree. it is not just people who have felony convictions and going to prison, but i was struck this morning by the stories that amy told, and a gentleman who was a reporter in santa clara county about the people who have the
3:49 am
misdemeanor convictions they got without representation. i thought i would take a second to talk about what happened, at least in alameda county, after throwing conditions for a misdemeanor. in alameda, they probably end up on court probation for three years, which means no fourth amendment rights and services and no supervision. it means they often get a warrant. while there are on probation, they are ineligible for the clean slate remedies that exist under the law. i do not call it expunge because there's no true excitement, but the dismissals, they are not eligible for that which makes it hard to get jobs because most job applications ask a question about criminal history and convictions. they cannot lawfully answer no convictions. then, they are subject to extensive criminal background checks from commercial
3:50 am
companies, and i know quarries will talk about the impact of that. they cannot work. the zero court fines and fees often, and they cannot pay his back, which means they can i get dismissal even when they are off probation. you can see the cycle that goes on here. people do not know that they are not eligible for applying for fire services after many of these. we have had clients pick up new misdemeanors for applying to own a firearm. sometimes, what was really happen is people would pay a great deal of money to get into some of the technical schools, truck driving schools. they want to become a certified businesses and, these low-wage jobs. they pay money to go through the training programs and graduate
3:51 am
and find out they are ineligible for those licenses because of their criminal record, or they have a great deal of work they have to do with their criminal records before they will be eligible, and they just spent a lot of money because the schools took their money. the horse -- horrors about what happened were discussed. i talked about the man riding a bicycle than the street and what that meant for his future. >> there are significant barriers for folks who have criminal history records. would you agree we need criminal record reform? if so, why? >> i think -- first, i just want to say a couple of words about what we do. many years ago, i was a legal aid attorney in new york. for the past 20 years, i have been an employment advocate. we practice employment law,
3:52 am
mostly on behalf of low-wage workers, and we kind of got into this whole issue when it became clear that there are some legal handles available to protect the rights of people with criminal records who are seeking jobs, so i can talk more about our project in that area. anyway, i come out of it from the point of view as an employment advocate, so the problem which we have seen a lot -- we have this project called the second chance labor project -- where we are representing workers trying to navigate these criminal background checks that does permeate every occupation that you can think of. especially since september 11. you have seen way more requirements, both by private employers and requirements imposed by state and federal law. in california, for example, there are about 200 occupational licensing laws that regulate just about every occupation you can think of. private security guard, home
3:53 am
health care worker -- and think up and down the line, there is a good chance there is a law that regulates your occupation. if you have a felony going back seven years, you cannot work at the port without going through a tsa background check. 1.5 million workers this past year had to go through that. those are everywhere, but there are some basic employment rights that people have, and here in california, we have some good laws on the books. we'll talk about reform of these losses some more. i will be happy to talk about that now, but i just want to mention there are some good laws that protect workers. for example, you have this issue -- you had multiple levels of access to all this criminal record information. first, you have the state criminal record system that is basically to upload all the local county records.
3:54 am
of the federal criminal records system, which is considered the cadillac of the record systems out there. it is an accumulation of all the state records, and then you have private screening firms -- big corporations that are making a lot of money on criminal background checks, credit checks, and all that. in california, those laws are pretty heavily regulated. for example, the private screening firms cannot report of arrests -- or they are not supposed to -- and i cannot report convictions going back more than seven years. federal law does not even close, not nearly as good. that is consumer protection law. then, applicants are entitled not to report arrest on an application, so we are very familiar with lots of good laws on the books that are never enforced. the real challenge is to get about enforcing these laws.
3:55 am
i do not know if you want to talk about it -- >> tell us about what is next. how can we be successful in taking -- you mentioned there are some good laws on the books. do we -- do they go far enough? how can we take it further? how can we essentially this reform? this seems to be critical. >> we had this huge proliferation of background checks. this huge proliferation of this industry that is collecting all these criminal records, and you have way more people walking around with a criminal record. one in five, as was mentioned. so there is huge potential for problems. the issue that the laws and procedures and protections and all that have not even close to caught up with this huge problem that we have now. so that is where i think we need
3:56 am
to start. me to really check in and of the basic protections that apply and go about the business of reforming some of those basic laws. i'll just mention a few. first of all, title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964, the basic law that protects civil rights or the protection against discrimination. back in the 1980's, clarence thomas used to be the head of the equal employment opportunity commission. he signed off on a directive that said that title 7 applies to employment decisions that are made based on criminal background checks because those decisions had a disparate impact on people of color. there are great procedures in place that say that employers cannot discriminate on some based on a criminal record unless they can show that it is based directly on the job. basic common sense standards
3:57 am
that are not in force because people mostly locked around -- employers mostly walk around saying that anybody with a criminal record of a felony or these blanket policies are illegal under title 7, so we need to strengthen title 7, up the title 7, and apply the standards to state law as well. and there is a good piece of legislation that would do some of that. then, san francisco was one of the first communities to adopt a policy called and the box -- ban the box. it is responsible for getting this whole thing going, but now, 21 local cities and counties around the country have adopted san francisco's policy, and three states now, two in the past year, when they remove the question about your criminal background from the job application, and a delay the process until the end of the
3:58 am
hiring process. basically, they remove a lot of the stigma are under criminal background, and they are creating a more fair process of giving you a shock -- giving you a shot based on the merits of the position. but i said, there's a lot more interest in that. i have been talking a lot. i'm going to stop there because ensure other folks have something to say. and i talk to us about changes in the law and some of the efforts being made in california right now, and where are we falling short, and what needs to be expanded as it relates to prior criminal arrests and convictions? -- >> talk to us about changes in the law. >> forest talked about the issue of discrimination against people with criminal records -- maurice. that mean we would not need these other remedies, but we are a long way off from that being the national standard,
3:59 am
unfortunately. what i work with people on every day as cleaning their records up to the extent allowable under california law, so cleaning your record up to the extent allowable under california state lais really different from saying "clean slate." i feel like we are at best raising expectations unfairly because there is no clean slate in california, but we are trying to improve the laws that there are and expand them. actually, this session and assembly -- my coworker who works on policy in my office has been successful in working with community partners and putting forward ab 2068, and it is really a technical fix, not sending terribly exciting, and if i say it, your eyeballs will fall out of your head, but it basically updates penal code section 1204a the expunge men or is