VOICE OF
EUGENE ALEXANDER

DEY

California “Three Strikes”
DRUG WAR PRISONER

POETRY
LETTERS
ANALYSIS
March 19th, 2003

“The World Gets Bombs, We Get Bars!"
POLITICAL FRISONDON

It becomes an imoossible, burdensome task to muster up any type
of remorse for the act which lead =e to this institution of
hopelessness, redundancy, and corruption. FPor the instant
pacudo-offense, the absence of tangible victimization readers
draconian punishaents the actual tors and people like
=yself the unfortunate recipients of an overzealous regime.

Sure enough, in my distant past, I made some serious mistakes.
Nefarious. 'This vas long ago. 'Por my transgressions I vas
required to pay a very heavy price. That price I paid. I put
distance betveen my previously self-destructive behavior, leaving
Prison a better man. T made a choice. I made s permanent break.
X paid my debt tn full.

The politics which fuel the system of American justice has placed
me in a groving population of these suffering in various foras
of political prisondoa. The sense of being the oaly victim

in the instant matter is impossible to escape. Undesccratic

is this vretched application of hov a sovereign is able o

Lice
Atself -- defying all sense of logic and fundasental fairne:

One's debts are never truly paid in that huge rates of
incarceration, America's solution to crime, have resulted in
Bany of us being treated as if we have continued to coamit
criminal acts. Once a thief alvays a thief, sven vhen one
doesn’t steal. Justice blinded by the heavy-hand.

minor deviance is addressed in its proper
In societies leas civilized, mindless prohibitions

are coupled with unreasonable punishments. Throughout a young
mation’s history this destructive cycle ia repeated. Eventually
maturing, the civilized nation abandones what is obvicusly wrong.
It corrects itself in an atteapt to preserve itself.

Gulags of addiction peppering the landscape are all these prisons
and Jails. These monuseats of last rasort becose coasonplace

in a society which embraces penalogical industrisliss. Society's
trash being another man's cagh.

Eugene Alexander Dey
2003

EUGENE ALEXANDER DEY P-37864

CSP - LAC /B5 - 229

44750 60th Sireet West

Lancaster, California 93536

Drug War Prisoner Writer

South Chicago ABC Zine Distro
P.O. Box 721, Homewood IL 60430
Publisher & Distributor $2 / /ree to prisoners
Table of Contents

1. Poems: Polfical Pisondom / Agein s
2. Latens - Throe Shkes / Educaton ras
3. Easays: T0 FIGHTTHE GOOD FIGHT: THE WA 0 END THE WAR ON ORUGS [
4 THE NEAVY-HAND OF USTICE re
5. The Inglewood Police Beaing: A Rie of Fassoge rs

&, Cotforia Pisoncrals Ty To Exiend Thek ban On Obscene Matertal o nclude Nudly P. 31

7. THE CAUIFORNIA THREE STRIKES DEBATE: AND THOSE OF US PERMANENTLY REMOVED. F. 36

JP———— "
e —— "a
-

over and over T replay in my mind the sequence of events which
Jead a6 to this existence. Haunted by my memories. Motivated
by fate ... my doonsday dilemma.

Infinitely sad as I make my vay in this world within a world.
The day-in day-out routines systematically unfold before me,
Constantly reainding me of my failures. Concrete and steel,
Sovelopiny me; becoaing part of me, staring holes into my soul.

How many tines have I made this trip into myself
Tepetitions of duplication weighing heavy on my heart.
Teave e vondering, hypothesizing, and rationalizing -- with
o answers in sight. I becose an amalgam of paycho:

Gisadvantages. Unable to shake the ghosts from my past.
o Gance that dance again. Trylng to desperately keep in touch.

This latest excursion has taken me on a frightening ride
ver-so-closer tovards that point-of-no-return. Permanent
Gupartures, Frightening. FPrightening for you, if you are me.
Too young to die.

Wondering if, perhaps, in sy infinite stupidity, having failed
Yo Fealize -~ am I alfeady dead? It is as if, in my post-nortem
tubbornness, I walk among the living. Oblivious. A shell
S€'unat once'was. Alive but entombed nonetheless.

Consuned by one's cizcular pursuits. Suried alive deep inside
Gnesal ..! laft all alone. How could you do this to me again?

Eugene Alexander Dey
2003
Christian Science Monifor Thursday, April 22, 1999 t
March 11,1994
Three Strikes: A View From Inside

Eugene Dey is serving a 12 years at Soledad State Prison

As aninmate in Soledad State Prison, | have a unique view of
Califomia’s crime problem - of convicted criminals serving their
sentences. | see fear, confusion and anger on some faces because
of the proposed "three strikes and you're out” kaw. Many inmates
realize confinued criminal behavior willno longer be folerated:
society will punish them with a mandatory life sentence.

| think mandatory life senfences are both good and bad. Violent
criminals do the worst damage fo society: fheir viclims suffer long-
ferm effects. Three violent felonies is more than enough domage for
any one person to commit, myself included.

My argument againsat the proposal s this: If Califomia lawmakers
feel compelled to send career criminals away for life, then they have.
a greater responsibility fo include prevention in their get-fough
legisiation. | hear a ot of *fough falk” from poiicians, but very litfle
about early helping those individuals who later commit crimes.

Govemment spends up fo $30.000 a year fo incarcerate an adut.
It costs about $5,000 a year fo send a child to school. The get-fough
legisiation ignores education:; its effect will furher the spending gap
between inmate and student. If “three strikes" does pass, more and
more students of foday will become the inmates of fomormow.
Education will fall hrough a lack of funds.

Six percent of the criminals commit 70 percent of violent crime.
The new law that wil focus on 6 percent of the criminals is not going
fo solve Califomia’s complex and seemingly out-of-control crime
problem. In the last 15 years Califomia has more than doubled ifs
number of prisons. Yet crime confinues fo soar.

Instead of thinking through some feasible solutions to Califomia’s
huge problem, our leaders, in @ bipartisan panic, have joined forces
1o pass “three stiikes and you're out” fo placate vofers. The authors
of this legisiation. and the polificians that support it, are either lying
orself-deceived if fhey believe their get-tough legislation will
genuinely reduce crime. Actually, this a short-term appeasement for
along-term problem.

1.am a fim believer in education as a catalyst to rehabiiitation.
Education s the key to fixing society's problems. | am against only
revamping Califonia’s criminal laws while education is ignored. For

s
every $1 spent fo purish, $10 shouid be spent on educational
development.

The inmate-to-student spending ratio is way off balance.
Califomia's leaders should stop wasting tax dolars tying to out
tough-talk eachother. They should fix the problem instead of being
part of it.

San Francisco Chronicle Monday May 23rd, 1994
Education s the Key, Even for Prisoners
EDUCATION PRISONS PRISONERS GRANTS
Eugene Dey is a prsioner at Soledad State Prison

As arecipient of post-secondary education for inmates. | saw the
fangible benefis fo sociely of Pell grants, which provide coliege
education for the incarcerated.

Inmates who have victimized innocent people leam why they
perpetuate ciminally deviant behavior and may subsequently
become productive members of society.

‘While the stafistics vary from source fo source, the overwhelming
consensus s that post-secondary education decreases the iikelihood
of continued criminal acivity. The national rate of recidivism is
around 40 percent - but only 30 percent for college-educated
inmates.

The debate over barting inmates from receiving federal Pell
educational grants baffles me. How isit that both sides of the
political spectrum, apparently fervently opposed to crime, are
considering discontinuing funds for a program that lowers the rate of
repeat offenses?

Senator Kay Hutchinson, R-Texas, who leads the fight against
inmate college programs, says, “Pell grants were sold (fo Congress)
fo help low-and-middle-income families send their kids fo college.
They were not sold for prison rehabil

I Senator Hutchinson pursued the ssue, she would find that the
great preponderance of inmates are from low-and-midde income
families. Inmates are all too frequently from poor school disticts and
start fife off at an exireme disadvantage. College education for
prisoners can break cycles of generational poverly and low levels of
education.

The cost of Pell grants for college classes for inmates is $40 million
ayear. Surely a program that will help a large group of siructurally
disadvantaged people is worth such an investment?

'l‘]lii POOR IN AMERICA

s

Each $1.500 Pell grant award per participating inmate will save
the taxpayer money in the long run: $25,000 for the cost of a year's
incarceration, fo be precise.

When | entered prison, | had no post-secondary education and
little understanding of the world from which | was separated. Then |
enrolled in Soledad State Prison's college program and graduated
summa cum laude from Harinel Junior College. | presently maintain
@3.75 GPA toward a Bachelor of Arts in Social Science.

Prison-based college programs provide people fike myself a
chance fo understand the consequences of being a criminal -
perpetuating the socioeconomic destruction of our own society.

Most prison systems favor a policy of warehousing rather than
rehabiitation. As on inmate, | can see why prisoners leave prison
and immediately re-offend - nothing is done to discourage their
destructive side.

Punishment, warehousing, mandatory minimums, suspending
inmate rights. pulling funds from college programs and ofher get-
tough poiicies will accomplish very itfle.

When Ileave this spiing, i hope to become a useful, taxpaying
cifizen. Too much legislative energy has been spent - and what will
society receive in refumn? Inmates whom a college education might
have changed for the better but wil instead confinue fo vicfimize
innocent people - maybe even you.
Bugene Dey P-37864
Csp-LAC / B5-229

44750 60th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93536

0 PIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT: THE WAR TO END THE VAR ON DRUGS

By Eugene Alexander Dey

In 1996, the state of Arizona fired the first shot in the
battle to bring to an end the var on drugs. Backers of the
“Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act" launched a
successful statevide campalgn to address the probles of drugs
in a nanner other than what has been philosophically eabraced
by the advocat

of the pro-prison school-of-thought. Due to
a well-planned effort to educate the public on the need to

—channel one’s tax dollars avay from the criinal justice
systen, Arizona's voters approved of drug treatsent and
rehabllitation over the continued incarceration of monviolent
arug ottenders.

After the first year of implementation the Arizona Suprese

Court Lasued a report on the law's effectivensss. Arizons'
taxpayers realized a net savings of §2.6 million in the first
year alons due to the fact T7.5 percent of those given probation
for arug possession tested negative for drug use. Only 2.5
percent of those afforded access to a comunity-based trestment
Progran tested positive. This is an outstanding statistic in

a generation of astronomical rates of recidivisa.
opponents of the drug var decided to fallow

success. Proposition 36 came into being aven though
California has some of the nation's toughest lava and a prisen
Population of approximately 160,000 inmates. Ou Noveaber 7,
2000, by a margin of nearly two to one, the voters in Califorata
#PProved of drug treatment nstead of lncarceration for those
1o have comsitted a nonviolent drug offense.

For those who stand-fast in their get-tough, pro-prisce
18eologies, concepts such as traataent for drug addiction is
® fundamental £lav in their desire to severely punish any and
411 transgressors. In order to vin the drug var, drug var
Proponents subscribe to vide-scale incarceration for any and
411 who have broken the law

Do matter how ainor is their

current transgression. For them, treatment comes at a reasomable
price

at approximately $25,000 a year to tncarcerate,
mULtiplied by hovever many addicts camot cure themselves on
Eheix oun. Such a deplorable equation is hov Aserica has sanaged
£ lock-up roughly two million men and vomen —— 400,000 of vhon
are incarcerated for drug offenses.
The Need For Treatment As Opposed To Incarceration

AMddiction to drugs is a horrible disesse. FPor soms, their
abuse of various substances takes thes to the very depths of
humanity. For others, addiction is merely a part of their
othervise normal lives. The drug addict comes from avery segent
of socioscononic America. Norsover, thers are mo Lastantaneous,

one-size-fit,

11 solutions to a stubbarn and comvoluted social
problen wnich has resisted all attempts by the governaeat to
make it 9o avay. Addiction does not cater to opinion polls,

the short-tern political agendas of elected officials, mor will
Lt bov-down to tough-on-crime pseudo-solutions.
Miction is a destroyer of the bumn spirit. It does §
a0t discrininate in 1ts ability to topple both the strong and

the veak, the cich and the poor. Ona's inabllity to rematn
clean and sober doss i fact bold the potential. o lead 000

into ayeiad forms of cristaality - soms serious, soms violeat.

Nevertheless, addiction in and of Ltself, absent any collateral

crimtnality, is merely a serious disease of self-destructio
With this recent voter-approved separation of disease from lav
enforcement, in California and Arizona, the people have desanded,
Where one s convicted solely for a moaviolent drug offense,
they will no longer fall under the gavel of expensive and
failure-oriented incarceration.

A drug addict needs a well thought-out and individualized
system of treatment, where rehabilitation is the goal. What
a drug offender never needs is any type of incarceration, ever.
Incarceration in the heavy-handed drug var-era seans one is
varehoused 1tke cattle in a densely populated institution of
hard core criminality. Housing drug addicts with real criminals
has proven to increase one's level of deviance -- regardless
of their instant affliction. In fact, under Proposition 36,
1£ a arug offender repeatedly tests positive for drugs and
therefore fails treatment, they can only be jailed for 30 days
at a tise.

Proposition 36 is goal- and success-oriented. The premise
f this law acknovledges the purpose of treatment over jail
18 to use incarceration as a very last resort. Locking-up
nonviolent drug offenders is a downvard spiral and a
non-solution. Sending someone with a drug probles to prison
only serves to indoctrinate thes into the unfortunate subculture
of gang violence, racism, and oppression. Incarceration does
not solve anything becas

It Ls designed to punish. Punishsent
1s exactly opposite of what a nonviolent drug offender needs |0
i there 1s ever going to be a chance to help thes make a
Pormanent break with thetr antisoctal behavior.

The voters in California spoke loudly —- vith 61 percest
in avor and 39 percent against Proposition 6. Stated in the
summary argusent of the voter initiative, *The var on drugs

has failed ... We pay $25,000 annually for prisoners when

troataent costs only $4,000."

While nusbers and statistics can be deceiving, fa this
case the nusbers patnt an egregious picture. The 30 year drug
war has acconplished lamentable results ssd {nnuserable
injustices -~ too many to count. The var on drugs has proven
£0 be a destroyer of people. Like in any war, there are many
innocent victine vho fall prey to the var machice. In the drug
vaz, the fasilies of all these drug var prisoners have becoms
collateral damage.

Furthermore, the voters are sisply tired of wasting
unfathomable suns of money to incarcerate huge musbers of drug
40icts vhen such a neavy-handed manifestation doss not address
in & socially responsible mamner the problem it is eapoversd
to solve. Despite the var on drugs, society is not safer because
nonviolent drug addicts ace not the probles. And drugs are
Rore readily available than ever.

Being tough on real crininals does mot secessitate the
total abandonsent of comsonsense o fundsmental fairnes

Treatment for addiction is what soctally matare socisties pursue
in Order to free-up scarce governmest resources for areas of
true societal taportance. Without a doubt, large-scale
incarceration of drug offenders 1s a complete fatlure. The
Process of criminalizing all drugs drives wp their black sarket

value.
Like in the Prohibition against alcobol in the early 0th /J
century, the potential for profit in this victisless
transgression vas too great for the nefarious entrepreneur to
resist. Thus, the market becoses flooded with cheap and poerful
contraband. Once this 1lliclt commodity becomes a matter of
extrese criminality due to heavy-handed lavs being the prisary
crininal justice methodology, the government Creates a
persevering market force. Mdiction, the varisble which fuels
this tndustry, cannot be brutalized into submission -- addiction
simply does not work that vay. Not in a free and open capitalist
economy.

Proposition 36 and Three Strikes: Tvo Extremes

Equal protaction of the lav is guaranteed by the Fourteeath
Anendment of the United States Constitution. Yet, in the drug
waz-era, those in the legislature or judicary do not vant to
address obvious constitutional isbalances.

Jackie Goldberg, a member of California's Assembly, has

been active in addressing criminal justice satters in a rational

inple possession drug charges account for 9.6 percent
of third strike cases. As of February 28, 2001, 637 persans
have received 1ife sentences for possession of a diminutive

amount of a narcotic,”

12 Goldberg In regards to how three
strikes atfocts drug offenders.

Por some of us, we are serving life seatences in state
prison for nonviolent drug offenses per California's three

strikes. In other words, we have been in serious trouble in
the p

, however, in the present, for a noaviolent drug offen

Ve are sent away forever. Three strikers like ayself, and there
are many of us, are excluded from any type of treataent because

ve have failed to previously cure ourselves.
Over 50 percent of the third strike offenders have been |2
convicted of nonviolent third strike felonies. Of the 7,072
life innates serving at least twenty-five years to 1ife due
strikes, 3,380 of them are convicted of petty, trivial

Overall, there are over 1,100 nonviolent drug
offenders who have fallen prey to the wide net cast by three
strike:

While 99.9 percent of the addicts convicted of a scaviolent
4rug offense in California are being afforded treataent per
Proposition 36, there extsts a small but significast class of
4rug offenders - myself included - who have been totally left
OUE of this effective treatment over ail phenomenon.

Excluding one class of nonviolent drug offender while
including all others is contrary to the very pillars vhich
support the proposition of equal protection. This line of

oning 15 one ayselt and others have o altermative but to
Pursue in the state appellate courts because ve have a legttimate
constitutional expectation to receive treatseat over prison

in 14GhE of the passage of Proposition J6. Being a prisoner

in the political atmosphere of bi-partisan, criminal justice

"toughness" nearly sliminates any exectation of legislative
relief. We are sizply caught-in-the-middle and too polltically
risky to touch. Going to the courts is our only chance.

There are many recipients of treatment over jail who also
have strike priors. They too have been in serious trouble in
the past, yet they managed to remain incarceration fres for
a five year “ashout” period. Thus, under Proposition 3 their

Strikes have been washed-out. The fundasental flav in this

trouble-fr

distinction

those already on parole or probation
are automatically included in the treatment over incarceration
scheme despite their being virtually identical to persons such |3
as myself. In other words, under Proposition 36, every
nonviolent drug offender in California Ls included except those
Who have failed to remain Incarceration free for five years
immediately proceding the instant offense, vith the exception

of those on parole or probation.

By excluding only thos

who have failed to "vashout” their

strike priors is conflicting vith the intent of the voter because
the public voted in substantial nusbers to bring to an end
expensive incarceration in favor of commnity-based

results-oriented treatment and rehabilitation. How is society's

best interest served when they voted to invest scarce revemses

in treatment programs, vhen thers are over a 1,100 nonviolent
drug offenders serving at least 25 years to life vith an

stimated lifetime cost to the public of vell over $500,000,
per inmate.
dollars.

This alone comes to well over balf a billion

From a purely personal standpoint, I cannot escape the
genuine belief that I deserve, mot punitive incarceration, but

a progran which will help me with my drug probles. In my distant

past, when I vas much younger, I vas i serious trowble. I

40 not dispute that when one victisizes another physically,
eaotionally, or econosically, one must pay a debt to soctety.
Regrettably, I have been there and dade that. However, T o
longer commit crime. I have mot for quite sometise. I leamed
By lesson and paid sy debt. In comparison to crises I comitted
in ay past (robbery and burglary), this tnstant transgression
in 1o vay compare:

In the commission of ay so-called crim,

1 vas not bothering anyone. I vas sersly driving down the road

@inding my ovn business. By warehousing me in prison for the
next quarter of a century solely for a noaviolent drug offense fy
renders me a victim - not a criminal.
The Drug War-Mongers's Refusal To Give-Ta

Regardless of what the Bush adaiaistration clains, there
extsts no factual Link between drug trafficking and terroriss.

The proponent's of the drug var's propaganda machine quickly
deviated from the trath and began a national campaign to tie
together America's drug problem and the var against terroriss.
“If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in
Anerica,* President Bush said to an audience of anti-drug
activists on December 14, 2001. Bush veat on to say, "It's
important for Americans to know that the trafficking of drugs
finances the world of terror, sustaining terrorists.

During the 2002 Superbowl, the Bush adainistration purchased
$3 million vorth of advertising tise to begin the drug and
terrorism aisinformation campaign which President Bush had
started in Dacesber of 2001. These ads - which have been
saturating American television

are povertal tools to try
and retnvent the societal urgency to re-laumch yet another

Bultifaceted front on those unabla to overcoss addiction to
arugs.

To make a public announcesent that Osssa Bin laden's AL
Qaeda needs drug money is absurd. Ba Laden is a Saudi of
considerable ealth. This vealth primarily comes directly or
indirectly from oil, not drugs. Mo ene hears Presidant Sush
-~ who hinselt conss from an ofl rich fastly -- claiaing that
gas-guzzling SUV ovners need to buy an esergy effictent vehicle
to fight the var on terrorism. While the truth hurts, a painful
reality is what drug war-torn America seeds rather than yet

another dose of half-truths and the stubborn refusal to adait
2 30 year drug var 1s a miserable failure. I3
The 500,000 AL Qaeda used to finance the Septesher 11

attack on America is a drop n the bucket for a group of vealthy

fanatics. According to an article published in the Washington

Post in early-January of 2002, "Investigators are still uncertain

about the origins of the §500,000 used in the Septeaber 11 plot.
The article went on to say, "But US intelligence officials say

AL Qaeda has raised soney through means as varied as credit

£raud, diamond trafficking and the sale of honey." Tet, to

the drug var-mongers, the results of their ovn investigations
do not deter them from making self-serving claims. Television
15 a powerful ally and used effectively by the proponents of
the drug var.
To Fight The Good Fight

Absent all the hard core, drug var-era rhetoric, political
ideologies, testisony by so-called experts, heavy-handed lavs,
public opinion polls, and well-financed sedia caspaigus, T
understand that in the drug var-era I camot afford to continue
using drugs. T know that T need help, not prison. Put simply,
speaking only for myself, I have no resorse for my pseudo-offense
because T am my only victia. Sadly, T as oot alone in this

equation either. Until myself and others are liberated from

never-ending three strikes life

ntences, tederal mandatory
inimums, and other draconian, drug-oriented sentences, ve
cematn, not criminals, but drug var prisoners

By excluding one class of drug offender from treatment
While tncluding all others brings forth serions constitutional
and logical questions. Is it constitutional and fair to provide
one class of nonviolent drug offender treatsent, no jail
Whatsoever, and placed on probation -~ vhile the other, similarly

situated class of drug offender receives absolutely no treatment
and has to spend at least twenty-five years to life in a 13
mind-bending institution of wnadulterated chaos, violence,
bloodshed, and death?

T have recently begun to pursue an equal protection claia
in the state courts on ay continued confinement and dental of
treataent in a community-based factlity. No matter how on-point
T am in ay petition for rellef, bacause of the generational
longevity of the war on drugs, the courts are not at all
uphill battle to illastrate bvious criminal
- Nonetheless, 1t is my duty as a drug var
Pprisoner who has done nothing wrong to fisht the good Fight.

By alloving the criminal justice systes too much pover
over the poverl

sympathetic in one'

Justice imbalance

has resulted in an abusdance of litigation,
taxing an ready overburdened judiciary. For those of us with

the passionate dedication to fight an unjust sentence, we have
£iled -- or are in the process of filing -- what seess like

2 perpstual series of meritorious appesls and petitions. In

this endeavor, ve are asking the courts to overturn the dectsions
of lower courts or issue writs which vould grant us rellef.

It is one's fundamental right to inftiate a judictal
Proceeding when one has experienced an adverse action, or been
denied a right or a liberty interest. Sadly, going to the courts
43 what those of us at the receiving ead of so much injustice
have to 4o if we ever expect to receive any type of relief.
While success is unlikely, we have to try and attack the
foundation which supports the wide-range of lavs vhich keep
us buried alive in these Gulags of drug var prisondoa.

In the end, like in the beginning, nothing really changes
for some of us. Simply because ve have fallen betveen the cracks
4n a generation of legislative and judictal cowardice, in prison
Ve remain even though treatment for most is in the air.
strike

excepe for those of us vho have been labeled /7

3
£
ER

IE EEAVY-mAND OF gustIcE 13

By Eugene Alexander Dey

A sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison for petty
theft —- is it a violation of the Eighth Amendnent's prohibition
against cruel and umusual punishaent? On April 1, 2002, the
United States Suprese Court agreed to answer this constitutional
question as it applies to California’s thres strikes sentencing
lav.

he Supreme court

In criminal matters, but not limited to, there s a sharp
Philosophical split asong the high court justices. Numerous
Supreme Court decisions are divided along these lines. Tha
Judges who tend to lean conservative on issues of criminal
Justice hold a narrow Five to four advantage.

The nation's high court vas cospelled to review this issue
because of a conflict in the lover courts. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held, in tvo separate opinions, one in November
©f 2001, and the other in February 2002, that giving a life
sentence for petty thett vas a grossly disproportionate sentence
and therefore cruel and unusual puntshaent.

In Andrade v. Attorney General, the Ninth Circuit reversed
50 to life sentence imposed on Leandro Andrade for two counts
Of petty theft. This dectsion vas huge in that for the previous

on years the California Suprese Court routinely dented
virtually identical Eighth Amendment constitutional challenes
to three strikes sentences.

Then, in Pebruary of 2002, while the attorney general for
California vas submitting a petition to the Onited States Suprese
Court in the matter of Andrade, the Ninth Circuit dealt another

blow to the constitutionality of three strikes. In Brown v.
Mavle, tvo California thres strtkes petty thett offenders, |9
Richaza Brown and Eenest Bray, had their 1o sentences
ovestorned as vell. Tn cosing to their deciston, the Broun
couet Lacgely relied on the holding in Andrade. Tn o dotng,
auch broader Language vas used vhich Urceatened to open the
Floodgates for thousands of minor offenders secving life
entences in California prisons for mouviolent crines.

During a1l this

a California prisoner, Gary Bving, a minor
theft offendar who happens to be HIV positive, was routinely
dented by the California Suprese Court in an almost ldentical

set of criminal circumstances as in the cases of Andrade and

The United States Supreme Court, in their role as the final
Judicial authority to clear up inconsistenctes and confusion

in and asong the lower courts, issued a vrit of certiorari in

Lockyer v. Andrade and Eving v, California. They will hear

arqunents on these two cases in tandem. The high court will
hear oral argusents in the fall, and render a much-anticipated
dacision sosetime in early 2003.

Atter re

ing many of the Supreme Court precedents cited
by the Ninth Circuit in their decisions in Andrade and Brown

it appears yet another sharply divided dectsion is about to
manifest. In the nation's highest judicial body, on the Eighth
Amendment's proposition of proportionality, there is much

aisagreenent.

“Pinally there vas the kind of conflict betveen the lover

courts that they were looking for,” said Kent Schneidegger of
the Criminal Justice Legal Poundation which supports three
strikes. He want on to say, I von't make a prediction, except

to say 1t will be clo

Proportionality in a non-capital case brings forth vigorous
dobate. Conservative justices usually support very harsh 2.0
sentences for those who have displayed a pattern of crimtnality
over a period of tine, even in the case of relatively minor
crines. Liberal justices, on the other hand, tend to take the
stand that the harshest punishsents are meant solely for the
vorst type of offender

Like a surderer, rapist, or armed
robber. Finding comson ground

or an overvhelatng majortty
- in a narrouly aivided Suprems Court is mot too likely to

manit

t, especially on the lssue of three strikes.
e Rectpients of the Heavy-Band

he phenomenon of patty thieves receiving life sentences
in California is by no seans the exception. In the three
strikes-era, heavy-handed sentences for a vide range of ainor
offenders is the norm. In California prisons there are at least
340 iomates serving life teras for the crise of petty thatt.
A crime which is usually prosecuted as a isdeseanor. Hovever,
rulings which attack and undermine the constitutfonality of

a sentence -- especially in the case of a frequeatly used lav
Like three strikes

holds the potential to liberate thousands
of nonviolent three strikes recipients.
Unfortunately, T am one of these nonviolent recidivists.

Through my observations, studi

interviews, and efforts, vhen
T speak on matters of unaistakable injustice, I am literally
speaking for thousands of us. Thers exists mo subject of greater
Goncern within the California prison population than thres
strikes, any and all court rulings expanding or limiting the
law's scope, or any public discussion about possible reform

of amendment. T can think of nothing that is

tched closer
by California state prisoners than three strikes.
There are 7,072 prison insates vithin the California prison

svsten who have received a sentence of at least twenty-five
years to 1ife dus to this draconian sentencing lav. Becau
of the wide net cast by the frequently used three strikes, the
aynamic of who is being struck-out, wnd for at, is a mtter
of uninterrupted controversy, litigation and debate.

Eight. yea

into this heavy-handed experiment and the
umbers tell a tale of incapacitating both nonviolent and violent
offenders alike. The range of offenses to come under the

umbrella of three strikes is very vide, vith 3,800, vell over

half of the total, given life sentences for nonvioleat crimes.
Californta's three strikes case into being vhen Richard
Allen Davi:

a predator with a long criminal history of kidnaps,
cobberies, violence, and sex offenses, abducted and murdered
tuelve year old Polly Kla

in late 1993, The mation vas
outraged by this crise and demanded sosething be done o address
repeat, violent felons going in and out of prison - and leaving
4 trial of victins in their vake. In a vhirlvind, three strikes
becane a law in March of 1394

Without gotng into any philosophical discussion about the
death penalty, vhat Polly Kla

+ murderer d1d vas an act worthy
of death in nearly any soctety. To invade one's home and steal
avay a child's life s the act of a sonster —- deserving of
death. And that is wher the child-killer sits, on death cov.
Howevas, being a state prisoner valking among all the

sadness, heving no alternative but to take a bird's-eye viev

of the and-result of the thres strikes law, T still understasd
that it is not Richard Allen Davis's fault that ayself and others

Likewise situated received life sentences for drug offens

petty thievery, and other nonviolent crimes. The fault li

With the politics of justice which allovs the state of California
to strike-out thousands of minor offenders for trivial and

nonviolent crimes.
Offering my case as cne example of hov this lav vorks, 22
my crime against husanity is the possession of a controlled

substance. In my transgression, I have neither victis nor

one roquires the othar. Tet, in the world of pover

politics, people Like myself are "potestially dangerous® by
vistue of our prior convictions. Regardless of the natura of
our offenses, we have becose fodder for the tenet that one must
be made to pay for ona's accumilated offenses, as opposed to
what one has actually committed in the here and nov.

Tn mitigation, I am college educated and a gensral
contractor. In aggravation, I have two or more serious felony
convictions from my troubled youth. EBducation and business
enabled me to

@ a pormanent break vith sy nefaricus past.
Regrettably, I was not smart or strong enough to seek traatment
for addiction on my own —- that is ay only crize. But in the
three strikes era, espectally in Sacrasento County which uses
this law frequently, a 11fe sentence for scmsone like ayself
is alost automatic.

Drug use and abuse is the primary cause behind huge rates
©f incarceration. In 1980, vhile the var on drugs vas in its
intancy, there ware 50,000 people incarcerated for drug crines.
By the year 2000, this nusber ballooned to 400,000 —- an
49ht-f0ld increase. There dos

not extst a single factor which
has affected America's rates of crime and incarceration than
arugs.

IF the host society chooses to focus its resources in the
area of arugs and addiction as a crisinal justice probles, then
strononical rates of crime - and subsequent incarceration

“- VALl be the end result. It comes on a very rare occasion
that a lifetise drug addict is able to cure themselves in

respons

to the threat of being

verely puntshed.
In a perfect vorld, one puts forth a tresendous effort 23
to avoid an inevitable and avoidable hardship. In the world

in vhich ve live, addiction to drugs is a debilitating disease.
Puntshing a drug addict simply does not vork. As a state
prisoner, T am in a population cosprised of the hardest core,
untreated group of drug addicts in the vorld. There is no other
factor which can be directly correlated to the destruction of
these people than the addiction to, and abuse of, every addictive
substance known to man.

One can barely put into words what it is like to be given
20 much tine for a crime nelther serious or violeat. When one's
past 1s theoretically elevated to sclipse one's present
tranagression, the heavy-hand of justice virtually chokes the
nonviolent recidivist to death. Myself and thousands of others
are literally buried alive in mtnd-bending tnstitutions of
nonstop chaos, insanity, violence and death.

“Ace ve ever going to get out?" a three striker racently
said to pe. This man has already been incarcerated for sevea
years on an attespted suto burglary — a crime hich usually
carzies about a year in the county Jail. “I have been locked
up longer on this petty theft than all sy previous crimes put
together," said another thres striker. These are the questions
one asks theaselves and others as they are placed in a time-

varp of painful soul-searching -- trying to make of a

senseless situation.

Justice in a democratic soclety is supposed to strictly
adnere to the proposition of fundamental fairness in how the
government will oversee the spplication of hov it polices its
population. In the dreg var era, particularly in California,
one can and does receive some of the harshest punishaents in

the free world. Almost all of the minor offenders to receive
these punishments have drug problems. When someone who has o
a lengthy record of serious criminality cossits a petty theft,
the root cause behind this offens

18 addiction to arugs. While
the petty thist is not a model citizen, they are no longer

willing to commit serious or violent crimes to feed their drug
habit. Drug addiction, not hard core crimimality, is the key.
One three strikes recipient with vhoa I share this peison
has left a particularly lasting impression on me. iz oaly
crine in the three strik

eca vas a nonviolent drug offense.
Beca

of some burglaries conaitted in his distant past, he
was given a life sentence. Nevertheless, his victisization
14 not end vith the heavy-handed sentence itself. Ina

Senseless prison riot he was stabbed thirteen times by nmat

trom a different ethnic group.

was lucky to escape death.

While his physical wounds have since healed,
Peychologically, he has becose a bundle of pent-up rage, anger,
confusion, and fear. Having comsitted only moavioleat burglartes
in his past, sending hin to a maximus security prison for life
has Literally destroyed this man. For a noaviolent drug offanse
he has become a psychological and physical victia of the var

on druge

and has been reluctantly indoctrinated tato the
violent subculture comson in maximum security prison.
The Proponents and Opponents of the Heavy-Hand
Hoavy-handed sentencing schemes have saturated state and
faderal systems which administer criainal justice. Pederal
Randatory ainisus drug lavs have first-tise drug offeaders
serving lengthy prison terns. At the state lavel, forty states

have recidivists sentencing statutes. Tventy-six states and

the federal government have implemented a form of thres strike:
Yet, despite this trend towards harsher punishments,
California is the only state to use thres strikes frequently.
Nationally, California is responsible for 52 percent to 94 3¢
percent of all three strikes sentences —- and tha only state
to use this new sentencing scheme to send minor offenders to
prison for life.

he proponents of the three strikes claia the best interest
of soctety has been served and that three strikes makes soctety
safer —- lovering crims rates. In the three strikes debate
there has been no stronger advocate of this controversial
sentencing lav than Secratary of the State of California, Bill
Jones, who authored the lav.

“Crime in California has declined dramatically since 1993

sata Jon

“Ihe only things that are different are more police,

tougher lavs, and three strikes....Where there are a mumber

of explanations for a given result, the stmplest explanation
is usually correct. The California’s three strikes lav is that
explanation,” he concluded.

This is steply a fallacy and a totally unsupported by fact.
In the drug var era, crime is a constant. Wr. Jones is beyond
premature in his analysis. It is too early to say with any
certainty vhat is the resl cause behind the declines in the

rat

of crine. Conclusions based on a relatively short period
of tise cannot be relied upon. One should not be villing to
make such conclusions until a sufficient amount of time has
olapsed.

Reynolds 1s simply not qualified to accurately predict
Why the rates of criss declined based on the musbers available.

In a land with myriad lavs, people deviate all the tize. To

clain these pseudo-solutions have made the streets safer is
absurd. Eight years after three strikes went into effect, crime

in America remains an epidesic

pectally tn comparison to

s Western alltes.
Jon HilL of the Contra Costa Tises dld his o evaluation 34
on the alleged successes of three strikes. He found other
studies which have identified various counties in California

that were aggressive in enforcing three strikes * ... had no

greater decline in crime than did counties that used it far
more sparingly.” In fact, he found that crime dropped 21.3
Pexcent in the six counties that have been the most infrequent
user of the law, while the six counties that have used it the
most only expertenced a 12.7 percent drop in crise.

The backers of tough-on-crime measure

Like three strikes
try their hardest to demonize people like ayself. Secretary
Jones insists amending three strikes in any fashion ™

threatens to put more repeat murderers, robbers and child
molesters back in our neighborhoods.

Yet, if one merely looks at vho is being permsnently removed

by this lav, one will £ind that well over half are nonviolent
offenders. Because of the manner in which three strikes is
applied, nonviolent offenders are unjustly being amalgamated
into the category occupied by violent cristnals. This has
Created a new class of offendar -- those potentially dangerous.
Tn California, a thres strikes recipient can be anyone froa
a shoplister to a drug addict to a surderar.

Mark and Joe Klaas, Polly's father and grandfather, have
been outspoken opponents to the mamner in which thres strikes

is applied, and how it has been assoctated to the unfortusate

murder of their loved-one. "[W]e blindly supported the
initiative in the mistaken belief that it dealt only with violent

crimes,” said Mark Klaas in an interview right after the lav

went into effect. Mr. Klaas vas used by the thres strikes camp
o help sell the idea to the public. By the tize he realized
how the lav would really be used, it was too late.
In the drug var-era, criminal justice ideas are formulated
and then implesented into policy without the proper studies 27
and tests being conducted to accurately predict eventual

ses or failures. Despite Secretary Jones's
paeudo-scientific hypothesis that the simplest explanation is
“usually correct", thres strikes simply does not accosplish
what the lavs proponents go on record claiming it does.

“It's too late to bring Polly back. But 1t's not too late
to nake California a wiser,

fer state by amending the three
strik

Law to apply only to violent felonies,” vrote Jos Klass
in a published article. He has been very active i the fight
to change how the three strikes is used. The fasily of the
tangible victin has taken an active role in this battle because
they have revieved all the facts

thas they have cose to a
Logical conclusion that three strikes simply targets too wide
a range and is therefors vrong. Joe Klass, much like Secretary
Jones, 18 actively Lnvolved in the debate. However, while one
has nothing to gain by coming to his conclusion, the other
stubbornly clings to the lav he authored.

Anerica has a crisinal justice systes unlike any other
in the free world. For nearly three decades politictans have

been pounding the drug var-s

ra pulpit, getting tougher and
tougher on a1l manners of deviance. There is a price to be

paid for mass incarceration

it coses at a great expense.
At a tine vhen tax dollars are in short supply, Aserica
provides for the vorld the unique phencsencn of gold-plated
prison systems and dilapidated school districts. One feeding
of the other.
Is it cruel and unusual puntsheent to give life sentences

to shoplifters? Doss that question even dignify an ansver.
The Tnglewood Police Beating: A Rits of

By Engene Alexander Dey

Peace officers do a difficult Job for a relatively small

3um Of money. America being a prosperous nation, there exist

©Y fev Jobs paying roughly $40,000 to $50,000 a year vhere

©ne faces on a datly basis the risk of death, injury, or the
unfortunate requirenent of having to use force in the perforsance
of their duties.

Hovever, no matter what sose will have you belteve,
dncidents of police brutality are not isolated. Within the
community of law enforcesent, such outrage-us conduct is a rite
Of passage and an unfortunate fact of life.

Nearly all scandals involving police misconduct end up
being stifled and dovnplayed by defense attorneys. When the
lawyers take over, the big picture becomes lost in the fram
by-fre

recantation of what seess Like an act of usaistakable

crininality.
Defense attorney John Barnett has already begun to bring
doubt: {nto the minds of the jury pool. His explanatlon is very

simpl,

Inglewood Police Officer Jeremy Morris vas defending
b

1£ from someone who grabbed his crotch. In other words
- this is the story behind vhich a skilled attorney can launch
a meritorious defense for an obviously guilty client.

Me. Barmett 1s an expert in creating doubt in the minds
In the case of sotorist Rodaey King he vas able

£o convince an all-white jury the beating of Me. King vas

of juror:

Justified -- despite the videotape. And he is ready to do so
a92in because he understands that people simply do not want

to believe the truth when a vell thought out lie is much sssier
to digest.

29

Law enforcenent take violence very serious, Vith some cops
being more prone tovards violence than others. TYet, in the
case of beating a suspect, they are simply not willing to bold
theaselves to the same legal standards they are espovered to
enforce. In their minds, they are above the lav.

When T

an eptsode of police brutality I do not need

to have the incident explained to me by a defe

ttorney,
prosecutor, police spokesperson, or sose so-called rpert on
auch matters. For those of us who grew up on the streets,

gatting beat up by the cops vas often one of our rites of pas:

into adulthood —- with our busps and bruises, cuts and injuri

being our red badges of courage.
If someone takes a sving at a cop, resists arrest, smarts
off to the wrong cop, or is too drunk to cooperate, then cops

Will do vhat they fesl they have to do. Nost officer:

espectally the really aggressive ones, are the main culprits
to overreact in these situations. Beating a perpetrator --
even Lf he has not committed a serious crie -- iz an act of

solidarity. Absent a group confession by conscience-]

aden
officers, or an unforaseen video casera, cops sisply have little
about vhich to vorry in cases of abusing their arrestees.

I £ind 1t lasentable and grow veary of seeing police
brutality on the nevs, then to have an array of persons going
on record trying to justify or dovnplay an cbviously troubling
problen. T know from being somevhat expert in such matters,

that 1€ T an a skinny, wentally challenged, 16 year old kid

-~ and handcufed as well -- T am not a threat to anyone. In
such a situation, and I have been at the receiving end of similar
beatings, one cannot be in a sore vulnerable position. The

fact that Donovan Jackson vas outnusbered and handcutfed renders

what Officer Morris did to hi unacceptable in any situation.
This vas the act of a covard.
Officer Morris of the Tnglewood Police Department is like

4 10t of his colleagues -- he ix siaply a bad cop. To clata

his acts vera justified, prospted by the wproveable acts of

@ skinny, handcuffed minor is preposterous. The leaders of

the African American community have every reason to be angry.

Such avents do not need to be burned into their minds vith

recorded images. They know like I knov, that police brutality

15 alive and well in drug var-torn America. And it alvays vill
be

California Prisoncrats Try To Extend Their Ban On
Obscene Material To Include Mudity

By Bugene Alexander Dey

In Joveaser of 2000, California state prisoner, Feith
Starss, filed an inmate grievance alleging magazines he orlered
“ers tnappropriately deesed obscens and being unlawfully withheld
unctl he 5aid for the postage to send them to an approved
corzespondent, rather than back to the publisher,

After fully eshausting his grievance uith the California
Degar

nt of Corrections (CDC), the patitioner filed a writ

f nabeas corpus in the California Superior Court of Los Angel

County. In this patition he

leged that prison offictals do
not have jurisdiction or authority under California law to mske
the deteratnation of what should or should not be considered
obscene -~ and the magazines in question wers not obscens.

He 4150 alleged that the prisen’s operational policy is oo
broad and the Gesand of $3.20 for return postage constituted

4 fora of extortion,
©n sebruary 28, 2002, the Superior Court dented the
petition. The Superior Court held inaates may be restricted
£r0a obtaining obscene material -- vhich is illegal to oun or
Publish {n the U.5. The petitioner never alleged insates could
obtain obscene material, but that the sagazines in question

vere not obscene. Thus, the court, like the COC, failed to

address the issues of the petition. (In re Starks BH001837,
Los Angeles Superior Court) In essence, the court used victually
1dentical verbage as used by the COC in denying the prisoner

grte

Starks then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in the California Court of Appeal

(In re Starks B151949)
3z

7o buttress his clains, petitioner included docuseatation of
other inmates vho vere also denied various publications which
vere arronsously deened obscene by prison officials - including
sen's magazines such as Waxia and Suff which do not even contain
any audity.

In an eca of increasingly tough penalogical methodologies,
orison officials usually depm as obscene, depictions of
penatration or contact betveen the south and genitals. According
to the California Code of Regulations: "Obscene saterial sesns
saterial taken as a whole, which to the average person, agplying
statowide standards, appeals to the prurient interests, and
46 material which taken as a whole, depicts or describes sexsal

conduct; and which, taken

a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.”

3006(2) (15) (A))

s ccx

Under these regulations, magazines like Playboy are
generally alloved, while sagazines like Rustler and Penthouse
are axroneously considersd too graphic and therefore
inappropriately labeled obscene.

Since petitioner made a substantial showing that prison
oftictals were going too far in thelr interpretation of what

is obscane

obscenity being a vell defined legal tern -- the

Court of Appeals issucl an order to show cause as to why the

court should not issue a writ of habeas corpus (grant relief]
in this aatter.

In the Californis judictal systes, petitions filed in pro
se, sspecially those attacking prison conditions, are alsost
alvays sussacily denied. Purthernore, some prisons being vorse

than staers, the institution's adaiatstrative grievance systes

cacely affords one the due process to which they are entitled.
e

faw grievances are granted; and reviewsrs almost exclusively
zols on sotlerplate language in what are othervise sumary 33,
dentale.

Prison offictals are alloved to skirt the issues by relying
on languase which totally aisses the point. This afsleading
language becones an effective tactic and is consistently
regursitated to petitioner as he makes his vay through the
grievance system. In the vorst cases, even state judges will

merely reiterate what prison officials have said. But not

alvays. It is very frustrating to have one's issue handled

in this nanner; thus, very few pro se litigants have the

fortitude to pursue the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Too often, the reason behind most of these appeals are
@Gue to a prison’s adainistration being too quick to implesent
policies and procedures which appear to create far larger
problems than they soive. The injustices are then exacerbated
by failing to afford inaates the right to have their appeals
4djudicated by an insate grievance systea rooted in objectivity.
Such a breakdown in due process results in the dental of
innumerable inmate appeals -- many of which are meritorious
and should be given an impartial reviev.

Another tactic used is to “screen-out” an appeal. If
an appeal is in some way deficient, then the appeals coordinator
48 supposed to return the appeal with a “screen-out™ cover-letter
attached inforaing the petitioner of the deficiancy which neads
to be corrected in order for the appeal to proceed. At Csp-Lac,
the institution in which Mr. Starks is incaccerated, and other
institutions as vell, "screening-out” nearly all appeals is
the norn, regacdless of whether or not they are actuslly
deficient. This tactic is very effective in that a large musber
of inmates will sinply give.up

and prison adaintstrators
know this.
Gnce the oxder to show cause vas lasued by the Couct of 31

Appeals in the matter of Starks, the Attorney General (A.G.)

filed a seri

of continuances to try and coas up with a viable
defense to Stark's claims. At the state appellate level, which
ts conprised of three judge penels, the A.G. has to actually
addzess the petitioner's claiss.

Eventually, two things happened alsost simultaneously:
on July 12, 2002, the A.G. filed his answer o the court's order;
on uly 10, 2002, the Deputy Director of the COC, David Tristan,
enerated an Adainistrative Bulletin banning insates fron
possessing, not obscene material, but anything depicting any
type of trontal mudity.

The bulletin says, in part:

“Btactive 60 days from the date of this bulletin, insates
4il) be prohibited from possessing or recelving materials that
show frontal mudity of either gender as described therein.
Prohibited materials include personal photographs, dravings.
magazines and/or pictorials. FProntal nudity includes either
exposed fomale breast(s) and or genitals of sither gender.”

s the petitioner filed his reply to the respondent's ansver
on July 23, 2002, the adainistrative bulletin ¥as cicculated
in COP-1AC. One could make the arguaent this vas a coincidence.
However, anyone who has read PLi for an estended period of tise,
oc has any substantial experience with ho prison adainistrations

operats, such coincidences happen too often.

ased on how
orisoncrats have historically responded to meritorious petitions

which fllustrate their inefficiencies, it is safe to suraize
the COC generatad this bulletin to render Stark'
ponds .

petition acot
5o 3atter how the court T

This bulletin relies heavily oa the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals holding in Mauro v. Arpaio (1996) 188 .34 1050.
35
In dauro, the court held that Arizosa Jail officials could deny

inaates access to materials containing mudity. In California,
unlike Arizona, state prison inmates are afforded the right
€0 possess non-obscene materials under California Penal Code
section 2601. Therefors, the COC's adainistrative bulletin
45 in violation of state lav. Additionally, the coC has

complately circusvented the rule saking process, the
Adsinistrative Procadures Act (APA)(Cal. Penal Cods 5058), in
their eagerness to taplemsnt this rule before 1t can be
challenged in the courts.

Paced vith yet another obstacle, Starks filed a supplemental
brief to petitioner's reply to respondent's ansver to the
Petition for writ of habeas corpus in light of this

adainistrative bulletin. The court of appeals has baforo thes
@ telephone book-sized sertes of pleadings. This Lssue has
Progressed significantly since it started in 2000. Other sembers
Of the atfected class of inmates at CSP-IAC have filed a

ia

range of petitions, citing, among other thing:

the
authority of Califonia Penal Code section 2601 to possess
materials depicting mudity, and the attespt by COC to etrcusvent
the Aea.

Unless the court in Starks intervenes, the local Superior

Court 1ssu

an injunction or an order, or some other petition
Fesults in the issuance of an injunction or an order, them the
CDC plans to implesent a total ban on all mudity within the

160,000 insate population of the COC on Septeaber 10, 2002,

We will keep you posted. "' /
‘Kr\——

THE VOICELESS
THE CALIFORNIA THREE STRIXES DEBATE: 36
'AND THOSE OF US PERNANENTLY RENOVED

By Eugene Alexander Dey

To the average citizen, the topic of three strikes entails

a severe form of punishment for repeat

violent crisinals.
For a groving nusber of us in the California prison systes,

the three strikes debate currently being argued in the Supreme
Court of the United States has our undivided attention.

On Tuesday, Noveaber 5, 2002, the Supreme Court conducted
oral arguments on the subject of California’s three strikes.
They are to decide vhether o nor giving a life sentence for
a minor theft is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishaent.
The court will decide this issue soastise in the spring of 2003.

California’s three strikes case into belag vhen Richard
Allen Davis, a violent racidivist, abducted and murdered tuelve

year ola Polly K.

in late 1993, The public vas outraged,
and in a whirlvind three strikes became lav in March of 1994,
In November of 2001, Leandro Andrade, a California prisoner

convicted of two counts of petty theft for stealing 153 vorth

of videotapes, had his sentence of 50 years to life overturned

by the United Stat

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit held Andrade's sentence for petty theft

oftenses vas a "grossly disproportionate” seatence and violated

the 8th Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment.
Gary Eving, also a California prisoner and RIV positive,
received a sentence of 25 years to life for a single cownt of

grand theft for stealing three golf clubs

lued at $399 a plece.
After the California Suprese Court upheld Bwing's sentence,
he filed a petition for writ of certiorari directly to the

nation's highest court.
On April 1, 2002, the Supreme Court agreed to hear in tandem
Lockyer v. Andrade and Bwing v, Califoernia. 37
Since Andrade had absolutely no violence in his background
2nd one of Bving's prior convictions includes brandishing a
knife, there has been much speculation as to why the high court

Picked these to petitioners. Because of the differences in

the instant offenses -- 1.

. petty theft and grand theft, as
Vell as the differences in their criminal records -- any nusber
of hypotheticals are inevitable.

Three Strikes: Eight Years Later

While the proposition of permanent removal from socisty
for three violent acts vas vall-received by a large majority
of California’s voters in 1994, the lav has proven to cast a
auch vider net than hov it vas promoted to the public at the
height of their outrage. FProm its inception, three strikes
recipients have bosbarded the Judiclary with a vide range of
Petitions and appeals because the third strike can be "any
felony.” Violence does not have to enter the equation in any
sanner vhatsosver to activate this lav.

There are vell over 7,000 prisca fmmstes vithin the
California Department of Corrections who are sentenced to at
least tvanty-five years to life due to thres strikes. Over
€1ght years into this heavy-handed practice and the musbers
Eell a tale of vholesale incapacitation of both violent and
nonviolent offender alike. The ange of offenses to cose und
the uabrella of

ny felony" is very wide, with 4,000 men and
vosen, well over half of the total, given 1ife sentences for
nonviolent crine:

In the present matter, the Suprese Court has to conduct
@ three-pronged proportionality analysis to deteraine vhether
oF not the petitioners, Andrade asd Bving, have received a
wgrossly disproportionate” sentence. This test vas articulated
by the Suprese Court in Soles v. Nalms (1983). E

Under Soles, a court is first to compare the gravity of
the offense and the harshness of the punishaent; the second
orong conatsts of a comparison of punishasnts i the same
Jurisdiction; and the third prong involves a comparison of
puntshments for similar offenses in other jurisdictions.

At the state level, forty states have rectdivist statutes.
£wenty-six states and the federsl government have ispleseated
« form of three strikes. Yet, despite the trend tovards harsher
punishments, California is the only state to use three strikes
frequently. Fucther, California is esponsible for 52 percent
to 34 parcent of all thrae strikes sentences - and the only
state to use this type of sentencing schese to send sinor

offenders to prison for 1ifs

Life In Prison

Unfortunately, T an a thres strikes reciplent. Like Andrade
and Eving, and like thousands of others, I am fishting the
constitutionality of being permanently resoved from society
for a nonviolent felony. I am a drug offender. My transgression
45 purely a matter of addiction, not violence.

Due to the vigorous spplication of three strikes in
calitornia, a sentencing court is cospelled to overlook too
any variables vhich should render sost three strikes recipients
outside the scheme of such a harsh fora of punishment. Life
in prison should never be an option When the instant offens
is minor, drug oriented, and victisless.

Rather than provide a fair sentence for someone vith a
ainor problem, one receives a aindless seatence of life in one
of california’s 33 prisons. Prisons which are quagaires plagved

by gang violence, staff corruption, and large scale drug
trafficking. For a nonviolent transgression, I am peraanently
extled into a subculture vhich nurtures deviance and shuns 31
attespts to move avay froa their antisocial behavior.

For those of us solely convicted of nonserious crimes,
by victue of a significant decrease in our levels of deviancy,
e do not pose the same threat to society as those vho have
continued to display serious or violent behavior. It is a

difficult pill to svallov vhen one has only committed a

nonviolent drug offense, oc a minor theft crime to support one's
adasction to drugs, then to be given & sentence traditionslly
reserved for murder in the lst degres. The concept of Justice
ecodes, leaving deep scars in one’s payche and the inescapeable
feeling of victiatzation.

A very small muaber of criminals are responsible for a
lacge percentage of crise. It is at the height of youth, from
the ages of 16 through 25, vhen one is likely to recidivate
in a serious or violeat manner. The fundamental injustice behind
the "any felony® clause of Califoraia’s three strikes, that
£t allovs for the permanent resoval of older felons for minor
crimes. Woreover, they are frequently punished more severely
than those who have comnitted serious, violent, and even heinous

ottanse

Regardless of how the Suprese Court comes to their decision,
there are thousands of us

1n addition to our families, loved
ones, and supporters -- who already know the manner in which
California applis

three strikes 1s cruel and unusual punishment.
For us, St is a no-bratner. We are buried alive under the heavy-

hand of California justice ... for what amounts to nothing.

Eugene Dey P-37864
csp-1aC /' B5-229

44750 60th Street West
Lancaster, Ca 93536
CAUIFORNIA'S THREE STRIKES: THE DEBATE INTEMSIPTES o
By Eugene Alexander Dey

I am 36 years old and have served four years on a seatence

of twenty-six to life. My crime against humanity is a nonviolent

drug offense. Neverthele:

, in California, under certain

oircunstances, that is all Lt takes —- three strikes and you

are out.
Since California enacted three strikes in 1994 there has

been a steady-stcean of nonviolent offenders who have been

permsnently removed from soctety. I am one of them.

A life sentence is one of the harshest punishmeats a
civilized soctety can administer. To be on the roceiving end
of this law for a relatively minor crise has an alsost
sutfocating effect.

In The Suprese Court

o of California's three strikes recipients, Leaadro
Andrade and Gary Buing, are in the process of having thelr cases
ceviewed by the United States Supcese Court. Both comitted
minor theft crimes and received life sentences.

on April 1, 2002, the Supreme Court agreed to hear in tandea
Lockyer v. Andrade and Buing v, California. The high court's
intervention is long in coming. Some of the justices have openly
criticized the lower courts for falling to resolve this lssue.

The court will deternine vhether the 8th Amendsent's ban
against cruel and unusual punishment has been violated.
Moreover, they will conduct a proportionality test to ascertain

4f californias three strikes

ntencing lav results in "grossly
atsproportionate” sentences.
On Tuesday, Noveaber 5, 2002, the court heard aruneats

£rom opposing attorneys.
A auch-anticipated dectaion should be rendered by the spring
©f 2003. Due to the philosophical differences on a court which k4
has produced a itany of 5 to 4 decistons, mo one can predict
Vith any certainty what will happen. Prom all indications it
appears another split dectsion is forthcoatng.

The Reavy-Hand of Justice

The backers of tough-on-crime measures frequently abandon
theix responsibility to produce soctally responsible and vell
thought-out. legislation. People like ayself, nonviolent
crininals who have been Lo trouble 1n the past, are caught up
in the vhirlvind vhich s the var on drugs, crime, and deviance.
This is so despite the fact our instant transgressions do not
warzant hacsh punisheents.

California's criatnal justice systes is responsible for
sending over 7,000 men and wosen avay for 1ife under the nation's
toughest sentencing lav. Over 4,000 of these inmates have besn
removed for nonviolent crimes. A third strike can be as atnor

as drug possession or petty theft.
Absent from the three strikes debate is the human side

Of all these nusbers. Numbers vhich keep groving despite the

fact the injustices are myriad, constant, and gemerally an area
of nonstop controvery.
"Are we ever going to get out?" I hear almost on a daily

bast,

Despite our life sentences, those of us struck-out for
Of hope because, with
each passing year, our demographic gets bigger and bigger.

ainor crises continue to harbor a glimm

Support begins to spread because of our families and advocstes
have worked very hard to try and mobilize a grasscoots movement
4n an era of bi-partisan prison industrialism.

This is a gemeration alstinguished by gold-plated prison
systens and bankrupt school districts, one feeding off the other.
he tough-on-crine var-havks are fira n their resolve that 42
Lavs like three strikes and federal mandatory minimuas are
absolutely necessary in order to make the strests safer -- and
to win the war on drugs.

For those who zealously esbrace all sanners of war, whether
Lt be on terrorise, drugs, or ainor deviance, any talk of
correcting an obvious injustice 1s fought tooth and nail.

Wnat the Supceme Court doss in the spring may in fact prove
to be the final nail in our coffins. However, no mattec what

the high court does, our

milies and supporters will continue

o fight the good fight until this crusl and unjust law {s

corrected.

SUGENE AUEXANDER DEY is a Californta prison insate incarcerated
P Eamcacter State Prison. He is a free lance vriter and
Loprasents himself on appeal as he challeages his conviction

and sentence. Jur

The Republican War Machine 73
By Bugene Alexander Dey

The 2002 m14-tern elections were a huge victory for
President George W. Bush and his Republican Party. They not
only padded thetr aajority in the House of Representatives,
but reclatmed control of the Senate as well.

George Bush 16 an tmmensely popular vartime president.
Ever since the unfortunate events of Septembar 11 (3-11), Bush's
approval ratings have been consistent with the people vigorously
rallytng around their president.

Desplte Bush's lofty ratiags, his presidency started off
on a cather rocky note. The 2000 election for the White fouse
vas the closast in modern history. Then-Vice President Al Gore
¥on the popular vote, while then-Gov. Bush narrowly won the
Eloctoral College. Neither candidats was able to move the voters
and the election came down to a few thousand votes in the state

of Plorida.

Tn the end, with the presidency at stake and recounts being
conducted, the Supreme Court stepped-in. The high court did

45 much after innuserable petitions and appeals vere f1led by
both parties which alleged probleas with the ballots and the
method by which they had boen tabulated in the bitterly contested
state of Plorida.

When Bush took office in 2001 his party controlled both
houses of Congress; additionally, the Supreme Court had just
ruled i their favor (Bush v. Gore) in what appeared to be a
party-line vote of 5 to 4. Even thoush the judiclary {s supposed
£0 be nonpartisan and unbias in all matters, five of the Supreme
Court Justices exposed their Republican ties by the
Predictability of their partisan voting record. What

istinguishes the current Suprese Court from many others are ‘Hf
steady stream of 5 to 4 decisions —- too many going down

party/philosophical lines in sharply divided opinions

Shorely after Bush took office Sen. Jim Jeffords of Versont
quit the GOP caucus and vent {ndependent. By doing so he alloved
the Democtats to take control of the Senate and gave them a
one seat majority. This single seat had a stunning effect on
Bush's agenda. The Democrat controlled Senate fought with the
Republicans and tharsfore the president on Judicial nomisations,
the budget, appeopriations bills, prescription drug benefits,
and the creation of he Department of Homsland Security.
The GOP - Taking Control

ow that the GOP have established firm control of the
federal government, by vinning 9 out of 12 senatorial campaigns,
the president is gearing up to promote his party's agenda/mandate
Athout the impediments he experienced when the Democrats brietly

controlled the Senate. ALl chacks have been effectively removed

4ue to the sweeping Republican victories of the 2002 mid-term

alections

ome of the keys to the Democrats recent demise, President
Bush effectively nationalized the slection and made it about
hisself. He expended his political capital prosoting the var
on tacrortsa, and his hard-line approach on Iraq, to render
the 1agging econoay a non-issue.

The Democrats failed to separate themselve:

from their
opponenta and the voters cesponded accordingly. Bush pushed
hard for candidates in key races in order to overcome history.
Historically, mid-tern elections do not go in favor of the
president's party.

he voters answered to Bush's "Bully Pulpit” end put their

faith in his Republican mandate. The people gave the president
vhat he has demsnded, unfattersd control of the federal 4
governaent in order to do what must be dons. The people simply
Erust the Republicans more than the Democrats on matters of
national security -- and even the econoay.

Tactically, the Democrats committed a fatal error because
they fatled to take a stand agatnst Bush on Iraq. With the
econoy 1a decline and the Stock Market in disacray, the
Democrats needed to take the good fight to the president on
something 1aportant Lf they sxpscted to be able to possibly
overcona his obvious vartise advantage. Yet, going into the

election 5o one 1n a significant position of leadership within
the Democratic Party could muster up the intestinal fortitude
€0 90 up against Bush's war machine.
The Texas War Wonger
During the 2000 prestdential election it vas apparent that
Bush had only a bastc understanding of many issues,

pectally
on forelgn policy. Ris opponent, Vics President Al Gore had
an expertise o forelgn and domestic policy.

One vas laft to vonder how Bush, Lf he won, could possibly
secve as commander-1n-chiet of the world's lone superpover.
He barely made it theough the debate

Bush 15 Living proot
that someone with a decent education and an average level of
intelligence would be able to handle the job of presidant.

War 1s a Republican favorit. The military industrial
complex, a GoP cash-cow which had bacome bloated on government
dollars during the Cold War, had fallen on leaner times after
communtsa could not withstand the pover that is capitalisa.
What the Republican

r mongers did was surround the new
president with his father's (former President George Bush) Cold
War conrad

O years into the job and Bush Le Just begianing to
understand what it is he does, the actual power he posses
His dad"

= YL

Republican Party has molded him into what he has becose

2 fall-on warmonger who endlessly regurgitates hard core,
atlitary tndusteialist party-line.
Seginning in the 2000 elections, and again in the mid-tern

2002 elections, the Republicans brought forth respectable, elder

statesnen rom previous Republican againistrations in order
to incraase their chances to place themselves firaly in control.
hey had to conviace retired Republicans to come out of

cotiremant, or to delay retirement in order to keep their party

in power.

JVice president Dick Cheney, and many key members of Bush’
cabinet, 1ike Secretary of State Collin Powell, are Cold War
solaters who are experts in the acts of varfare. Duriag times
of peace, Machiavellian skills invalvable during the Cold War
40 not always make as strong an lspact when domestic policy
canatns in the forafront of national politics. Tax cuts in
cavor of the richest 5% of the country, and other GOP favorites,
while operating in deficit spending, become difficult to defend

\hen the voters are looking for solutions as opposed to rhetoric.

That ts, unless the mation is transfixed on a var of sorts.

wilitary action has

povered the Republicans. The Bush
adninistration has assured themselves of an armed conflict with
Irag. The real motivation behind their pro-var stance is to
ride a wave of vartime nationalism, created by pumseling Irad,
right iato the 2004 election.

Lost ia all the hype Lz the fact that solving the vorld's

pcoblens via var 15 an impossible task. America’s eneaies are

too many. America's enemi:

are myriad and deep seated in their
hatred

therefore they are difficult to slininate. The entire

episode of Iraq/Saddan Aus:

in only brings innocent people that
47
much closer to periodic acts of wholesale bloodshed as witnessed

on 9/11, and most recently in Bali.

ctations on the

Through repetition and well-crafted at

need to go on the offensive, Bush has found his voice on the

subject of warmongering. Without a shred of evidence to show
Now Iraq is a direct threat to America, the Republican

Propaganda-machine has managed to bully the world to at least
follow Aserica

1ead on the need to take a heavy-handed approach
Vith Iraq. The politics of peace have been replaced by a nonstop
barrage of rhetoric. Rather than retire and write their memoirs
©14 varciors have found new 1ife in the Republican war machine.
And they are having a blast. Tney love this stuet.

The Republicans staply do not want to go lnto the 2004
election, or any elaction for that matter, with the possibility
of having to defend themselves politically after steering the
nation into deficit spending and failing to rectify an economy
Atred 1n recession.

he GOP learned from the senior Bush's political demise
1n 1992,
his caspaign for reelection because he simply ald not h

en his Gulf War approval ratings disappear during

convincing economic message behind which a significant msjority
of the American people would rally.

Because of his role ia the war on terrorisa and/or
Afghaniatan, 1f the election wers held right now, President
Bush would win a sacond torm easily. Moreover, the Republican
Party of var will gladly pusmel an old fos in Saddan Hussein
in order to strengthen thelr mandate. At least that is their
plan.

The Texas varmonger's administration h

managed to turn

a national tragedy into a vave of pro-ar nationalism which

helped his party capture a sweep in the mid-term elections.
48

THE REAL CRIMINALS
ARETHE RICH WHO RUN
THE SYSTEM AT OUR EXPENSE

Since the Republicans fesl safe politically by iavesting in

vaz, the American people will have to endure a national agenda

focusing on military spending, the sacrifice of civil liberties,

huge budget deficits, and nearly et

ry other soctal program
taking a back seat to the military ladustrial complex.

It has been sald that American democracy is unique in that

a0 matter who wins, or how close the vote, there is alvays a
peacetul exchange of pover.

As good as that sounds in theory, tell that to the surviving
nesbars of deceased Sen. Paul Wellstone's (D-Winn.) family --
whose plane "just happened” to crash while on the campaign trail.
Wellstone was an incusbent who had an excellent chance to be
reslacted to the Senate and perhaps help the Democrats keep
control of at least one part of the foderal government.

While some see the death of Wellstone as a tragic accident,

it seems to be a Republican speclalty that they capitalize on

olanes crashing. After all, death empowers the warsonger.
Califorais State Priscn, Los Angeles County (csp-tac): 49
Another In A Long Line Of Oppressive California Prisons

By Eugene Alexander Dey

For the record, as of the fall of 2002, CSP-LAC (Lancaster)
18 "one" of the most poorly-ran and corrupt prisons in the
California Department of Corrections (COC). While I am sure
innumerable, simtlar-type claims could be made thronghout the
Prison tndustrial complex, I felt an obligation in political
Prisondon to provide an update on the state of LAC.

When I first arrived on B-Yard in the sumser of 2000, LAC
had four yards of 270° destgn Level IV. ALl yards vers general
Population (GP), vith a couple of buildings of Adainistrative
Segregation (Ad-Seq, or better known as the "hole" or solitary
continesent) on A-Yard.

At that tise LAC vas a vide-open Level IV and the
administration -- under then-Warden E. Ros -~ would let a
reasonable amount of incidents to occur without any *vholesale"
adainistrative reprisals against the general population (GP).

That vas then. A-Yard has nov been converted into an Ronor
Progras. B-Yard is strictly GP. C-Yard is full-on Special

Necds (i.e., protective custody, prison gang drop-outs,

ot tender:

etc.). D-Yard houses the developaentally disabled
(D0P), iomates vho sutfer from various levels of serious
Psychological probleas (EOP), a substance sbuse programs (SAP),
and a couple of butldings of Gp.

A brand new 180" design Ad-Seg building has recently been
completed. It is locatod in the dead-space betveen yards "B*
and "C". This is one of ten brand new Ad-Seg butldings built
throughout the COC. Like the Security Housing Units (SuD) in
Pelican Bay, these nev Ad-Seg buildings have one-person yards

a3 0pposed to the SHU yards in CSP-Corcoran vhich accomsodate
groups.
B-vara s0

B-Yard is the unofficial "screw-up® yard. Progras iz
virtually nonexistent. Ever since the 400-plus Hispanic and
Black riot on Decesber 20, 2001 - a riot vhich received mational
coverage, with five seriously injured and dozens receiving
medical attention -- B-Yard has never totally returned to normal
progran.

Zamediately after the 12/20 riot -- which left staff feeling
shell-shocked due to their inept response to a full-on blood-bath
-~ they started popping cell door:

There vere tvo "on-sight"
melees in B3, and lesser incidents in other B-Tard housing units.
No one vas seriously injured.

A "state of emergency” vas declared. B-Yard had regressed
iato an "on-sight" var-zone.

The 400 inmate riot, and the "on-sight" melees in the
housing units, resulted in the implesentation of a "Population

Hanagesent /Wovesent. Policy.” 1In stages, small groups of
insate-volunteer vorkers vers required to work together
inter-racially. Then, and only thea, these small groups of
inmates vould get back bastc privileges like canteen, packages,
phone calls, and contact visits. Yard and Dayroom vould sanifest
once the GP valked to chov without incident over a pericd of
time.

This process is meant to take a long tise. For the most
part, the correctional methodology of placing the
carrot-before-the-cart vorked. It appears the desire for
privileges, st times, outweighs the dogaas of ractal
varsongering. Moreover, the prisoacrats have never fully
cestored B-Yard to a 270°-type progras. I doubt they ever will.

State of Eaergency: A Contesporary Correctional Tactic

During a state of emergency all yards are totally slassed
and each cell is thoroughly searched. These are punitive </
searches vhere staff throw avay, confiscate, lose, and dasage
lot of personal property. ALl non-clear appliances are taken

to Receiving and Rele:

%0 be X-Rayed for veapons and
contraband. Inaate movement is suspended. Visits are behind
Slass and lav library rights (and therefore due process) are

out. the window.

At the end of August 2002 a state of esergency vas again
declared in LAC for the third time in a twelve month period.
Thres D-Yard officers (2 correctional officers and a 1 Sgt.)
vere assaulted by black insates. One vas stabbed in the face
and the St. vas knocked-out. The third suffered minor injuries.

A-Yard (honor) and C-Yard (special needs) came off lockdovn
When the searches vers concluded and the state of emergency
¥as lifted. LAC vas under a declaration of "eaergency” for
approxiaataly a month.

As of this vriting, at the end of October 2002, B* and
"D" yards are still slamsed. It appears for GP inmates in IAC,
the process by vhich a yard s brought back to normal program

after an emergency has been declared vill happen in stage
In other vords, being G? in LAC means one will expertence a
1ot of cell time —- especially 1f one is on B-vard.
A-Yard: The Hoor Progran
In the vinter 2002 ssue of Prison Focus, K.K. Trvi

Honor Yard MAC Chatraan, provided a rather inviting description
of A-vara,

Here 13 how it looks froa this perspective. A-Yard seeas
to be a good place for an older, mellover-type convict to do
tise. Perhaps for someons with LWoP (1ife vithout parole),
oF where one’s points do not allow for an transfer to a Level

III, placesent in an honor program would be a welcome relief.
A reliaf, that is, from the regular Level IV GP program g5
atstingutshed by long lockdowns and systeaic violence.

Movever, based on the CDC's track record, any nusber of
out-of-1ine hypotheticals could manifest due to a large group
of individuals voluntearing to allow sindless prisoncrats the
opportunity to apply their pseudo-scientific ideas.

1n conclusion

On the ceal, LAC is shot-out. The place is a quagmire.

There 1s a nevly-appointed Warden, M. Yarborough, vho
wholeheartedly subscribes to the ultr

oppressive
school-of ~thousht practiced throughout the prison industrial
conplex. Thers are barely seven (7) 270° design GP housing
units in the entire prison (B-Yard has 5 and D-Yard has 2).
he rest are honor, spactal needs, 0P, DOP, SAP, and Ad-Seg.
Since LAC has recently been meationed in the “Prison Pocus,”
and the fact the institution has regressed so far, so fast,
I thought it best to provide an accurate depiction of LAC.
here are alvays many perspectives. Furthersore, tise
VALl alvays tell. Yet, and sore isportantly, before T ever

give prat:

to a prison industrialist, their actions have to
stand the test of time. In the meantise, in the here-and-nov,

LAC is to-the-curb.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DEY is a California prison insate incarcerated
nLancaster State Prison. He is a free lance writer and

represents himself on appeal as he challenges his conviction
and sentence.

UNTILL ALL ARE FREE
WE ARE ALL IMPRISONED !
MEPATITIS C AND THE ANERICAN PRISONER §3
By Fugens Alexander Dey

The hepatitis C virus (RCY) Mas made its var deep into
the Amarican prison systes. With 2 million sen and women
incaccarated in America, 1t ie estisated that 20 parcent to
60 orcant are infected vith KCV. The fact that prison eystess
are notorious for proviaing substandard medical care —- whose
“Ystealc tncongetence, neslect, amd tostitutionalized dtsregard
for husan 11e Ls the praatse for imnuserable lavenits —- renders
Ehis national epidestc a mtter of life and death.

OV A Stealth Virus

HCV i often referred to as the “Silest Epidemtc." 1t
48 tho sost common blood-borne disease L the U.5. Since
approxizately halt of those tafected do mot realize they have
the disease, 1n too many tnstances, trestaeat dossn’t begin
UatiL after tho virus has prograssed to the chrontc stage.
Hepatitis C can lay dormant for decades. One can have Lt fron
10 £0 30 years betora they begtn to shov symptoms. By then
1t Gould alcesdy be too late.

BV 4s & deadly Gisease. Appraxisately 85 percent of thoss
iafocted davelop chronic hepatitis C. Although thers is o
cure, undergolng treataest has been successfal in clearing the
virus fron the body 1n about 15 pecosnt of the tims. They are
the lucky ones. The end stages of chronic ACY tavolves a myriad
of Liver probless -~ includtng otrchosts, cancer, and fatlure
Of the livar. The disintegration of vital organ brings about
an excructating death.

Rost assoctate HIV, the virus vhich causes AIDS, as betng
the nation's foresost bloct-borne disesse. Tet, ACY has

urpassed it four-to-one. Ona aillion Amecicans are infected
Vith RIV, vhile 4 aillion have HCV. At least 1/3 of HIV patients
2% alao co-1nfected with hepatitis C. Either viras can
exacartute the other.
%o make matters even worse, hepatitis C 1z equally fatal.

In the 0.5., 8,000 o 10,

0 deaths a year are attributed to

thts silent killar, vith the totals expected to reach 30,000
a year by 2010 -~ tvice the toll AIDS clatss.

Even though BCV has outpaced HIV, very fev kaow mich sbout
this infection. UAtil very receatly it has mot recelved mich

coverage. ALl the lntsase activiss associated vith the ATDS
sovemeat: BAE a pesk 1o the a1d-90s and has subsequently subsided.
Since HCY parallsled IV, Lt vould have besn idesl 1€ the AIDS
sovemsat had focused o both viruses.

HCY avareness 1s beglaning to pick-up same sceentus,
althoush relaunching another sovement has been a struggle.
Colebritias golng public vith thetx affliction has helped bring
the far-ceaching Leplications of the ECV to the attention of
the public. Porsar star of "Baywatch,” Pasela Andersoa, brought
HCV awarancss to the front pages vhen sbe disclosed to the public
that she had contracted the disesse from ber husband vhile
getting a tattoo. One can contract such viruses through a nusber
of ways: syringes, unprotected sex, tattoo needles, exposure
to blood, to nase a Just a fov.

Co-1nfection and the Prison Intravencus Drug User

1n 1996 a rassarch stady cospleted ia cooperation vith
the Californta Dapartaent of Husan Services uncoversd hov
Videspread are HCV and EIV within the Californis Departsest
of Corrections.

Incontag male peisoners vers testing positive for WV at
4 rate of 39.4 paroent —— vith 1.3 percest of thes co-infected
\ith NIV. Tncoaing female prisosers tested positive for BCV
at a cate of 54.5 parcest —- ¥ith an astouding 85 perceat betng
co-tatacted vith BIV.

hese are alaraing, trowbling, asd eye-opening musbers.
Both beiag blood-borne saladies and epidesic in proportions,
so-tnfection can be traced to iatravenous drug use within the
e

coamunity of drug sddicts vho lead high risk lifestyle

ahariag of asedles Ls the unfortusste common dencatstor in ¢

how the virus spceads easily vithin the Mmerican prison systes,
Witle the actusl iafection rates of those carryiag either

OF these diseases vary from state to state, the disturbing fact

©f the mattar are the prodigious nusbers of tacarcerated

Andividuals vho have one or both of these dlseases. For these
high risk tadividusls, wknovingly, diseases are passed arouwd
1ike a boktle of cheap vie. Being a largely uneducated and
selt-destructive dasographic, the musbers of those affacted
ALL get much vorss before they get any better.

Despite & significant body of information illustratisg
the dangers of exposure to blood, the sessage is ot getting
£0 the nation's population of hard core drug addicts who share
neadles - many of vhom end up in prison asd continue to
retatorce their addiction.

Genarally, if avatlable, a drug addict will uso drug
Even for those 1n reatsston, ralapse s a problea. The
incarcecated addict will often g to grest lengths to use drugs
46 they are aven resotely avallable. Thoughts of Lhoosghly
sanitistng o syringe, vhich Ls & rather sinple process, cose
4 dlstant second o the tamediate desire to "get high.*

Noreover, 1 one uses Gruga intravenously vhile secving
tlae —- uhich 1s a rather unfortuate reality -- one has
Voluateared to be a sesber of a group whose 1ifestyle poses
the greatest danger to theaselvas and others. Using a syringe
£ get high has becoss a very deadly eadeavor - especially
while tncarcerated.

Drug Use In Prisca: A Closer Lok

Prisca as an American tastitution has aot been very
successtu) at prosoting an eavironsest cobestve with
Sel-1aprovessat. Wor do punttive-correctional methodologtes
Peoacted by toush-on-crise lawmakers foster enlightenssnt in
any vay, shape or fora. On the contrary, with a lack of
ssantagtul prograss to inspire one to change or make a brask

an abundance of 1dle time provides

56

vith one's antieoctal past

one with many opportunities to retaforce deviant behavior.
parther, densely populats together the aation's most
seternined drug addicts, and it should cose a3 10 suIpEise to
anyone that besic sconoatcs vill prevail. Somsone vill sugsly
u valusble product vhen the desand is significast. Whe the
dcugs hit the mainline they are istributed quickly and rather
attictently. The tatated sycinges follov the path of the
contraband 14ke a Gris Reapar. Prison is a horrible place.
Like vith anything coveted or much-sousht-after, there
Lo alvays & price to be paid. T a corcectional factlity, vhile
thn prices o vay up, the dosages go way davn. Tt this Goesa't
aetor the hard core addict. Aay prics, 80 matter hov steep,
o matter vhat the cost, it dossn't mstter — addicts are
Lterally dying to get high.

o such places, anong those vho shara needles, it is aot

sncosmon for vhole 1ine of would-be ueers o be vaiting on
the same potentially taintad sycisge. Wany of vhos Are BCY
nd K1V positive. This 1s hov an epideatc 1s spread. These
te not. the type of people vho veigh risks axd ske logical
aectatons based on long-tara goals. These are hard core dope
Fents - and they frequently share of borrov dsedles. A used
o worm-out. syringe, which Looks 1iks an lnstruseat of desth
‘o soms, has grest valus placed on 1t by othecs.

Jith the nation atred in bodgetary shostfalls, sdoquate
Croatasat for all those lafactad 1s mce sxpensive then
cocroctional sdstnistzators care to isgine. T the sesntise
the epidentc continses to spresd despes and deapar 1nto the
prtson systes —- and the Mmarican peisonsr has becoms one of
the sost medically disadvantaged desograghics i the mation.
So.Cricago A8C Zna Disro hmr by

Oistrioutor 4750 Soth Street West
P.0. Box721 Lancaster, CA 93536
160430

CALIPORNIA STATE PRISONER'S HANDBOOK £7
“Thixa Edftion (suly 2001)
By Staven Fama, Heather Mckay, Nichaol R, Suedeker,
Jases . Saith & the Frison Lew OFfice

Revieved by Eugene Alexander Dey

Almost immediately after the 2nd edition weat into priat,

the California State Prisoner's Handbook was rendered obsolste.

Throughout the 1990, a myrtad of heavy-handed state and federal

lavs resulted in a wholesale change in the maner in which the
American criainal justice systes would address crise and
Puntshaent. For a California prisoner there is no better siagle
source of legal inforsation than the Sandbook's 3rd edition,
Which vas published in July of 2001.

With the passage of three strikes in 1994, the repeal of
the Inmate BILL of Rights Ln 1995, the U.S. Congress passing
1at0 law the Antiterrorisa and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA) and the Prisoner Litigation Refor Act (PLRA) in 1996,
California state prisonsrs are too often in the disadvantageous
Position of trying to litigate in pro se a wide-range of crimtnal
and prison condition issues. And having to do so without the
benef1t of any significant legal
on-potat. legal authorities.
Thus, the Handbook's 17 completely revised chaptecs sre
an invalusble starting potnt if one endeavors to seek justice

sistance or up-to-date and

and/or relief. This book is a Californta prisonec’s must-have
Lf they ara in any vay "active™ in their demand to be treated
Vithin the parameters of the law.

The veteran attorneys at San Queatin's Prison Law Office
have kept the language siaple, and each chapter is a fally
footnoted resource in and of itself. These chapters are also
supplenented with sample foras from every state and federal
court in California, and the COC

e, natetonntty, Y
otiformiats Fixation vith incarcsration has over 29,000 foreian

nationals confined in the state prison syst:

Included ts
« chapter on NS Getainers, and the procedures Which govern
such matters.

chapters covering the AEDPA and PLEA contain sose, but
by 5o seans all, of the voluainous dectsions contng down from
the U.5. Court of Apeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Due to
the hasty manner in which Congress put these

politically-sotivated lavs together, the various procedures,

rules, and deadlines assoctated vith these lavs have resulted

in much 1itigation —- vith many precedents yet to cose. However,
for a veteran prisoner pro se litigant, the Handbook is &
vell-received update. For a vould-be institutional activist,
the Handbook s "mandatory” reading. FPor all others, they ought

to check 1t out anyways.

e

%o order the California State Prisoner's Handbook send

$40 (prisoner-only subsidized price) to: Prison Law Office,
General Delivery, San Quentin, California 94964. The price

covers shipping and handling. The non-prisoner price is $160.
CALIFORKIA'S THREE STRIKES: THE FIGHT CONTINUES

By Eugene Alexander Dey

It should surprise no one that the United States Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of sending shoplifters to
prison for life.

1 am one of over 4,000 nonviolent inmates sentenced under

the heavy-hand of California’s three strik

sentencing Lav.
M1 across the state, for those of us similarly situated, our
families and supporters had hoped for a favorable ruling in

ir

Lockyer v. Andrade and Ewing v. C
On March 5, 2003, a sharply divided Supreme Court held

in a5 to 4 decision that sending petty theft of fenders to prison
for Life 41a not violate the Bth Amendment's ban against cruel
and unusual punishment.

A nonviolent third strike covers a lot of ground. in
California, a three strikes sentence can be given for "any"
felony if one has two or more serious or violent priors. It

does not matter how long age these convictions occurred, or

how minoe ¢

instant aflense. Of the 26 states and the federal
governments who have 3 form of threo strikes on their books,
California stands alons in the “any” felony distinction.

Regardless of what the proponents of three strikes profess,

W a0t take 3 Supcems Court debate to i)lustrate the
fundanental nfaicness of niving someane o life sentence for
crime vineh wsually catcios a sentence of a couple of years.

Bt apparentiy 11 dues. A ohviously (he nation's highest
CoUEt will continue tn aive states strong deference to do as

they please in criminal justice matters, no matter how outrageous

o extcema the consequences.
A demacratic sociaty cannot support both huge prison systems
20 success(ul schonl districts. They are wnable to coexist

hacnoniously. [t is simply not feasiblo. One feeds off the

other. Duilding and maintaining a vast prison system means
schoal districts will have to suffer.
bollars eacmacked for criminal justice, waather they be

a to

for 1au enforcement or corrections, should never be u
Vigorously police and systematically incarcerate o3 a macro
and constant ideclogy. Obviously, those who victimize deserve
to he punished. Wt education ls the key, not mindlessly
subscribing to endless domestic wacs against one's on people.

Bankcupting the futuce Ln a futile attempt to sanitize th

present has not made the strests safer. On the contracy, Aerica
Laads the world in both deviance and rates of incarceration.

Stnce Californians ate the ones responsible for

overuhelminaly approving three strikes in 1994, they shonld
be the ones to fix it - not the Supreme Court. Three strikes
Ls purely a California problem, created by California's drug

Var mongers and prison industrialists. |

A 2004 ballot initiative s in the works to amend three

cious cimes. The goal is ot to

stcikes to apply to only
ot tree predators and violent crinlnals, but to close an ugly
chapter of California histocy that had both shoplifters and
drug addicts ceceiving Life sentences alongside murders and
enphers.

For those of us struck out for nonserious transgressions,
we are our only victims. While those who continue to
Gogatically cling to the criminal justice status quo ace the
ceal perpetrators - supporting injustice, no matter what the
cost.

EUGENE ALEXAUDER DEY is a California prison inmate incatcerated
Tn tancaster State Prison. We i a freelance writer and

raprescnts himself on aupeal as he challenges his conviction
Aan sentenes .